/sci/ - Science & Math

wormholes are completely speculative, yet you seem to be treating them as if they are the same as black holes, but the LHC actually does create tiny temporary black holes, but again that is completely different than wormholes

>>4652409
ok but is there any way to prove space-time is a bendable and maybe self-intersectable plane ?

>>4652426
Those are two very different things.

Scientists have demonstrated that the fabric of space bends around large masses because light bends around those massive objects and since we know light always travels in a straight line, then we know that the medium light travels in must be bent when in the presence of large masses.

>>4652444
Light is photons right? And they surely must be affected by the gravity of very large objects, correct?

But say it is the medium they travel in that bends, then space-time must be affected by the smallest of masses, even if those bands are supersmall. So I am bending space-time as we speak, right? That would be pretty damn cool.

>>4652448
Yes, pretty much everything bends space-time

>>4652401
Spce-time bending (aka general relativty) is already proven. The existance of Blackholes is already proven.

Have you been living under a rock?

>>4652454
> theoretically proven
pics or it didn't happen

>>4652454
I meant more the part where light itself should be affected by gravity itself, not that spacetime does not bend.
If you can alter the speed of light in a radical way the direction can surely be altered as well. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

>>4652456
Are you fucking retarded? Trolling?

>>4652460
pics or it didn't happen. i can't make it more clear than this.

>>4652459
>>4652459
Yes, we have proven that light is effected by bent space-time. This is pretty old shit. Don't you know how to use fucking google?

Just look up the test for general reliativity...FUCKING DURRR!

>>4652462
I fell very sorry for you

>>4652409
The LHC does not create microscopic black holes.

>>4652462
>has no ide what a black-hole is

>>4652465
>>4652467
xD

>>4652469

>Gravitational lensing.
>Gravity-probe B.
>Binary pulsars.
>The orbit of mercury.
>Gravitational redshift.
>Light delay experiments.
Take your pick.

Black holes can exist classically, and the evidence for them is overwhelming.

>>4652475
how about wormholes ?

>>4652499
einstein-rosen bridge. Like warp drive these are just solutions to the GR equations that are consistent. There's no reason they have to exist, as the processes in order to start such a situation could be impossible

>>4652500
All such solutions require matter which is not observed and the one that don't are not traversable.

Wormholes do not exist OP. Stop searching for them.

>>4652409
wait, what? how can a blackhole be "temporary"

>>4652782
it dies out when it runs out of things to eat

>>4652804
It doesn't happen overnight though.

>>4652824
Depends on the black holes size. The one they created in LHC disappeared up in nanoseconds

>>4652833
The LHC did not create a black hole.

>>4652836
why do you try to keep making arguments with facts you pull out of your ass ?

>>4652845
did*

>>4652840
Brian Cox said so. And if there's one opinion that /sci/ values, it's his.

>>4652840
Because you never gave a citation. I can't prove a negative, but you can back your shit up.
So, the LHC is not create a black hole.

>>4652845
>herp derp
go fucking google it. im tired of morons like you who try to get in an argument with 0 knowledge of the subject.

>>4652855
>Google
Is not a citation. What happens when you google "LHC" and "black hole"? You get every site that claimed it would destroy the word.
Get a citation or stop pulling facts out your ass.

>>4652855
This must be what you wanted me to find on google:
>According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html
I think they would have updated that if it changed.

>>4652861
>Google is not a citation
no shit sherlock, why would i bother searching the pages of documents for the LHC experiment outcome and find where it says they created a blackhole for a few nanoseconds. if you are too retarded to find it, you deserve to be left in the dark. now go deny it more, you'll get a cookie if you deny it until the end of the thread.

>>4652874
>Troll.
0/10
Too obvious.

>>4652877
>i kant comperehended it
>mst be trollz

>>4652879
>No facts, no argument, nothing to even consider
It's a troll.
I've given a citation you have given nothing.

bump

>>4652782
Technically, all black holes are temporary because they slowly evaporate as they give off hawking radiation, but with supermassive black holes, it still takes aeons to go away completely.