5 ms·
Isn't it in principle equally difficult as generating concentrial waves on the surface of a swimming pool in such way as to eject a swimmer back on the podium w
by dandare 10y ago
Isn't it in principle equally difficult as generating concentrial waves on the surface of a swimming pool in such way as to eject a swimmer back on the podium where he jumped in from?
- antognini 10y agoYes, it's almost an exactly analogous situation. The difficulty is that you're going against the second law of thermodynamics in both cases.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago...Which is at least one going notion as to why the arrow of time exists at all.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JonnieCache 10y agoLike this? ;) https://youtu.be/WffR6HrEqTA?t=39 https://youtu.be/WffR6HrEqTA?t=39
- ar0b 10y agoSo you could theoretically build a black whole generator by building a sphere that could emit gravitational waves with precision?
- Aelinsaar 10y agoYou'd need the sphere to be more than massive enough to collapse under its own gravity, into a black hole; such a structure wouldn't be hypothetically possible. Building black holes with anything other than stars or giant gas clouds (in the early universe) turns out to be hard; your black hole generators inevitably keep collapsing into black holes or at least neutron stars.
- b34r 10y agoSome A+ structural integrity fields I suppose.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoOh yeah, with daily baryon sweeps to keep the tribbles out!
- fizx 10y ago> You'd need the sphere to be more than massive enough to collapse under its own gravity, into a black hole; such a structure wouldn't be hypothetically possible. I don't think that's technically true. You could build a bunch of catapults on the edge of the sphere, and when they all launch rocks at the center of the sphere, they would eventually form a black hole. The catapults could be arbitrarily far from each other as the radius of the sphere increases, such that they would not really do much to each other gravitationally. You'd just have to wait a real long time for the rocks to hit the middle. > Building black holes with anything other than stars or giant gas clouds (in the early universe) turns out to be hard; Well yes, galaxy-sized intelligently designed structures don't really happen.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoI think by "Black hole generator" the other person meant a device which could create black holes remotely through some kind of process, not just a mass that collapses under its own gravity. In that sense, if you could find an old, spun-down neutron star (and man wouldn't that be a fun search! Massive, but tiny and dim...) then as you say, you could just keep adding mass until crush.
- fizx 10y agoAny black hole generator that doesn't itself become a black hole is essentially throwing part of itself in the black hole (Yay conservation laws!). You can replace the catapults with lasers or plasma guns or whatever.
- 4ad 10y agoYou don't need to emit gravitational waves, you can emit light that converges to a point.
- randall 10y agoThis is amazing. How did you find this?
- zodiac 10y ago> How did you find this? I found it extremely amazing as well! :p
- clarkmoody 10y agoFlow Wave's tribute to LIGO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvU5ytghMdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvU5ytghMdQ That's an impressive swimming pool ;-)
- therein 10y agoThat analogy was great. It does an awesome job at explaining the disproportionate amount of energy that needs to be focused at a point in space.
- im3w1l 10y agoNo. It's in principle as easy as using array of antennas designed to reinforce each others signals. It's used in normal FM radio.