Talk:Bosenova

Astronomy Bottom‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is a bosenova a quantum black hole?

It occurs to me that if the Bose–Einstein condensate which causes the bosenova is caused to shrink beyond detection, how small would it have to be before it became a black hole? That is, if it shrinks to smaller than a its corresponding Schwarzschild radius, it would in fact become a black hole, albeit a very small one. However, if there is no lower limit on how small it can get, logically it would have to reach a point where it would become a black hole. At that point it would radiate energy as Hawking radiation. It would lose mass quickly until it no longer had sufficient mass to be a black hole, at which point the result might be a tiny little explosion. After emerging from the black hole state, the original mass would no longer exhibit BEC behavior, so it would have to explode. Is that what a bosenova really is? sounds cool to me Rich.lewis 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not believed that a black hole smaller than a planck mass is possible (all the BEC experiments are with very small amounts of matter). .. A romantic idea perhaps, but not likely. See Micro_black_hole. --72.165.205.81 06:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A supernova doesn't create a black hole unless the star's mass is over 1.44 times that of the Sun. Currently, we believe that smaller black holes couldn't be created by using any known process; however it is inferred that some small-mass primordial black holes could have been created at the beginning of the universe. It is a highly speculative subject. Anyway, such a tiny black hole would be very short-lived; it would evaporate in microseconds. It wouldn't even have an event horizon large enough to attract surrounding molecules. Read the topic on micro black holes for a nicer explanation. You can also read the text about the geon, an interesting but unstable "fictious" particle that was imagined in 1955. Hugo Dufort 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well you would have to make a LARGE BEC to create a real black hole, but what I was really trying to propose is that, as the BEC collapses on its way to become a bosenova, it reaches the point where some part of the mass of the BEC is confined within a region smaller than the swartchild radius for that mass, at which point the BEC collapses into an unstable singularity (black hole) but immediately radiates most or all of its mass as hawking radiation and "evaporates". This destabilizes the rest of the BEC which results in the observed bosenova. In other words, the BEC may BEGIN to collapse and become a black hole, but lacking sufficient mass, immediately evaporates, reuslting in the observed bosenova. IF a BEC larger than a planck mass were created, perhaps it would form a (briefly) stable quantum singularity. Also, at the limit of stability for a black hole, the whole thing would immediately radiate its entire mass as hawking radiation and be converted directly to energy, probably as gamma radiation. And alot of it. Rich.lewis 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. Just did some quick calculations, what about a bosenova using about 10 milligrams of rubidium. That is much larger than normal experimental BECs, but 10 milligrams is also 180 planck masses. That should be enough to form a "stable" black hole for about 8.4 e-32 seconds (see http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/). The whole mass of the BEC would be radiated as hawking radiation more or less instantaneously. 10 milligrams of rubidium converted into pure energy?

More likely, as the BEC begins to collapse, the BEC would become unstable and no longer exhibit BEC characteristics. But, a small portion of the BEc might acheive critical mass and become a black hole, and that part of the BEC SHOULD be re-radiated as pure energy, probably gamma radiation. Could be a useful power source, or bomb? Rich.lewis 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, who put that nonsense about bossa nova in there? The Girl from Ipanema aint got nuthin to do with now bosenovas ;-) Rich.lewis 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the paranoid could someone calculate the minimum amount of Rubidium needed to create a blackhole that would last long enough to collect enough mass to self-sustain? Or would the threshold to absorb matter be so high that only members of the condensate be converted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded from OlEnglish's talk page, new contributor seeking help.

I have written a rather absurd interpretation of quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fx303#Vector_Energy_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics which, however, is based on solid math and science references. The purpose of this interpretation is not a serious attempt to explain QM, rather to provide a means for alternate views to be expressed through semantic games over "real" and "imaginary" numbers and when to toss the imaginary component. This is for the purpose of helping someone see it in a new light and come up with a real explanation.
The VEIQM would run like: The missing atoms are not missing. They converted to negative vector energy photons and went to the universe's bank of energy-time uncertainty from which other parts of the universe can borrow. Somewhere, a bunch of atoms were needed, so that void borrowed from uncertain energy-time and brought them into existence there (wherever there is). To conserve stuff, whatever was needed took place (like creating a neutrino - hah) and all laws were satisfied. As silly as it sounds, maybe someone finds a new line of inquiry and actually figures it out from reading this.
I propose the idea to you as last editor of that article, the above is my contribution and explanation of intent.
Your call what to do with it, as a newcomer I would request to defer to you on this issue. Fx303 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for contributing! I was the last editor of that article however I only did a minor formatting edit of the layout to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and I have no knowledge or expertise on the subject. I forwarded this message to Bosenova's Talk page and to WikiProject Physics' Talk page where I'm sure someone can help you with this. Sounds like it could be viewed by some editors as violating Wikipedia's Original Research policy however you mentioned it was based on "solid math and science references" so just be sure to cite your references, and go ahead and be bold! I'll help with any copy editing or formatting you may need. Expanding stubs is in my opinion the most productive way to contribute to Wikipedia so I'm grateful we have knowledgeable editors such as yourself that can do that. OlEnglish (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BEC Acoustic Blackhole

Any relevance?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23625/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LHC Bosenova Information and Bosenove Micro-Blackhole Debate

See Link

http://www.lhcfacts.org/?tag=bosenova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosenova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705163559/http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/supernova_lab_010723.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/supernova_lab_010723.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]