How do singularity grenades work?

[dANdeLION]

That's alright. If I ever do make a singularity bomb, I'll make sure to mail you the first one.

[Revan]

thankyou How very kind of you!

[Tranquil Hegemony]

It's possible Hashi created tiny black holes using a particle accelerator. Quantum physicists have been predicting their existence for years. The only thing is they have an extremely short lifespan. How he'd create larger singularities is beyond me.

IANAP (I am not a physicist), but particle accelerator sounds like the most likely method to me. When they were about to turn on RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) and smash gold nuclei together, people were freaking out that it might create tiny black holes that would escape the collider and eventually consume the earth.

As for how to contain them: first, feed your baby black hole charged particles, such as a lot of electrons. This will give it an overall charge, and make it fairly easy to contain in an EM field.

The main problem with quantum singularities, like Ur-Vile mentioned, is that they usually radiate faster than they consume matter. This is called Hawking radiation; large black holes radiate slowly, as they lose mass they radiate faster and faster. Eventually they will evaporate if they don't "eat". I think they will get to a point where they no longer have enough mass to maintain an event horizon, and all that remaining mass (probably many tons of it) simply explodes outward.

So, if I were making a singularity grenade, I'd make a tiny black hole with my supercollider, feed it a lot of electrons so I can contain it, and put it in a grenade chassis that continues to feed it electrons in equal proportion to its radiant output. Maybe keep it right above the lower limit, and the triggering mechanism would simply be to stop feeding it electrons and let it evaporate.

That's slightly different than they're portrayed in the book, but that's how I'd do it in real life :)

[Dutch]

It's quite simple: with magic and a little bit of love.

-Dutch

www.mistythemouse.com

[Harri]

On a scientific basis large black holes cosmologists describe are basically a concentration of such mass that the gravity the mass 'generates' prevents anything (including light hence the name) escaping its event horizon.

So basically you would need an immense concentration of mass. In the case of the black holes created in a particle accelerator I believe it has to do with that famous equation by Einstein E=mc(squared). Energy and mass are interconvertible so if you have soimething travelling fast enough the moment it stops or crashes into something all that velocity (and potential energy) may be converted to mass and hence lead to the generation of a mini black hole.

Note I am not Stephen Hawkings (or even a Physicist) but this is my laymen's guess based on an interest in cosmology and physics. So my explanation could be wrong!

[Seppi2112]

You take a very large amount of mass and compress it violently. If you can compress it enough a black hole forms.

Think of it this way, every thing in the universe leaves its mark on the universe, indents it so to speak. The more massive an object is, the larger the indentation. This explains why gravity is stronger around a more massive object like the earth- the indentation is bigger so we get accelerated more.

At the same time tho, this indentation is also affected by the size of the object. If any of you have taken physics, the force of gravity = GMm/(r)^2. The closer you get to an object, the more gravitational force you experience because the deeper the indentation in the universe (space-time) is.

Black holes exist when the indentation caused by matter and distance (density) becomes so great that the universe seems to actually pinch off. Imagine putting a bowling ball on your bed and see how it indents the mattress. Now imagine putting all that ball's mass into a single point. The indent would get bigger- maybe to the point of pulling the mattress completely around it. The point it, all you need for a black hole is something very dense.

So you take an insane amount of matter, just slightly less-dense than the amount needed to indent the universe into a black hole, and pack it into a container. You place an explosive charge on the outside of the container so that the concussion from the explosion compresses the matter just over the density threshold, and voila- black hole sans energy-sucking particle accelerator.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

So you take an insane amount of matter, just slightly less-dense than the amount needed to indent the universe into a black hole, and pack it into a container.

That would probably have to be neutronium, as in what neutron stars are made of. Just pure neutrons. Good luck finding a container though! ;)

You place an explosive charge on the outside of the container so that the concussion from the explosion compresses the matter just over the density threshold, and voila- black hole sans energy-sucking particle accelerator.

It would have to have enough force to overcome "neutron degeneracy pressure". I'm not sure if all the nukes in the world would provide enough force for that. But hey, let's try it anyway - take all our nukes out to the nearest neutron star and set 'em off. What have we got to lose, except our WMDs? :)

[Loredoctor]

Hey everyone,
I've rewarded some of you some WGDs for excellent posts in this thread. Well done. An excellent read, Seppi and TH!
Darth - I've taken money away for annoying posts!

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Sweet! Now if only I had something to buy... a gap drive would be nice ;) *hint hint*

(man, I'm getting dorkier every day I come here)

[Loredoctor]

Sweet! Now if only I had something to buy... a gap drive would be nice *hint hint*

(man, I'm getting dorkier every day I come here)

LOL

[Tranquil Hegemony]

So unlike my earlier post, singularity grenades in the series don't explode, they just make black holes. Now that I've finished the series I can offer my thoughts on how they work in the books. Minor spoilers for books 4 and 5, but I'll keep it technical, no plot details.

The first time a singularity grenade is used, it was triggered by a matter cannon blast. It seemed to create a larger and longer-lasting black hole than the second time, when it's triggered by an impact rifle and only lasts a few seconds. A matter cannon, where the energy beam is converted to solid matter for a picosecond which is moving close to the speed of light. Even though the beam takes its mass from the object it encounters (the grenade chassis in this case), its velocity makes its effective mass extremely large (due to relativity). I think this is why the first hole is so much bigger than the second.

I'm still not sure why the second one had the effects it did... although impact rifles were never really described in depth, they seemed pretty conventional to me. But it's clear that second black hole was very short lived.

On a side note, what the hell does everyone in this future universe use for power? They sure seem to have solved the energy problem. A matter cannon alone would require VAST amounts of energy, let alone a super-light proton cannon. (And I wonder what a heavy proton cannon would do!)

[Byrn]

I think Fusion energy was discovered prior to the "invention" of the Gap drive. Which in turn allowed for deep space exploration.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

I think Fusion energy was discovered prior to the "invention" of the Gap drive. Which in turn allowed for deep space exploration.

Oh yeah! Forgot about that. I guess they must be able to make them small enough to use in that hand-held matter cannon.

Speaking of fusion... has anyone here heard about Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion devices? They're still under development but have some serious promise. Instead of those big high-temperature reactors that use magnetic fields to compress helium ions, these are small, spherical devices that instead confine electrons in the center, then inject helium ions into the chamber. The ions are drawn into the exact center of the chamber at enormous speeds where they smash together and fuse. Electrons, unlike atomic nuclei, are extremely easy to confine with magnetic fields; high temperatures are not required; and there is no chance of something going disasterously wrong. If the magnetic fields fail, it just stops working. The small amount of radiation produced is easily shielded. The only major problem with the design is that it requires an extremely rare isotope of helium (extremely rare HERE, not in the atmospheres of the gas giants though ;) They have yet to reach the break-even point though, but here's hoping they figure it out.

This is actually the decendant of the "Farnsworth Fusor", invented by Philo T. Farnsworth, the man who brought us television.

[Seppi2112]

If you want to know about energy, I found this amazing site (err... well, the idea is amazing in that its hard to believe but wickedly cool) on pulling energy right from the baseline vacuum energy.

www.cheniere.org

The math is above me. Anyone else want to give it a shot?

[Guest]

If you want to know about energy, I found this amazing site (err... well, the idea is amazing in that its hard to believe but wickedly cool) on pulling energy right from the baseline vacuum energy.

www.cheniere.org

The math is above me. Anyone else want to give it a shot?

Unfortunately I suck terribly at math. I only have a conceptual [and partial] understanding of quantum field theory. What I do know is that "vacuum energy", or zero-point energy, does exist, although mainstream science has yet to figure out how to extract it (conspiracy theories aside). As far as this guy goes... I'll believe it when it's powering my TV. His website just screams "crackpot". All it needs is some mention of UFOs and Atlantis.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

That was me, I forgot to log in :)

[The Dreaming]

Angus says they're heavy as hell, like 500 kilograms. If you managed to compress that mass enough, you could make a black hole. Hell, if you compressed any mass enough you could make something so dense its escape velocity would be C. Perhaps all they are is lead with some really really high tech way to implode them. I don’t know how you would make a detonation that powerful. Maybe they make it start out so dense it practically is a Black hole. Perhaps they manufacture an object with an escape velocity of about .999C, so that all it takes is a nuclear explosion detonated just perfectly around the mass to compress it into a black hole, albeit a tiny one.

I think that the use of the impact gun would have been enough to set off these charges, although that seems dangerous as hell. The first one had the matter cannon head start, not to mention all the asteroids of the swarm to feed it. Therefore the Black Hole got big enough to become permanent. (by "big" I mean massive)

The second one was different though. It was right on top of the calm horizons, in just the right place. The charges alone must have been enough to make the black hole last just long enough to swallow her.

[Loredoctor]

Excellent post, the Dreaming!

[miru]

I know since I'm new here I really shouldn't be jumping in on discussions like this, and I'm not even sure if it's ok to resurrect an old thread like this (it's frowned on in many forums I know), but I do have my thoughts on this and why not share them? What's the worst that can happen, after all, eh?

So, anyway, onto my point. After reading other people's suggestions and insights into the matter, I feel that Tranquil Hegemony seems to be pretty close to the mark with his idea a number of posts back of first generating a small black hole, feeding it electrons and containing it within an EM field. My reasons for supporting this theory are threefold: -
1. Donaldson says himself that in the second instance of a singularity grenade's use, "Ciro's rifle had supplied enough energy to spark the grenade's nascent singularity." Since 'nascent' means something similar to 'growing' (the adjective, not the verb), and the grenade had not been detonated in the correct manner (unless of course the grenades are designed to be shot at in order to activate them, which is unlikely IMHO), it seems to indicate that inside the grenade chassis is a dormant (for lack of a better word) singularity, just waiting to be released. I would surmise that correct detonation would be in the form of remote-detonateed explosives of some kind in order to feed the singularity enough energy to begin growth, but not sustain it - hence the weapon's impracticality in its need for immediate and continued 'feeding'.
2. As far as I know, the idea of a grenade housing a mass just under black hole critical mass (again, for lack of a better term) seems a little silly. I may be missing something here, but even if the mass wasn't a black hole, surely the gravity produced would be more than enough to crush the chassis? After all, could you contain a neutron star in a box? Perhaps there is a way to contain the gravity in a similar fashion as to how Tranquil Hegemony suggested black holes be kept controlled, (of course, I don't know whether TH's (sorry for shortening your name, but it is rather lengthy, despite my fondness for it) theory on this part is scientifically accurate in the first, so my entire point may be moot, but it seems sound enough to me from my position of limited scientific knowledge) but I don't think the method would work in the same fashion, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything strong enough to contain a mass with a .999c gravitational field.
3. The concept seems to fit the idea/useage suggestions behind the weapon. A controlled miniature black hole of that kind, in those circumstances, would be the safest and most efficient method of creating such a weapon. Any error or (minor) breach in the casing should activate failsafes which shut off the black hole's 'feed', and it simply collapses upon itself with minimal damage to its surroundings. (Again, I have no real knowledge of this, just theoretics and flights of fancy. IANAP. ) Putting a particle accelerator inside a chassis would surely fit the mass requirements, if not exceed them (500kg), but surely such a device would be more unstable than an existing and most importantly controlled singularity. (That's a flaw in my logic right there. A singularity of any kind is way more unstable than anything I can think of outside menstruation, and...wait, must stop arguing against self! >.< ) Referring back to point 2, an existing 'near ciritical' mass would be impractical, for the reasons I suggested if not for TH's (man, I refer to you a lot. You have some great ideas.) point about an explosive's inabilty to overcome "neutron degeneracy pressure", which I presume is the stage after a mass passes Chandrasekhar's limit and changes from neutronium into...well, whatever type of matter black holes are made from.

Overall, I guess I didn't actually give any new ideas into this discussion, but I haven't had this much fun since I tried to explain to someone that black holes aren't actually holes, they're just superdense patches of matter. Or something.

Anyway, that's my two pence, and my first post. Woo!

[Loredoctor]

First off, as the moderator of the Gap forum I have no problems with old threads being resurrected; I like old topics being brought up with fresh material and for new members to see old discussions.
Second, your points are impressive! I really enjoyed reading your post. You have a point regarding the 'nascent singularity' already contained - it would make sense to manufacture black holes blacl holes that way. Your reference to Chandrasekhar's limit was clever. However, there is some belief that singularities occur at the quantum level - they are very brief and tiny things. Perhaps Hashi utilises them, but how he manages to make them last is beyond me. That could account for singularities being 'created' without having to utilise energies on the scale to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure.