No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
So stop.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
So stop.
word, lelts mnot bring R/s into Extended discussinoo.
Umm... OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
I wasn't aware I started anything. You were the one that responded to me but, whatever.
Going back to Time Travel and Relativity... this is a very good explanation.
I feel caught in a progression of events out of my control.
I think the next great supervillain is going to use this device to make himself into a god and then there's going to be a rebellion against his fascist dictatorship and some alien will visit earth and give members of this rebellion all unique special powers. I call teleportation.
:P
You know what would be ausome?
Is if this thing waited until we landed someone on the moon, or possibly sent them off, to mars or something, and then they flipped the switch-- Destroying only the earth and leaving aobut 50 people alive as the sole survivors of one race and an entire planet.
It'd make for a great novel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
write it! sounds good.
I'd really have to disagree here, we live in a world in which people in monkey suits on TV tell people how to think, false religious prophets become wealthy from our foolishness, Politicians are allowed to lie, cheat, and steal from the very same people they are supposed to represent, and the Justice System is so flawed that the true criminals (most of which are politicians) are allowed to walk free. We can never learn the secrets of the Universe, or how we were created until each and every one of us can finally understand that we are all the same despite our cultural differences, and the melanin of our skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
To me Scientists are controlled somehow. To wield all of that knowledge but create weapons, or forms of entertainment is quite sad. I mean the technological advances we've been through over the past decades seem to only be used against us, because we still have no Aids Vaccine, no Cure for Cancer, our water is being poisoned from major pollution, and we still don't get it, that they don't care about us, they just want us to be entertained. It's like on Metal Gear Solid/MGS3 where the Villains would have the Scientists doing all of the work, building those weapons for them, just so they could boast about having the biggest, strongest weapon...or is that Reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...room_cloud.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...1_launcher.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...rams_front.jpg
To make a long story short, (and I know it might sound corny and cliche but,) until we can learn to love, communicate, and understand one another, then we will never know what it is to be a Human.
That's retarded.
If you are alive and you are human then you are experiencing being human.
You completely mis-comprehended what I said Seis. Please try and think a little more deeper into what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Yeah, 'cos what you said was real deep. There isn't some huge cult of scientists, you know. They're all normal people with normal jobs, not some strange nocturnal species. You seem to have very little conception at all of what science is... :undecided:
Way to make up phrases. "Mis-comprehended".Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTrauma
Being human is being human. If you are human then you are human.
NOT having all those things that are apart of humanity is not being human.
If you have no drive for anything then you are either dead or not human.
But back to the LHC...
When's this thing gonna go off...?
my thoughts exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
i wish they would hurry up and get it working already lol
Man I'm not going to get into some argument with you guy, you did mis-comprehend what I said, you're taking it too literally, and you're coming at me with an attitude. You and I have two different views oh whats Human and whats not thats all. And I didn't make up the phrase, in fact I've heard that a lot in my life, whether it's a word or not I don't really care though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Seisi is one of the biggest trolls, if not the biggest, here on dreamviewsQuote:
Originally Posted by LucidTrauma
Just ignore him.
Tomorrow at 10 AM EST, We should be in for the ride of our lives.
Get ready, gentlemen.
You aren't thinking about what you are saying, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTrauma
There was nothing deep about what you said, except fantasizing about some unobtainable utopia. To "truly be human"?
I don't tolerate poetic mysticism.
hey fuQuote:
Originally Posted by starfire
Oh... is it November already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarhand
The first collisions will happen in october. Check out www.cern.ch.
As far as I can tell, they're planning the first high energy collisions sometime after the official unveiling of the LHC on October 21st. I couldn't find anything saying how long after.
They do say that the LHC will not see maximum energies until around 2010.
controlling time would be pretty much impossible, because according to einstein's theory to slow down time you'd have to be nearly going at the speed of light, and to stop time you'd have to travel at the speed of light, and to actually reverse time you'd have to go faster than the speed of light and going faster than light is impossible because mass would become infinite
as for traveling forward in time, that'd be pretty crazy to since whatever someone does in the past would change what happens in the future, so if someone did go into the "future" it wouldn't be an accurate future, and if it was you'd basically have to give into the concept of predestiny
although some people believe that you can enter "wormholes" and time travel since wormholes are just two blackholes that are connected and whose mouths make up a tear in the fabric of space-time but you'd have to stretch it so both mouth points are light years away from each other but besides locating a real wormhole, scientists would also need to find a way to keep the wormhole's entrances open long enough for a person to pass through, due to quantum mechanics, the field of physics that governs the mechanics of the inner world of atoms, forces would cause the time machine to instantly squeeze shut
So this happens in 3 days i hear. Takin from a different forum.
Quote:
The guys over at CERN (the same guys that brought you Teh Web(R) ) will be firing a particle beam along the full length of the Large Hadron Collider on the 10th. The first collision attempt to uncover the subparticle named the Boson is set for October.
According to some individuals this will create a micro black hole and a complaint has been put through to the european court of human rights on grounds that this would pose a risk to member states.
The experiment is going to take place anyway. One question remains as to what will happen if all this expensive equipment comes up with nothing.
Gordan Freeman where are you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I heard word on C2C AM this morning they flip the switch Wednesday
Stop posting visual retardations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclic13
Also, the Particle Accelerator is completely safe. Even if it is, it isn't.
FACT:banana:
They thought the first atomic bomb would continue to react destroying the whole world. Didn't happen. Nothing to worry about in my opinion. Can't wait for wednesday.
The only thing I could see as being a problem is if something goes terribly wrong, and somehow a self-sustaining black hole is created. Although part of me doubts we're far enough along with science to create black holes. The other part of me hopes we aren't far enough along, because just one is all it takes to destroy everything we've ever known.
I think we'll be fine though.... for now. At least until we start making black hole generators. Then we will be in trouble for sure.
On Coast 2 Coast AM, they're always freaking out and talking about how the LHC could and I quote "blowup the universe" lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
They are on crack, the universe is way too big for little ol us who started what...50 years ago? to destroy. Sure, the universe is full of atoms but still....to even think of it is, just crazy and nuts and i hardly know anything about science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Considering the tests they have done that were sucessfull, it has to be safe right? all tests that were done have been sucessfull according to their site.
Talked about this at work, some new about it some didn't. Nobody at work likes it, saying we should not be allowed to have this power, or we could destroy the world. It's safe as you said, worst case senerio is the Earth gets sucked into a black hole but that's what...a 0.01% chance?
They wouldn't do it, if there was a 1/10000 chance of the world getting sucked into a black hole... Now Chris Cornell gets what he wants... Hehe, jk... Black Hole Sun...Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
Not even. At least, if you assume we know what black holes are. And we do. You need a ginormous sun, many times bigger than our sun, to have enough mass to sustain a black hole. The irony is, that even if something would suck up all of earth, there wouldn't be enough mass to sustian a black hole. People don't know what they are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
Also, 'not allowed to have this power' is complete nonsense. Says who? (Even if you believe in god. In that case he shouldn't have made humans so curious.) We are not really dealing with power here at all. The energy that takes place when two protons at near-lightspeed collide is the same amount of energy of a collision between two flies, or less.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
There are several billion energetic reactions going on right now in the upper atmosphere of our planet that contain more than 100x the energy that the LHC is capable of producing in a collision. But we're still here.
I'll almost be glad if it does create a strange matter quark that pops the Earth out of existence in a fraction of a second. Then I won't have to hear about this damn Collider anymore. The same group that sued CERN through the Human Rights committee sued them when they turned the last Collider on. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.
Let them get on with the science already.
I think they just need to explain what they're doing better so people don't have to make their own assumptions as to what's going on. All debates over whether or not they should run the experiment would be easy to decide if everyone knew exactly what they're trying to do and what the risks are.
I haven't looked into it, so they might have that info somewhere, I just haven't heard it yet.
See, you're already talking about risks. There are no bloody risks, except maybe in a quench accident, which is basically taking the energy equivalent of a few sticks of TNT and releasing it in an explosion. But that's really all we're talking about. A few sticks of TNT is the sum total of all the energy in the LHC at any given time. The colliding particles have even less, at about the kinetic energy of a baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Ah, but then you hear about these 'micro-singularities' and 'strangelets' and so on. But let's think critically for a moment, if possible. How the fuck do you know about strangelets in the first place? Oh yeah, because they were predicted by particle physicists. How do you know about singularities? Did you discover them in your personal studies of daytime TV? No. Physicists discovered them. Now let me ask you this: who are the ones telling you these things are going to end the world? Not particle physicists, or at least not active, working (published) physicists.
So, to briefly summarize, the guys that actually know what the fuck they're talking about and actually discovered the goddamn things are telling you there's no danger, and the guys that know dick all about physics are telling you you're gonna die in a few days. And you're listening to the guys that know dick all?
I bet anybody here ANY quantity of money that the world will not end tomorrow.
Large Hadron Rap
No one can say with 100% certainty what will happen, that is why they're doing the test. The field of science is too big for one person to know everything there is to know, so different people know different amounts of stuff in each field. I don't really know how much either of the two groups know, but someone with a degree mentioned there may be some risks. I don't think you can just ignore him because someone else (who is on the project and wants to do the experiment) told you there wouldn't be risks. I am willing to bet that unemployed, unpublished physicists (of any specialization) know more about this subject than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
If someone with a solid understanding of physics has a concern, I think the concern at least needs to be looked at and an explanation given as to why that concern does not apply. Just saying, "well, we're smarter than you, and you're wrong." doesn't cut it in my book. I don't know if it's already been addressed or not, (I hope it has been), and I haven't heard the particle physicists' rebuttal as to why it will be safe, so I don't really have enough info to make a decision one way or another. But I'd rather error on the side of caution until things are worked out.
I don't think anything catastrophic will happen, but the smart course of action would be to account for shit like that, and double check just in case.
so you guys ready to die tomorrow?:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
I was born ready, literally.
Quote:
Scientists have switched on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the device they hope will unravel some of the remaining mysteries of the universe.
At 9.30 am local time (8.30 am British Summer Time), 300 feet below the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, the most powerful particle accelerator ever built became fully operational.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...scicern210.xmlQuote:
The switch-on saw the first stream of subatomic particles - known as Hadrons - circulating in the tunnel. The first collisions are expected in around 30 days.
W00t! It's on! But another 30 days...bummer. In addition to that, the real action won't start for a few more years. =/
I feel slightly cheated(I don't know if thats the right word).
I was under the impression that these basic(although important) tests have been going on since May-ish.
Another 30 days for the first collision and at least a year for any real action?!
This is like having pretty good sex that culminates in your partner falling asleep on top of you for a year before getting up to finish.
Checking out the LHC website or any other reputable source instead of falling for the massive hype that the media's once again stirred up for today for no reason would probably have been the right course of action.
Someone posted this on their little forum part at the cern website. Thought it was funny..
"If disaster movies have taught us anything, it is that only when the party is over and everyone is a little tipsy, the problems will arise.
At that point, one lowly scientist (possible of Asian origin) will still be working in his office - despite regular calls of 'Hu! It's all fine, come out here and have some champagne'. He shouts out 'In a minute, I'm just checking something' Then to himself 'This is wrong. This is all wrong. Planck's constant shouldn't be varying like that.'
And then it all goes wrong.
Jeez, were you born yesterday!
Mark my words... come Friday, we'll all be eating black holes for breakfast with lashings of superheated strange milk."
I hope two black holes pop up next to me and my body starts getting pulled in both directions with equal force...but since it effects all of my body (as opposed to if I were pulled by ropes) nothing happens and I just get to feel funny.
They'd have to somehow be formed so that they go into mutually exclusive orbits around Earth... but okay.
I thought the reach of the holes they were going to create were very tiny...They could just follow around my head for a little while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I went outside about 30 minutes ago and look what I saw in the sky.
http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/...k_hole_270.jpg
a), being pulled in both directions constitutes a tension and would result in you being ripped apart, and b) tidal forces from being so close to two singularities would rip apart the two pieces formed by (a).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
First let me start with point out a) is false. Being pulled in equal but opposite directions only allows for a rip if force isn't exerted equally throughout the entire system (however with a black hole force would be exerted to all of my body, not just pieces).Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Second, I should have clarified, I meant black holes that were in a sufficient angle to allow for equal direction of pulling, and not just equal force. Being only two there wouldn't be enough equal angular force against me...so I probably should have said a system of black holes with in proximity to me in the exact setup that would allow for equal angular force throughout my entire body.
Dude, that's just flat out, plain wrong. Take a string. Wrap the two ends around your fingers so you have a good grip. With your left hand, pull the string left. With your right hand, pull it right. The string will break if you pull hard enough, you fucking moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Take a physics class before calling people 'fucking morons', you pretentious cock. ;)
A gravitational field acting at comparable distances from the mass which causes it as in this case will act upon every single atom in Sandform's body with almost exactly equal force. With two on either side of him, the resultant force on every single atom would be 0, so no atom in his body would accelerate in any direction. Even if there was one, in fact, there would be no ill effects until he got very close to the black hole, because every atom in his body would be accelerating at the same rate so there would be no shearing effect between the atoms in his body.
I wrote a big long post in response to Drew, but then I saw Xie responded with basically what I said...
That's only true if the black holes are infinitely far away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The effects are still incredibly minimal at relatively small distances. Bear in mind that any black holes created wouldn't actually have a mass greater than Earth, and the difference in force caused by the inverse square law that we experience because of the length of our bodies on Earth itself is very tiny.
I just did a quick calculation and I got the percentage difference to be 0.00000625% using Earth's radius as 64000km and the height of a person as 2m. Hardly enough difference in force to tear you apart.
Ha! Google has a LHC themed logo today. :lol:
He implied that the singularities would be a lot closer than 6400 km.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
He also said they would be tiny.
It's easy to fall into the trap of treating a black hole like some kind of object with incredibly high mass packed into a tiny space, but that's only a requirement for their natural formation, which only happens when a star's mass causes the inward force upon its matter to exceed the electrostatic repulsions between the matter, which can only happen when the star has a huge mass; hence natural black holes have huge masses.
If a black hole was formed at the LHC it would have the mass of a few nucleons; if you think about it, its gravitational effects would be no different than if a gas molecule were floating around your head.
I meant that there gravitational force would be tiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I really didn't even think about what the size would be, although I assumed it would be small...
Earlier on someone said "oh noes were all gonna get sucked into a black hole" and then someone else said "the force would be tiny and the hole would collapse quickly."
Conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek:
Well sure, same thing really, tiny mass or tiny force. Black holes are actually all treated as infintesimal points so they all have the same size, the only thing that varies is their masses and speeds of rotation.Quote:
I meant that there gravitational force would be tiny.
I really didn't even think about what the size would be, although I assumed it would be small...
Earlier on someone said "oh noes were all gonna get sucked into a black hole" and then someone else said "the force would be tiny and the hole would collapse quickly."
Tiny black holes would probably decay very quickly, yes, as a consequence of quantum theory. It's called Hawking radiation. The problem is that it's never been observed.
Then why are we even talking about this? Obviously I know how this shit works. A black hole of even several hundred pounds wouldn't have any effect even millimeters away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm just answering/correcting your points. I assumed you didn't know that much because your string example was so inappropriate, but if you do then hey.
I'm just chatting, it's an interesting subject.
Could you have a black hole of several hundred pounds? I always thought they needed enough mass to create a gravitational field strong enough to 'suck in' light. Unless with a several hundred pound black hole, it just had a really small event horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Does anyone know what causes a tiny black hole to collapse? The whole idea of black holes I find very interesting, despite my lack of knowledge about them.
I don't really know, but I'd say they suck in enough stuff to implode on itself, sorta?Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
As I said, black holes only have large masses in nature because that is required to make a star shrink to zero size.
As soon as you get mass with zero size you will have a black hole. This is because gravitational force increases as you approach the mass. If the mass has zero size you can get infinitely close and hence there must be some point around the mass where the gravitational force is strong enough to pull light in.
All black holes decrease their mass. I don't know very much about this but basically it's because of Hawking radiation. As I understand it, in space, particles and antiparticles are constantly being created, they diverge, then come back together, and anihilate. On the event boundary though, when this happens, one of the particles will go outside of the black hole, and its antiparticle will fall back in, and this causes the black hole to gradually loose mass. This would happen very quickly if the black hole had very small mass.
That's exactly right. The radius of the event horizon is a function of mass. And if you plug in the numbers, you will see that it's very small indeed. Actually, let me do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
For 100 kg I'm getting a radius of about 1.5e-25 m, or well under the radius of an atom.
All black holes have this process called Hawking radiation, by which they lose mass in the form of radiation as predicted by quantum mechanics and information theory. For the details you would have to ask Hawking. But the idea is, the actual rate of mass loss increases as the size of the black hole gets smaller. The consequence of this is that not only do smaller black holes take less time to evaporate because they have less mass, but they take even less time because they lose mass quicker. So black holes the size of subatomic particles basically evaporate in a Planck time, and black holes of a few hundred pounds may take a few picoseconds. On the other end of the scale, regular size, stellar black holes take trillions of years to evaporate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
CORRECTION: Stellar mass black holes take 10^67 years to evaporate (Wiki)
Snap.
If a black hole of low mass (a few thousand kg or something) was close enough to a planet, would it just suck in mass from the planet and become even more massive, and thus increase it's event horizon radius and increase it's range of devouring more mass and growing even more? That sounds too badass.
A few thousand kg black hole wouldn't be able to encounter matter in such high density that it would be able to stave off its own evaporation. Even if it was encased in solid critical mass uranium it probably wouldn't stand a chance of expanding. It might survive in the core of a star or large planet like Jupiter, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
To really have a chance of a black hole expanding it needs to be several times the mass of our sun.
So you're saying that for a small black hole, the matter here on earth would not be dense enough to allow it to grow? Would it just suck in everything in its range that it could, and then run out of stuff to eat that is close enough to gain mass fast enough to balance the loss of mass due to Hawking radiation?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
I beleive the point he's trying to make is that the black hole would be so small it could float in the spaces between atoms (or smaller still, in the spaces between the electron shells and the nucleus). At this scale it would never encounter matter dense enough to come into contact with it before it pops out of existence due to evaporation via Hawking Radiation.
The point he's making is that Hawking radiation occurs faster for smaller black holes. This means that a smallish black hole would decay too quickly to keep existing, even if it had a constant supply of mass to guzzle. Personally I didn't know that Hawking radiation is so fast...
No? Does the gravity of the moon suck up Earth? :\Quote:
If a black hole of low mass (a few thousand kg or something) was close enough to a planet, would it just suck in mass from the planet and become even more massive, and thus increase it's event horizon radius and increase it's range of devouring more mass and growing even more? That sounds too badass.
Or the earth the moon...hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes, according to Gauss's Law, which is a solution of LaPlace's equation, all massive objects are physically equivalent to a point mass (singularity) placed at their center as seen from outside their radius. So if you put a singularity the mass of the moon in place of the moon, nothing would happen. Of course, it would vey quickly evaporate because it has an event horizon, but ignoring that.
The black hole pulls all of your atoms in ONE direction, you are pulling both strings in the opposite direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
EDIT: I have no idea why I replied to this ancient post. It showed up at the top of my page for some mysterious reason.
Isn't hawking radiaton just a hypothesis? It has never actually been seen or measured. Am I right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes.
To play the Devil's advocate: I don't know anything about physics and i know next to nothing about this LHC or particle accelerators in general, and i haven't read the whole thread, but if the theories they are basing this experiment on are unproven, don't we have grounds to be a little concerned? If there were even a grain of chance that a black hole could be created and sustained well enough to swallow us all whole, don't you think there are grounds for concern? I understand there are well-qualified scientists armed with assurances that nothing bad will happen, but our knowledge of matter is far from trustworthy, else this LHC would not have been built. This is especially true if these well qualified-scientists don't actually have any substantial evidence for Hawking Radiation. Aren't the same people in this thread, who demand concrete proof for everything, the same people saying that everything will be fine because a bunch of scientists have a solid theory on what will happen?
Just one more thing i'd like to bring up, just to be pedantic (and i don't know if it has been pointed out yet):
Honestly, if you were given even a shade of a reason to doubt the safety of apples for humankind, would you eat one? Honestly? If you calculated your risk wrong you would effectively be destroying mankind. There is, after all, reason to peoples' objection to this particle accelerator, so there would likewise be reason to doubt the safety of apples. They sure are delicious and healthy though, aren't they?Quote:
The basic formula is "it's very unlikely BUT it would kill EVERYTHING so that multiplies up the risk", which might sound reasonable, but by the same argument I could say "Nobody eat apples in case one contains a rare virus that could RENDER EVERYONE IN THE WORLD STERILE".
But, as i say, i'm simply playing Devil's advocate with these questions, which people more knowledgeable than i are welcome to answer. I for one don't really care about whether they flick the switch or not. If they do we will probably have some new and interesting information about our world. If they don't, those discoveries will wait. Life goes on. I don't think the world will end, but then as i pointed out in the first place: i'm ignorant on the matter. I do however see that any doubt from anybody who knows anything about physics is valid. This Wagner fellow may not be Stephen Hawking, but still seems to know one or two things about physics. No great physicist has been without their errors, i'm sure.
You know, i've always wanted to know what it was like to be sucked into a black hole. Maybe i'm in favour of this LHC after all! :D
(i voted undecided, because i'm not worried either way at this stage)
Well it's kind of ironic that everybody's saying 'silly science, what about black holes??' considering if it weren't for science we wouldn't even have any concept of a black hole in the first place.
But yes there is a certain moral ambiguity I'd say.
When they first tested the a bomb there was a small chance that it could have ignited Earth's atmosphere.
God damnit!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html
It's gonna happen...It's inevitable!Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
I bet the administrator ordered the scientists to power up the machine to 110% even though no one knows whether it can tolerate such levels...
Yes, because the people in charge of the largest particle accelerator in the world are going to be laymen administrators that demand MORE POWAH! while bashing their fists on the control panel.
Phew...God saved us, again.
Don't take my dreams away with sarcasm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
on a joking note: It's obvious aliens intervened and caused the problem.
This sucks. :(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8556621.stm
Ah yeah it does LF =/. Buuut, I guess caution beats clumsiness :P
In my opinion, the LHC is a joke.
Because the advancement of physics is so funny, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Come on man, it's a chance to see how this shit all happened. How is that a joke? i'd prefer to see how we were born, then just wonder about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/705...anoncesaid.png
abstruse goose comics are awesome. :)
Why is the advancement of physics a joke? I think it's amazing to discover how it all began, and to explore "reality" we live in even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
The LHC project is a joke. The damn thing has been shut down for longer than it's been active. Not to mention that it's never even worked on full power.
Don't immediately assume that critisism on the LHC project means I hate physics. Don't make a religion out of it.
To Dajo: good job immediately assuming I'm a religious nut or anti-science conservative/fearmonger. That's not very scientific now, is it?
Don't immediatly assume the LHC is a failure then.
What I said is fact. The LHC has never functioned on full power, and somehow it keeps breaking down before they can even start using it.
actually, it wasn't really directed towards you, I just wanted to post that hilarious comicstrip.
It's only been operational for a year and a half, you haven't even given it a chance. You'll fail a lot in life if you are that quick to admit defeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Not to mention it's the largest machine ever constructed by man, and its own prototype. It's not something that works at 100% right out of the box.
Perhaps it should have been "Made in China"? :cackle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Couldn't resist. :P
Is it really a wonder that it hasn't been at full power during its 1.5 year life span? When you are talking about machine that is theoretically capable of imploding the earth and demonstratably capable of leaking powerful radiation. Something this big should rightly take years to test even if no problems are encountered.
I agree, so does that Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
It doesn't have a theoretical capacity to implode the earth, that makes no sense. It's just an example of doom-sayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
However, it is a very complicated and super-advanced piece of machinery, and so it takes some time to get it functioning properly.
How much do you know about it? The "doom-sayers" are legitimate scientists. The idea that this is not something to worry about is based on the fact that any black hole created by the LHC will be small enough that they will evaporate through hawking radiation before it is able to absorb any other matter. Hawking radiation has never been observed and so if that theory is incorrect, then such a black hole could indeed gain mass and become self sustainable. If this were to happen, it would fall through the earth, collecting matter on the way, get trapped in the earth's gravitational field and seesaw back and forth through the planet until the entire thing is consumed, thus imploding the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
The possibility of this is extremely small, and yet not zero. This is just one reason why we tread lightly.
Didn't all this LHC danger hype originate with some random highschool science teacher?
Just like hawking radiation, the idea that there's a chance of micro black holes forming in the LHC is too a theoretical prediction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'm no physicist, but I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole. Black holes require enough mass to implode themselves through gravity, and the mass of a couple of subatomic particles is, well...
The Earth gets bombarded by near-light speed cosmic rays all the time and we're all still alive.
The black holes being talked about with this thing are extremely extremely tiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
That's cause it's not particles.Quote:
The Earth gets bombarded by near-light speed cosmic rays all the time and we're all still alive.
Say two protons collide and somehow form a black hole, the resulting black hole would have a mass of at most two protons. Black holes aren't vacuum cleaners that suck everything around them, they attract stuff through gravity. I don't think a singularity billions of times less massive than a spec of dust (if one could even sustain itself) would pose a threat to the planet. The power of stellar black holes comes from the fact that they are many times more massive than our sun yet are only a few kilometers across.Quote:
Originally Posted by slash112
Yes they are.Quote:
That's cause it's not particles.
Quote:
Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements, electrons (beta particles), or gamma ray photons.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. However, when they were first discovered, cosmic rays were thought to be rays. When their particle nature needs to be emphasized, "cosmic ray particle" is written.
Exactly. While the they might be so close that their gravity prevents them from being separated, they won't have enough mass to exert that kind of power on any other particles, and therefore no new mass will join them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The singularity itself is theoretically only a single point, even if the event horizon is bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Yea, I never said that they were going to get bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I was just saying that this was wrong:
Quote:
I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole.
And as for this:
...TouchéQuote:
Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements, electrons (beta particles), or gamma ray photons.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. However, when they were first discovered, cosmic rays were thought to be rays. When their particle nature needs to be emphasized, "cosmic ray particle" is written
I forgot about the alpha and beta radiation.
But protons aren't particles. (i.e. the 90% that hits the earth)
I don't understand this. Doesn't the strong force increase faster than the gravitational force with decreasing distance anyway? Talking about two neutrons here.Quote:
Exactly. While the they might be so close that their gravity prevents them from being separated, they won't have enough mass to exert that kind of power on any other particles, and therefore no new mass will join them.
And with two protons, the electrostatic repulsion force increases at the same rate as gravity, but it's always greater than it by a very large ratio.
As far as the fabric of space time is concerned, mass and acceleration are the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The cosmic ray argument is refuted by the simple fact that if cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole in our atmosphere (and it didn't immediately decay), its momentum would carry it through the earth and out the other side, off into the void of space. A black hole created by a particle accelerator would start out relatively stationary and so would get trapped in earth's gravitational field.
I get the feeling that most people here are arguing against these sorts of possibilities not because they know a whole lot about it, but because they are getting defensive; they think that their science is being attacked. These sorts of questions are the heart of scientific exploration. If you can't ask the hard questions then you shouldn't be talking about science at all.
Protons are particles. :? A single proton has another name, hydrogen ion. Perhaps you were thinking photon? You would still be wrong since those are particles too but I would understand the mix up a little better.Quote:
Originally Posted by slash112
I call shenanigans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Micro black holes haven't yet been observed, they're a theoretical prediction. In spite of that, the idea that the we may accidentally create those micro black holes is purely speculative, because theoretically the LHC is not even close to being able to produce them.
Given the variety of possible collision scenarios for cosmic rays, there are plenty of imaginable situations where the relative speeds would result in not so fast moving black holes, add to the fact that the formed micro black hole would also be affected by electromagnetic forces. And any black hole that escaped the Earth would still have to deal with the Sun and our other neighbours.
Do you have proof that cosmic rays can pass through the Earth? Momentum is mass x velocity, so a proton, no matter how fast it is traveling will never have much momentum because it has so little mass. Getting through the atmosphere is one thing, but the entire Earth...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
A miniature black hole created by cosmic ray particles is not the same thing as a cosmic ray particle. If (and lets be clear that it is a big if) cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole, the black hole that is created would be significantly smaller than the particles that interacted to create it. It would pass through the earth in much the same way that neutrinos do, since it would be so small that it would hardly interact with anything at all. I'd also like to point out that this is all theory, both the existence of miniature black holes, and whether or not they would decay near instantaneously or persist. I started this all by saying that the LHC is theoretically capable of imploding the earth. The prediction is based on several versions of string theory that require extra dimensions of space, without which much more energy would be required to create a miniature black hole and therefore it wouldn't be possible to do with the LHC at all.
I meant to say "photons"... I thought that is what the source said. But I guess it didn't say that... But I think it should say that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
OK, so say all this is correct and the micro black holes don't dissipate, how do you propose they are a danger to the Earth given their extreme low mass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
If they came in contact with other particles, their mass would increase, eventually to the point of absorbing the entire planet. This would not be instantaneous. Think; Katamari Damacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
This article is a pretty good read. They say that the conditions for this possibility should exist in every neutron star so since neutron stars exist, there is no chance that the theory is correct.
Can somebody answer this? I don't know why high energy collisions should create black holes.Quote:
Doesn't the strong force increase faster than the gravitational force with decreasing distance anyway? Talking about two neutrons here.
And with two protons, the electrostatic repulsion force increases at the same rate as gravity, but it's always greater than it by a very large ratio.
And why should the resultant black holes absorb mass? I mean, quarks are singularities but they don't suck in everything around them. The resulting micro black holes still have a strong-force field don't they?
Why would the new particles bind to the black hole if it only has the mass of a couple of subatomic particles? That isn't enough to attract or trap new particles due to gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Playing devil's advocate, in reference to your quote, I'm pretty sure that when two protons (which I believe is what the LHC accelerates) collide in a particle accelerator, they don't remain protons and whatever that's left has different properties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei