2007 beginning of the end? Again?
-
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
V. wrote: This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. This is why we have never found evidence of life in the universe, but we have found evidence of lots of black holes! Those gamma ray bursts, hmmm... V. wrote: would be powerful enough to create Erm, back to reality. More journalistic license, I suspect. Powerful enough to create conditions we can theorize about regarding what goes on inside a black hole, but creating a black hole from a particle collision? Doesn't that require a sufficient amount of mass so that nothing can escape? Somehow, smashing a couple particles together just doesn't seem to have enough mass to it. OK, mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. Maybe that's it. But then, the collision stops most of the velocity, right? No more massive particle. Ah well, there's a few physicists in the crowd. Let's see what they say. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
V. wrote: This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. This is why we have never found evidence of life in the universe, but we have found evidence of lots of black holes! Those gamma ray bursts, hmmm... V. wrote: would be powerful enough to create Erm, back to reality. More journalistic license, I suspect. Powerful enough to create conditions we can theorize about regarding what goes on inside a black hole, but creating a black hole from a particle collision? Doesn't that require a sufficient amount of mass so that nothing can escape? Somehow, smashing a couple particles together just doesn't seem to have enough mass to it. OK, mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. Maybe that's it. But then, the collision stops most of the velocity, right? No more massive particle. Ah well, there's a few physicists in the crowd. Let's see what they say. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: But then, the collision stops most of the velocity, right? No more massive particle. I don't know much about all this new fangled physics stuff - but if you collide two objects together doesn't the energy just get transferred? Like Newton's Cradle. The ball at one end whacks into the other four and then the ball at the other end swings out.
Cada uno es artifice de su ventura WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
-
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
Didn't this come up in the Times about five years ago? I seem to remember a whole bunch of physicists writing in to say it was the stupidest they'd ever heard for several reasons. Joel Holdsworth Wanna give me a job this summer? Check out my online CV and project history[^]
-
V. wrote: This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. This is why we have never found evidence of life in the universe, but we have found evidence of lots of black holes! Those gamma ray bursts, hmmm... V. wrote: would be powerful enough to create Erm, back to reality. More journalistic license, I suspect. Powerful enough to create conditions we can theorize about regarding what goes on inside a black hole, but creating a black hole from a particle collision? Doesn't that require a sufficient amount of mass so that nothing can escape? Somehow, smashing a couple particles together just doesn't seem to have enough mass to it. OK, mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. Maybe that's it. But then, the collision stops most of the velocity, right? No more massive particle. Ah well, there's a few physicists in the crowd. Let's see what they say. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: Doesn't that require a sufficient amount of mass so that nothing can escape? I think all it requires is a high enough mass density for the hole to form. That may be exactly what you get if you smash them together hard enough. Joel Holdsworth Wanna give me a job this summer? Check out my online CV and project history[^]
-
Didn't this come up in the Times about five years ago? I seem to remember a whole bunch of physicists writing in to say it was the stupidest they'd ever heard for several reasons. Joel Holdsworth Wanna give me a job this summer? Check out my online CV and project history[^]
Joel Holdsworth wrote: Didn't this come up in the Times about five years ago? Could be, but I doubt it, anyway, the magazine did 1)not support one theory, 2) Is a scientific magazine, not a gossip magazine. (which doesn't imply that everything said in there is correct :-) ) We'll have to wait and see (:omg: I'm suddenly feeling heavy :laugh: ) No hurries, no worries.
-
Marc Clifton wrote: But then, the collision stops most of the velocity, right? No more massive particle. I don't know much about all this new fangled physics stuff - but if you collide two objects together doesn't the energy just get transferred? Like Newton's Cradle. The ball at one end whacks into the other four and then the ball at the other end swings out.
Cada uno es artifice de su ventura WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: doesn't the energy just get transferred? Well, energy can be converted into mass, and vice versa. Newton's Cradle is just an example of the "plain" physics of F=ma, and how that force is transfered through the balls to the other end. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Doesn't that require a sufficient amount of mass so that nothing can escape? I think all it requires is a high enough mass density for the hole to form. That may be exactly what you get if you smash them together hard enough. Joel Holdsworth Wanna give me a job this summer? Check out my online CV and project history[^]
Joel Holdsworth wrote: a high enough mass density ah. ok. I guess I have a hard time visualizing something that small and that dense. It seems so, innocuous. :) Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
This really cannot happen, but just for fun let's imagine that it does. The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core. They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. I would like to see this in a major Hollywood production. It is way sounder than the plot of "The Core". The only drawback – once this happens, good luck saving the Earth!
-
This really cannot happen, but just for fun let's imagine that it does. The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core. They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. I would like to see this in a major Hollywood production. It is way sounder than the plot of "The Core". The only drawback – once this happens, good luck saving the Earth!
Ivor S. Sargoytchev wrote: The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core true. Ivor S. Sargoytchev wrote: They would think that it simply vaporized. No, vaporizing means it would emit something, which would be detected by the particle accelerator. Ivor S. Sargoytchev wrote: They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. Didn't think of that one, idd, in a matter of years we 'd all be dead :-). Ivor S. Sargoytchev wrote: would like to see this in a major Hollywood production good one, me too :-D No hurries, no worries.
-
This really cannot happen, but just for fun let's imagine that it does. The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core. They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. I would like to see this in a major Hollywood production. It is way sounder than the plot of "The Core". The only drawback – once this happens, good luck saving the Earth!
Not quite a major hollywood production... [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289605/](http://
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289605/)[[^](http://
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289605/)] SuzyB If I had a better memory I would remember more. -
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
The Large Hadron Collider me be powerful enough to spot gravitons as well. That is important because the graviton is the only particle according to superstring theory that can move from the 3 well known spacial dimensions into the others that the theory predicts. In other words, it is one (and perhaps the only) way of directly confirming the theory. Though, in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene does mention other ways of doing it that are simply impossible with today's technology. Either way it'll be interesting to see what the LHC will have to offer to the scientific community.
-
Joel Holdsworth wrote: a high enough mass density ah. ok. I guess I have a hard time visualizing something that small and that dense. It seems so, innocuous. :) Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: have a hard time visualizing something that small and that dense Think of the UN. It's not really small, but the concentration of denseness..... Top 10 Geek Resulutions: 5. To decipher what that big room is, which has the blue ceiling and poor climate control.
-
This really cannot happen, but just for fun let's imagine that it does. The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core. They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. I would like to see this in a major Hollywood production. It is way sounder than the plot of "The Core". The only drawback – once this happens, good luck saving the Earth!
I have a SF novel (in a box somewhere) about a lab trying to produce a mini-sun. It works, but they can't stop the reaction, and it turns into a black hole. It keeps growing, producing radiation, etc., eventually affecting weather. The scientists struggle to eliminate it using various methods. The main point to the story is they built such a lab on the surface (DUH!), when a sub-surface lab could have been destroyed "safely" by nuke if/when it got out of control. Also, there was a TV-movie The Void[^] with Malcolm Mcdowell on this same subject. The lab actually was sinking into the ground. Top 10 Geek Resulutions: 5. To decipher what that big room is, which has the blue ceiling and poor climate control.
-
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
V. wrote: Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. An even bigger concern: what happens if we do create a black hole, but discover that it really isn't black, just dark navy? The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
-
This really cannot happen, but just for fun let's imagine that it does. The scientists will probably never know that the miniature black hole has spiraled down to the Earth's core. They would think that it simply vaporized. So they would create more and more of these black holes, which "keep vaporizing". Eventually all these black holes will find each other in the Earth's core and join into one. I would like to see this in a major Hollywood production. It is way sounder than the plot of "The Core". The only drawback – once this happens, good luck saving the Earth!
Ivor S. Sargoytchev wrote: once this happens, good luck saving the Earth! Don't worry...I'm sure Bruce Willis or someone will come up with some heroic solution. "One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my memory."
-
Hi, Yesterday I read an article that in 2007 a particle accelerator in Switzerland (CERN, the LHC => CERN[^]) would be powerful enough to create Black Holes. According to Stephen Hawking's theory these black holes would be to small to be stable and would therefore vaporize instantly creating virtual parts (measured by the HLC and JEEJ, we discovered new particles) But there are other theories as well, which say that there is a chance that the black holes do remain stable. This black hole would spiral to the centre of the earth and there grow. (In the beginning very very slow) After 100 000 years without noticing anything, the earth would very very rapidly be sucked into the hole. Bey, bey Earth. So a bit of an ethical discussion here... What should scientists do? Build the thing on another planet? Just go on? Anything else? Why should they, or should they not continue the tests? PS: the article came out "Natuur & Techniek" (dutch), I don't know if there's an English magazine who wrote anything like it. No hurries, no worries.
I think if this were true then every star would fill up and be destroyed by black holes within a few thousand years. Every supernova would spew blackholes all over the galaxy and the big bang would have produced nothing except black holes. There are many places in the universe where these types of events should occur and we aren't overwhelmed with gobs of black holes all over the place, so the chance of it happening is rather slim.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon