Reply With QuoteWell, if the worst does happen, it won't matter if the Earth was round or flat.
One of the discovery channel shows had several ways that civilisation could come to an abrupt end, and that was one of the examples.... kinda cool.
Producing Black holes here on Earth
I am just wondering if they did get it wrong about micro black holes evaporationg when artifically produced in particle accelerators, how long it would take for this planet to shrink up to a mini black hole the size of a soccer ball.
From Wiki:
I mean ppl used to be certain the earth was flat and today we believe we are the greatest knowitalls with all our conclusions and theories but nobody has actually been to a black hole yet to SEE what's really going on.In the next few decades, the possibility of black hole production at the highest energy accelerators may arise, if certain predictions of superstring theory are accurate. If they are produced, it is thought that black holes would evaporate extremely quickly via Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. However, the existence of the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation is controversial. It is also thought that an analogy between colliders and cosmic rays demonstrates collider safety. If colliders can produce black holes, cosmic rays (and particularly ultra-high-energy cosmic rays) should have been producing them for eons, and they have yet to harm us. However, cosmic rays travel at relativistic speeds; it is thought that the micro black holes to be created by the LHC, for example, will move far slower than that, giving them time to interact with surrounding matter.
| Look Here -> |
Well, if the worst does happen, it won't matter if the Earth was round or flat.
One of the discovery channel shows had several ways that civilisation could come to an abrupt end, and that was one of the examples.... kinda cool.
Yet some enthusiastic young guys, fresh from Uni, seriously could to go ahead with it and even if the boss officially might not approve, they could still play around, who would stop them?
I just want to know if I have to suffer, waiting for the action to reach my side of the planet or if it would happen so fast that nobody would have time to report it.
Everyone knows that being a type 13 planet, we will collapse into an ultra dense
particle about the size of a pea while trying to discover the true mass of the Higgs Boson.
Didn't you watch Lexx?
I don't think the internet turned out quite as indestructible as it was designed to benobody would have time to report it.
i thought i heard a couple of years ago that they were forced to stop experiments like this due to how dangerous it was to the planet.Originally Posted by trash
and also i dont suppose you would recall what the name of that discovery channel show was, id love to see that because if i can help it along in anyway id be all for that.
just done a google and is this the one?
History Channel: Doomsday 2012: The End of Days
...In Somnis Veritas...
Let me guess, somebody let that french poetout ofhis box again ?
yea probably man, i actually have a Nostrildamus (mispelt on purpose btw) book that has the actual verses and there direct translation and i cannot see how anyone could think that he predicted anything.
id be more interested in the Mayan calendar, dont really know much about it.
...In Somnis Veritas...
If you think about it a black hole is a large mass compressed by its own mass into a very small area. Now to make one first assemble your large mass ,say 100 suns, and bring together in one place .
So when some student works that out I think we will see it coming. The radiation and waves and the rest are bunkum . Don't believe what you can't see for yourself is my motto. If I'm wrong well I'll be just as dead as everybody else so it does'nt matter much to me . Why worry about it .
You really like to dance to the beat of your own drum don't you tytower?
Do you ever get the feeling that you're not so much joining-in on these discussions, as butting-in on them?
My Grandmother always used to say, "if you haven't got anything constructive to say on a subject, then say nothing at all".
So, to heed the words of my own advice:
I think the study of particle physics and the understanding of black holes, is the current frontier of the unknown, for mankind. If we're ever going to have a hope of ftl travel, then it will probably involve understanding how massive gravity affects the laws of physics. I think all agencies involved in running the very few, and very expensive, particle accelerators that exist in the world, would probably have a bit of an inkling of the risks involved. I'm very optimistic that current sub-atomic experiments will lead to incredible breakthroughs in science. Personally, I can't wait to see what they come up with.
I like Frank the pug dog from 'Men in Black'. In order for something to be important, it doesn't need to be big.
Though it requires a large supernova to create a black hole, there isn't any reason why one could not be created on a smaller scale with less total energy. Though one has to wonder if there is a lower threshold critical mass, can a single atom be compressed so much that it's volume occupies space on a plank scale (or smaller if that is even possible), and how much energy is required to do it.
Then is the rest mass of this super dense particle enough to capture by gravitational attraction, any neighbouring matter.
I would think that at this point, that gravity due to mass is seriously larger than electrostatic forces of matter.
Well ,I'll say whatever I bloody like and don't give two hoots about your reactions , jam it
So you are a dreamer ! did I step on your favourite fantasy ? Get real if you want to achieve anything real in this life , otherwise you will just dream it away.So, to heed the words of my own advice:
I think the study of particle physics and the understanding of black holes, is the current frontier of the unknown, for mankind. If we're ever going to have a hope of ftl travel, then it will probably involve understanding how massive gravity affects the laws of physics. I think all agencies involved in running the very few, and very expensive, particle accelerators that exist in the world, would probably have a bit of an inkling of the risks involved. I'm very optimistic that current sub-atomic experiments will lead to incredible breakthroughs in science. Personally, I can't wait to see what they come up with.
Sad, but true.
Actually having an open mind and a willingness to learn from others, coupled with a reasonable technical ability to apply what I've learned to my profession and everyday life, has done extremely well for me so far. I suppose my main failing is, I don't have much time for boring, stupid people.
Incidently, all, and I do mean ALL, the greatest minds in history had a dream before the reality. Intelligence doesn't exist without imagination Gomer!
You are a clown (one who seeks to make people laugh).Actually having an open mind and a willingness to learn from others, coupled with a reasonable technical ability to apply what I've learned to my profession and everyday life, has done extremely well for me so far. I suppose my main failing is, I don't have much time for boring, stupid people.
Incidently, all, and I do mean ALL, the greatest minds in history had a dream before the reality. Intelligence doesn't exist without imagination Gomer!
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish and I would be the one to protect that right to the death for you.
However you miss the point . All points of view are valid and for discussion . If you don't agree with me thats fine just don't start with the name calling or you will get back as good as you give .
Now if you think there are more than 4 dimensions then prove or attempt to prove what they are and why you believe that. I will listen and consider for one and if you make a valid point I will change my view .
If you think that a black hole can exist without being matter then say why. This view that something (anything) might be able to pass through a black hole comes in my opinion from the name- a hole . It is not a hole but this seems to influence how people approach it . I doubt that energy of any kind could pass through and I visualise it in the real world as super dense material that even quarks or radiation of anykind could not pass through.
The only way I see to produce one is to bring sufficient mass together that the incoming mass from all sides compresses the existing mass which in turn continues as more mass is attracted in.
If you can see something else as pheasible then say so otherwise you prove yourself to be the stupid one ! Boo Boo
Careful tytower, you're skating on thin ice again.
There is no need for you to take insults personally.
But mass doesn't need to be made of matter. Remember that mass and energy are interchangable.The only way I see to produce one is to bring sufficient mass together that the incoming mass from all sides compresses the existing mass which in turn continues as more mass is attracted in.
Lets take a real world example... a supercritical mass.
A nice sphere of Plutonium 239, inside is a polonium berylium trigger neutron source.
Now while our sphere of Pu239 sits on the bench, very little is happening.
So we'll put it in the 'quantum vice' and squeeze it.... see if we can't get some Plutonium juice out.
Normally a neutron from the trigger will escape into the sphere where it may be absorbed by a Plutonium atom. Which then will undergo fission and reason more neutrons which "may" also go on cause fission in other atoms.
While the material is sitting on the bench, we do not have enough mass to sustain a critical reaction let alone a supercritical one.
But as we squeeze the material and push the atoms closer together, we increase the mass of the sphere. There is still the same number of atoms, yet because they are more tightly packed, the 'denisty' is higher and the apparent mass is higher.
The energy used to squeeze them can be considered to be contributing to the total mass.
Further more, we can add a quantum mirror. In this case, graphite.
When you place an apple next to a mirror, it appears you have two apples.
Since both apples look the exactly the same, from a perspective of light, there is a 3dB gain and there are two apples. Twice as many photons from the apple are hitting the retina or camera viewing it.
In terms of our quantum mirror, there now appears to be twice as much matter, even though there is nothing really there. Specific shapes can multiply this even more.
The end result is that as we squeeze the plutonium of a mass of 8kg, for a short period of time we can make that mass appear to be more that 10kg.
The end result is that the probability of neutrons causing further fission reactions is increased expotentially and the end result is a big bang.
So instead of 8kg Plutonium, we could use 100 gramms, without the use of things like neutron reflectors, we could still make this tiny amount supercritcally fission, we'd just need to squeeze it a lot harder.
Now we come back to our Blackhole or Neutron star which is created in the same way in a supernova, but on a larger scale.
In the neutron star, protons and electrons are squeeze hard enough to fuse into neutrons and those neutrons squeezed hard enough that gravity (a function of mass and density) holds them together with such force that not even the weak nuclear force has power over gravity.
In a Black hole (singularity) this process is taken one step further, where gravity appears to overwhelm the function of volume. The density which is a function of mass/volume is a division by zero and becomes infinite.
On the small scale in a collider, particles are slammed together so hard, that for fractions of of time their density is extreemly high. When we flip the equation, volume=mass/density. So the more dense we can make the subatomic particles, by slamming them together ever so hard, the closer we get to making the space they occupy (the volume) zero.
The big question is of course, is it possible for us to make density infinite (not likely) or is there a threshold where matter will collapse in under its own gravity/mass and become a singularity.
When that does happen, what will it look like and could the singularity be self sustaining or will it evapourate. If it is self sustaining, it'll probably be the last thing we do.
Far more interesting is if it evaporates. When it does, does it emit a particles or does it just vanish (matter destroyed).
One can see that asking questions does not provide answers, it provides more questions.
Once again Trash you have outdone yourself. Thank you.
I missed the SBS doco on the particle accelerator last night bugger it. Hopefully they'll show it again.
Did catch the new doco by Richard Dawkins on ABC though. Very good, but I have been a fan of his for some time, so it was like preaching to the choir in this house.
It'll have all the creationists in a 'tiz' though.
There is another way to take insults?
Hauling out the old quantum bunkum again .But mass doesn't need to be made of matter. Remember that mass and energy are interchangable.
Lets take a real world example... a supercritical mass.
A nice sphere of Plutonium 239, inside is a polonium berylium trigger neutron source.
Now while our sphere of Pu239 sits on the bench, very little is happening.
So we'll put it in the 'quantum vice' and squeeze it.... see if we can't get some Plutonium juice out.
Normally a neutron from the trigger will escape into the sphere where it may be absorbed by a Plutonium atom. Which then will undergo fission and reason more neutrons which "may" also go on cause fission in other atoms.
While the material is sitting on the bench, we do not have enough mass to sustain a critical reaction let alone a supercritical one.
But as we squeeze the material and push the atoms closer together, we increase the mass of the sphere. There is still the same number of atoms, yet because they are more tightly packed, the 'denisty' is higher and the apparent mass is higher.
The energy used to squeeze them can be considered to be contributing to the total mass.
Further more, we can add a quantum mirror. In this case, graphite.
When you place an apple next to a mirror, it appears you have two apples.
Since both apples look the exactly the same, from a perspective of light, there is a 3dB gain and there are two apples. Twice as many photons from the apple are hitting the retina or camera viewing it.
In terms of our quantum mirror, there now appears to be twice as much matter, even though there is nothing really there. Specific shapes can multiply this even more.
The end result is that as we squeeze the plutonium of a mass of 8kg, for a short period of time we can make that mass appear to be more that 10kg.
The end result is that the probability of neutrons causing further fission reactions is increased expotentially and the end result is a big bang.
So instead of 8kg Plutonium, we could use 100 gramms, without the use of things like neutron reflectors, we could still make this tiny amount supercritcally fission, we'd just need to squeeze it a lot harder.
Now we come back to our Blackhole or Neutron star which is created in the same way in a supernova, but on a larger scale.
In the neutron star, protons and electrons are squeeze hard enough to fuse into neutrons and those neutrons squeezed hard enough that gravity (a function of mass and density) holds them together with such force that not even the weak nuclear force has power over gravity.
In a Black hole (singularity) this process is taken one step further, where gravity appears to overwhelm the function of volume. The density which is a function of mass/volume is a division by zero and becomes infinite.
On the small scale in a collider, particles are slammed together so hard, that for fractions of of time their density is extreemly high. When we flip the equation, volume=mass/density. So the more dense we can make the subatomic particles, by slamming them together ever so hard, the closer we get to making the space they occupy (the volume) zero.
The big question is of course, is it possible for us to make density infinite (not likely) or is there a threshold where matter will collapse in under its own gravity/mass and become a singularity.
When that does happen, what will it look like and could the singularity be self sustaining or will it evapourate. If it is self sustaining, it'll probably be the last thing we do.
Far more interesting is if it evaporates. When it does, does it emit a particles or does it just vanish (matter destroyed).
One can see that asking questions does not provide answers, it provides more questions.
You have done this have you ?
Seen this done have you?
Perhaps you think you could do this?
Get real , you could save so much of your own real time.
I'm not saying you can't believe this rubbish if you wish . Go right ahead and write all you wish about it but I am asking you not to deride me because I totally disagree with the aboe .
Onefella runs for cover behind your skirt(in a manner of speaking).
Hawkins is a Dreamer all right and a warped one at that .
tytower, who, exactly are you babbling about now? Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking.
note to self: must stop replying to dimwits.
Way Cool!!!!I have been looking for a method to destroy the world for while now. Actually only rid it of 5.8 billion people, get the population to a more managable level, but what the heck...in for a penny.....
Now where is my accelerator.........
Might I suggest you observe the action of water when placed on a duck's back.
I enjoy clever and whitty insults, I wish there were more directed my way.
I'm sure you've seen how this technique was used at Nagasaki.Hauling out the old quantum bunkum again .
You have done this have you ?
Seen this done have you?
Perhaps you think you could do this?
Get real , you could save so much of your own real time.
My description of achieving a critical mass is real world, and there isn't anything mythical or mysterious about it. Everything I described is classical 20th century physics and easily validated with almost any high school physics text book.
The description was just re applied at lower levels with each example.
You're belief isn't ridiculed (not yet), it's your theories and (lack of) evidence or substance to support them. Logic is the rule, evidence has to make sense and support observation.but I am asking you not to deride me because I totally disagree with the aboe.
Though I do detect a little bit of religion creeping into your argument tytower.
There isn't anyone hiding anywhere. The point I make is to describe what the big end of town is trying to do in simple terms that anybody can understand and anybody can refute with the simplest of logic.Onefella runs for cover behind your skirt(in a manner of speaking).
Hawkins is a Dreamer all right and a warped one at that .
That's how educational science works. Everybody gets hands on.
I'm not sure who he is refering to either onefella. Richard Dawkins' show was pretty good. I'm sure you noticed his examples of information dissolution of information. Truth is swamped by the sheer volume of rumour and speculation.
In the example of MMR, I thought it rather amusing that evolution was finally working on weeding out morons and those who believe morons.
Steven Hawking, well I'm sure he has a lot of time on his hands to think about the universe. Did you buy and read his book yet Tytower ?
I promise you there is no witchcraft in it.
I would be grateful if some members would just speak their mind without the bitch-fight comments please.
We have mods here with a touchy closed button and I would like to keep this thread open.
The point of this thread is to accumulate ideas of how micro black holes could be created on earth and if they could engulf our planet or not.
I would like to remind you that the Large Hadron Collider will be smashing away in the few months from now!
So enjoy the booze, have plenty of sex and take a trip around the world so you can see it one last time
I tend a bit towards with Tytower on this one (if only he would make his statements without trying to ridicule other members).
I see nothing assuring about a radiation that nobody has been able to detect, despite the fact that we have located black holes and have equipment and methods to detect all kinds of radiation even a million light years away.
So ATM this radiation only exists as a mathematical theory and while the multi-dimensional models help us explain nicely paradoxes and phenomena which we can not grasp with our 4 dimensional programmed minds, they are just models... well the forth dimension is just a model too.
Well I got a theory too:
Lets say LHC could create not one but two black holes close enough to merge and exceed Plank mass so it has a stable gravitational field.
It is moving fast enough to coincidentally attract a few of the many particles surrounding it but not fast enough to reach earth's escape velocity so it bounces though the centre of our planet back and forth until it's Schwarzschild radius becomes so large that it can engulf every atom in it's path, then molecule, macro-structure... well then I guess it should suck in the whole planet really fast.
Generally what I am trying to say is that a micro black hole could become stable and exit CERN without ever being detected as it would be so tiny.
A mass the size of mount Everest would create a black hole in the range of a few nanometers so imagine the size of just a few atoms squeezed together.
Well they might have the equipment to detect it but it could be gone in nano seconds(it is moving fast) but everybody will say it evaporated and as we can not detect Hawking radiation, who is going to prove it didn't?
In reality it can slip though any matter on this planet with out hitting a single molecule for quite a long time. It's gravitational force is so minuscule that it has to be almost a direct hit with a subatomic particle before it could engulf it. So it could take ages before it's mass becomes large enough to attract atoms towards itself. But it eventually will... in minutes, hours, months, years, centuries...
What do you think?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks