does anybody honestly care if a stable black hole is created?
it's not like you'll even realize it or something. there will never be a moment of "oh shit, a black hole".
plus, i can't be the only one that's curious what's beyond the event horizon of a black hole, can i? if we create one on earth, we can just avoid the whole nasty stretching business, and get right down to the lack of physics and what not!
No, you'll still die a horrible, horrible death.
Well, if that happens before 8 tomorrow I don't have to go to work. And if the world gets sucked into a black hole and we all cease to exist that would mean my ex also ceases to exist.
Yeah, except the realistic "worst case scenario" actually involves...well, nothing happening, and people trying to prove the Standard Model getting rather peeved.
Actually, that'd still help rule out a host of theories.
I swear to a non-specific deity there is a lot of stupid in this thread. Apparently most of the world's physicists telling you what can't happen, what's monumentally unlikely to happen can be refuted by one conspiracy nut saying "but we don't know for sure!" while apparently not fearing for his life when he's on the second story of a house.
Too many variables unaccounted for in the experiments.
The lack of understand of what *MASS* is of all things should be a good indicator.
Suppose, for example, that they don't discover the Higgs with the LHC? They've already pushed the lower bounds to the limits. They can't raise the energy level any higher and expect to find the Higgs because they'll have already ruled out its lower bound. It's not that the science is contradicting itself... it's just that in a best case scenario, we find the Higgs, see Hawking Radiation in action, etc.
Worst case scenario, there are so many uncounted variables (like an asymetrical pressure load when the Fermi magnets quenched) that any number of them could result in a dangerous situation.
It's literally a dice roll... lacking a finer understanding, we're searching for answer with bigger tools and praying that the best case scenario holds out. Although in this case the dice are already loaded.
Yes and the same argument could have been made when they built the atom bomb, when chemists started purifying chemicals, when petroleum was first burned etc. What's funny is you are far far more likely to die from any given biological experiment that happens any day, and far more likely again to die in the process of driving to work and yet for some reason we're only concerned about the minute rather implausible scenario involving the machine with the superconducting electromagnets. FUNNY THAT.
I swear to a non-specific deity there is a lot of stupid in this thread. Apparently most of the world's physicists telling you what can't happen, what's monumentally unlikely to happen can be refuted by one conspiracy nut saying "but we don't know for sure!" while apparently not fearing for his life when he's on the second story of a house.
Too many variables unaccounted for in the experiments.
The lack of understand of what *MASS* is of all things should be a good indicator.
Suppose, for example, that they don't discover the Higgs with the LHC? They've already pushed the lower bounds to the limits. They can't raise the energy level any higher and expect to find the Higgs because they'll have already ruled out its lower bound. It's not that the science is contradicting itself... it's just that in a best case scenario, we find the Higgs, see Hawking Radiation in action, etc.
Worst case scenario, there are so many uncounted variables (like an asymetrical pressure load when the Fermi magnets quenched) that any number of them could result in a dangerous situation.
It's literally a dice roll... lacking a finer understanding, we're searching for answer with bigger tools and praying that the best case scenario holds out. Although in this case the dice are already loaded.
Yes and the same argument could have been made when they built the atom bomb, when chemists started purifying chemicals, when petroleum was first burned etc. What's funny is you are far far more likely to die from any given biological experiment that happens any day, and far more likely again to die in the process of driving to work and yet for some reason we're only concerned about the minute rather implausible scenario involving the machine with the superconducting electromagnets. FUNNY THAT.
it'll be worth it just so I never see threads like this again.
Yes what a worthless, uninteresting thread. It provoked 10 pages out of spite, I'm sure.
The idea of human beings undoing the universe in search of a 'God particle' is very forbidden fruit.
It would be a lot cooler if the whole "WE MIGHT ALL DIE" camp had something going for it besides, "well, we've never done this before, so something might happen. Maybe."
If you're going to create drama, at least do it over something more plausible and not silly shit like this.
Science just isnt science without ridiculously dangerous sideeffects.
Carnivore on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
CERN performed a study to investigate whether such dangerous events as micro black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles could occur. The report concluded, "We find no basis for any conceivable threat." If black holes are produced, they are expected to evaporate almost immediately via Hawking radiation and thus be harmless. It should be noted however that this is not a wholly convincing argument because Hawking radiation is currently an untested theory. Perhaps the strongest argument for the safety of colliders such as the LHC comes from the simple fact that cosmic rays of much higher energies than the LHC can produce have been bombarding the Earth, Moon and other objects in the solar system for thousands of millions of years with no such effects.
I seriously doubt LHC is going to kill us. In fact, if LHC kills us all, I will eat my own cock.
The idea is certainly very interesting. We should always seriously investigate when these things come up. They determined the nitrogen fusion reaction was basically impossible, and as far as I can tell it's the same for this one, so it looks like we're okay.
However it seems like a bad idea to look at the past and say "well that world-ending scenario didn't pan out, so we should not care about it in the future." Of course they didn't pan out. We wouldn't be here to observe that fact if it did. Consider a million worlds, each of which does a series of experiments with a 90% chance to destroy the world. 6 experiments later, there's one world left with a pretty good track record.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I kinda like the idea that the reason we haven't detected alien civilizations yet is because civilizations often/always end up performing a scientific experiment that wipes them out.
Alas, there are more plausible and less dramatic explanations too.
Bliss 101 on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I kinda like the idea that the reason we haven't detected alien civilizations yet is because civilizations often/always end up performing a scientific experiment that wipes them out.
Alas, there are more plausible and less dramatic explanations too.
I always liked the one that guessed there would be no detectable alien civilizations out there because they've had as much time to develop as we have (since the big bang).
Im all for smashing particles together and seeing what comes out. That being said, wasn't one of these slated for construction waaaaayback (i mean, like, 20-40 years) and the hole dug, only to be scrapped after several billions of dollars was poured into it. Somewhere in the states?
The idea is certainly very interesting. We should always seriously investigate when these things come up. They determined the nitrogen fusion reaction was basically impossible, and as far as I can tell it's the same for this one, so it looks like we're okay.
However it seems like a bad idea to look at the past and say "well that world-ending scenario didn't pan out, so we should not care about it in the future." Of course they didn't pan out. We wouldn't be here to observe that fact if it did. Consider a million worlds, each of which does a series of experiments with a 90% chance to destroy the world. 6 experiments later, there's one world left with a pretty good track record.
So apparently we only detonated 1 nuclear weapon ever then?
I kinda like the idea that the reason we haven't detected alien civilizations yet is because civilizations often/always end up performing a scientific experiment that wipes them out.
Alas, there are more plausible and less dramatic explanations too.
Im all for smashing particles together and seeing what comes out. That being said, wasn't one of these slated for construction waaaaayback (i mean, like, 20-40 years) and the hole dug, only to be scrapped after several billions of dollars was poured into it. Somewhere in the states?
The Superconducting Super Collider.
Yeah there are still huge fucking holes out in Texas where they dug, and they've been trying to sell the area off. I don't know why they have so much trouble, '100 acres with your own bottomless pit' seems like it would sell.
Im all for smashing particles together and seeing what comes out. That being said, wasn't one of these slated for construction waaaaayback (i mean, like, 20-40 years) and the hole dug, only to be scrapped after several billions of dollars was poured into it. Somewhere in the states?
The Superconducting Super Collider.
Yeah there are still huge fucking holes out in Texas where they dug, and they've been trying to sell the area off. I don't know why they have so much trouble, '100 acres with your own bottomless pit' seems like it would sell.
That's the same crew that later found the 'stranglet' that apparently made a linear path through Earth.
I kinda like the idea that the reason we haven't detected alien civilizations yet is because civilizations often/always end up performing a scientific experiment that wipes them out.
Alas, there are more plausible and less dramatic explanations too.
I always liked the one that guessed there would be no detectable alien civilizations out there because they've had as much time to develop as we have (since the big bang).
/offtopic
Or even more obnoxious, the one that suggests we're not "interesting" enough.
Glyph on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
So, call me a physics retard if it'll allow you enough mental breathing room to respond, but someone give me the "english-major-trying-to-understand-complex-mathematics" gist of what making all the matter in the universe "more stable" actually means.
I can get just about everything else in this thread... but that ones got me having actual questions marks pop up over my head as I read it. I've started a collection.
Well while we're asking questions, what's the deal with gravitons? Why are some (string) theorists actually discussing the possibility of their existence? Don't most physicists agree with Einstein's conclusion that gravity is the "natural geometry" of the universe? So in what way does it not comply with unified field equations?
As much as I love science, I wish this thread had not been created until after the experiment. Or for any news of this was to happen, for that matter.
On the other hand, now I will have pleanty of time to prepare for the (possible) end; I will make sure I have copious amounts of weed.
On a related note, I think it is increadable the rate at which technology is increasing. Its hard to believe we have the technology now to posibly create a black hole (or cingularity) or just smash protons together.
I think the idea of the "more stable matter" is sorta like this. Matter as we have it now, its fine, dandy, tastes good. There is, however, a theory that the state we experience matter is just a glitch, and it could be more stable than it is now. That would mean that we could cease to be, if the LHC somehow enlightens the universe to our lovely little unstable matter. Which it won't. In my mind its like the difference between liquid and ice. Same substance (same matter) different states and properties. I think thats how it goes down. Im not a huge physics buff though.
Really? How'd they find it with a super-collider hole?
It fell in, duh.
By comparing seismograph readings from around the world.
Earthquakes are point source events, rippling outwards.
They thought they found a 'linear event' in the seismograph data, which implied something had passed right through the Earth at an extreme velocity (around 900km/s). They called it a strangelet and asked for money to study them.
Well while we're asking questions, what's the deal with gravitons? Why are some (string) theorists actually discussing the possibility of their existence? Don't most physicists agree with Einstein's conclusion that gravity is the "natural geometry" of the universe? So in what way does it not comply with unified field equations?
I was under the impression that the current theories were pretty irreparably broken and wrong in certain domains. Hence dark matter and dark energy: we really don't know what the fuck they are. So it's sort of hard to assume these conclusions are correct other than to do approximations in appropriate problems.
Well while we're asking questions, what's the deal with gravitons? Why are some (string) theorists actually discussing the possibility of their existence? Don't most physicists agree with Einstein's conclusion that gravity is the "natural geometry" of the universe? So in what way does it not comply with unified field equations?
I was under the impression that the current theories were pretty irreparably broken and wrong in certain domains. Hence dark matter and dark energy: we really don't know what the fuck they are. So it's sort of hard to assume these conclusions are correct other than to do approximations in appropriate problems.
Huge gaping holes.
For those that know, I suppose that actually staring down the barrel of the LHC is something akin to staring into the maw of madness.
No matter what, something will be learned.
Rolly Rizla on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Scientists today have thrown up their hands unianimously and said, "Fuck it".
"We just found out everything we know is completely wrong. Atoms don't even really exist as we thought. Dark matter is actually a cosmic form of chocolate pudding. Gravity is your imagination." a frustrated phsyicist remarked.
"Honestly, let's just go back to worshipping the sun and clubbing our mates over the head and dragging them to caves. I'm done with this shit. The universe is bullshit."
So, call me a physics retard if it'll allow you enough mental breathing room to respond, but someone give me the "english-major-trying-to-understand-complex-mathematics" gist of what making all the matter in the universe "more stable" actually means.
I can get just about everything else in this thread... but that ones got me having actual questions marks pop up over my head as I read it. I've started a collection.
Something to remember about "more stable" as well: the most stable normal elements are the noble gases. Helium, xenon, etc. They don't bond with ANYTHING, so they never become solid.
Now imagine if every atom was like that. Oops, the planet's now one big expanding cloud of gas. That is what making "more stable" matter would do.
Something to remember about "more stable" as well: the most stable normal elements are the noble gases. Helium, xenon, etc.
This is correct.
They don't bond with ANYTHING, so they never become solid.
But this is misleading. While under normal circumstances most of the noble gases won't bond, it's not a hard and fast rule. At least 80 compounds of Xenon have been synthesised, and it is possible (under severe pressure) to solidify it, for example.
I'm not sure if there's an actual link between reactivity and the temperature at which an element will solidify, either. I'm guessing it's a trend, though.
But talking about the noble gases, as if they were the supposed "more stable" matter is also misleading. The noble gases are stable due to thier full electron shells. The more stable matter would in its self be more "stable". I think this comes down to the idea of entropy, that its alllllll slowing down. Eventually, according to our current views on the topic, the matter in the universe will eventually just stop. Becoming stable. To me the stable +1 matter would be along those lines. But that would be its natural state. All in all all this mind-bending physics isn't anywhere in the arm-chair scientists immediate grasp. A few doctorates in strange physics and bullshittery is most likely required.
But talking about the noble gases, as if they were the supposed "more stable" matter is also misleading. The noble gases are stable due to thier full electron shells. The more stable matter would in its self be more "stable". I think this comes down to the idea of entropy, that its alllllll slowing down. Eventually, according to our current views on the topic, the matter in the universe will eventually just stop. Becoming stable. To me what the stable +1 matter would be along those lines. But that would be its natural state. All in all all this mind-bending physics isn't anywhere in the arm-chair scientists immediate grasp. A few doctorates in strange physics and bullshittery is most likely required.
Entropy doesn't mean all things will stop, it means the maximum amount of disorder will be achieved. This means that statistically speaking, you have no information about a system by looking at it, simplistically this means something like the universe has the same temperature in all directions - there is nowhere you can look that will look different to any other, and thus you cannot distinguish any direction or set of particles in it from any other.
But talking about the noble gases, as if they were the supposed "more stable" matter is also misleading. The noble gases are stable due to thier full electron shells. The more stable matter would in its self be more "stable". I think this comes down to the idea of entropy, that its alllllll slowing down. Eventually, according to our current views on the topic, the matter in the universe will eventually just stop. Becoming stable. To me what the stable +1 matter would be along those lines. But that would be its natural state. All in all all this mind-bending physics isn't anywhere in the arm-chair scientists immediate grasp. A few doctorates in strange physics and bullshittery is most likely required.
Entropy doesn't mean all things will stop, it means the maximum amount of disorder will be achieved. This means that statistically speaking, you have no information about a system by looking at it, simplistically this means something like the universe has the same temperature in all directions - there is nowhere you can look that will look different to any other, and thus you cannot distinguish any direction or set of particles in it from any other.
Errr? How does entropy mean you get no information about a system by looking at it? Of course you can get information about it. If this were true how would we have information about anything?
And the universe being the same temperature in all directions is due to the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the big bang. Since its a huge thermodynamic system I'm sure entropy comes into play, but how is it the main reason the universe is the same (ish) temperature in all directions?
Last I looked it was atom smashers experiments gone wrong.
There's a bit of speculation that Fermi labs purposely delivered flawed magnets to CERN in the hopes that they'd be able to push their own accelerators past their limits and detect the Higgs (ie: God particle) before the LHC began operation.
Errr? How does entropy mean you get no information about a system by looking at it? Of course you can get information about it. If this were true how would we have information about anything?
And the universe being the same temperature in all directions is due to the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the big bang. Since its a huge thermodynamic system I'm sure entropy comes into play, but how is it the main reason the universe is the same (ish) temperature in all directions?
I'm pretty sure he means the ultimate state of the universe, complete entropy. That doesn't come into play right now, but the ultimate state of a given system would be complete decay, not just stopping.
The universe isn't the same temperature in all directions right now. There are large burning areas sprinkled throughout, for one thing.
durandal4532 on
Do what you can to elect Harris/Walz and downticket Dem candidates in your area by doorknocking, phonebanking, or postcarding: https://www.mobilize.us/
Now y'see, I don't have a good grasp of science. I am aware that science is there, that it happens. It's happening as I speak, from what I understand. That's good. Science is good. It keeps the world spinning. But I can't even begin to understand what this device is for, what mankind will actually achieve by switching it on, or whether or not I'll still be in one piece to read the findings.
From what I understand, this contraption is effectively a giant catapult, flinging a particular type of particle at speeds we are currently unable to fling them at. And from what I understand, by doing this we might be able to discover something about energy. You'll have to forgive me here, as despite my rather impressive C:C grade in GCSE Science, most of what I know about Energy I learnt from Lucozade commercials.
But there is a risk, according to what some of you are referring to as Bad Science, that the Universe will implode. Or explode. Or that the Earth will be sucked into a Black Hole, or lots of little Black Holes. Or something. I imagine as Energy is involved that they will, in fact, be Orange Holes, as everyone knows that the colour of energy is orange. But that's according to Bad Science, so there's no risk. Right?
Am I getting this so far?
I'll help you out a little. Now, you're thinking this device is like a catapult? Naw. Instead, consider it similar to a race track. Only instead of racing cars around it, you race particles. And instead of having everyone going the same direction, you get one group going aroung clockwise and another group going anti-clockwise. And instead of having each group stay in the right lane all the time, you design your track so at certains points you can make the lanes cross each other and thus get your two groups of particles to crash into each other. Hope that helps a little.
You should also check out this totally bitchin site, which will give you some backgorund information on particles:
Posts
Well, if that happens before 8 tomorrow I don't have to go to work. And if the world gets sucked into a black hole and we all cease to exist that would mean my ex also ceases to exist.
I see this as a win-win.
Actually, that'd still help rule out a host of theories.
Absence of an expected answer is not a bad thing.
It's just a step closer to the truth.
It's a pinnacle technology.
Top of the heap.
We're not afraid of rocket scientists.
We're afraid of ICMBs.
I'd be more terrified of super rabies.
I'm not quite sure what kind of response 28 Days Later would have had if everyone was just infected with super rabies instead of 'rage'.
Yes what a worthless, uninteresting thread. It provoked 10 pages out of spite, I'm sure.
The idea of human beings undoing the universe in search of a 'God particle' is very forbidden fruit.
It would be a lot cooler if the whole "WE MIGHT ALL DIE" camp had something going for it besides, "well, we've never done this before, so something might happen. Maybe."
If you're going to create drama, at least do it over something more plausible and not silly shit like this.
Now all their experiments are absorbing the universe at a very slow rate?
I seriously doubt LHC is going to kill us. In fact, if LHC kills us all, I will eat my own cock.
Not so much
However it seems like a bad idea to look at the past and say "well that world-ending scenario didn't pan out, so we should not care about it in the future." Of course they didn't pan out. We wouldn't be here to observe that fact if it did. Consider a million worlds, each of which does a series of experiments with a 90% chance to destroy the world. 6 experiments later, there's one world left with a pretty good track record.
Alas, there are more plausible and less dramatic explanations too.
I always liked the one that guessed there would be no detectable alien civilizations out there because they've had as much time to develop as we have (since the big bang).
/offtopic
I like that idea!
The Superconducting Super Collider.
Yeah there are still huge fucking holes out in Texas where they dug, and they've been trying to sell the area off. I don't know why they have so much trouble, '100 acres with your own bottomless pit' seems like it would sell.
That's the same crew that later found the 'stranglet' that apparently made a linear path through Earth.
It fell in, duh.
Or even more obnoxious, the one that suggests we're not "interesting" enough.
I can get just about everything else in this thread... but that ones got me having actual questions marks pop up over my head as I read it. I've started a collection.
On the other hand, now I will have pleanty of time to prepare for the (possible) end; I will make sure I have copious amounts of weed.
On a related note, I think it is increadable the rate at which technology is increasing. Its hard to believe we have the technology now to posibly create a black hole (or cingularity) or just smash protons together.
I think the idea of the "more stable matter" is sorta like this. Matter as we have it now, its fine, dandy, tastes good. There is, however, a theory that the state we experience matter is just a glitch, and it could be more stable than it is now. That would mean that we could cease to be, if the LHC somehow enlightens the universe to our lovely little unstable matter. Which it won't. In my mind its like the difference between liquid and ice. Same substance (same matter) different states and properties. I think thats how it goes down. Im not a huge physics buff though.
By comparing seismograph readings from around the world.
Earthquakes are point source events, rippling outwards.
They thought they found a 'linear event' in the seismograph data, which implied something had passed right through the Earth at an extreme velocity (around 900km/s). They called it a strangelet and asked for money to study them.
I was under the impression that the current theories were pretty irreparably broken and wrong in certain domains. Hence dark matter and dark energy: we really don't know what the fuck they are. So it's sort of hard to assume these conclusions are correct other than to do approximations in appropriate problems.
Huge gaping holes.
For those that know, I suppose that actually staring down the barrel of the LHC is something akin to staring into the maw of madness.
No matter what, something will be learned.
Scientists today have thrown up their hands unianimously and said, "Fuck it".
"We just found out everything we know is completely wrong. Atoms don't even really exist as we thought. Dark matter is actually a cosmic form of chocolate pudding. Gravity is your imagination." a frustrated phsyicist remarked.
"Honestly, let's just go back to worshipping the sun and clubbing our mates over the head and dragging them to caves. I'm done with this shit. The universe is bullshit."
Something to remember about "more stable" as well: the most stable normal elements are the noble gases. Helium, xenon, etc. They don't bond with ANYTHING, so they never become solid.
Now imagine if every atom was like that. Oops, the planet's now one big expanding cloud of gas. That is what making "more stable" matter would do.
This is correct.
But this is misleading. While under normal circumstances most of the noble gases won't bond, it's not a hard and fast rule. At least 80 compounds of Xenon have been synthesised, and it is possible (under severe pressure) to solidify it, for example.
I'm not sure if there's an actual link between reactivity and the temperature at which an element will solidify, either. I'm guessing it's a trend, though.
Edit: Im an r-tard
1) Cut a hole in a box.
2) Put the Universe in the box.
3) Make God open the box.
And that's the way you do it!
Errr? How does entropy mean you get no information about a system by looking at it? Of course you can get information about it. If this were true how would we have information about anything?
And the universe being the same temperature in all directions is due to the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the big bang. Since its a huge thermodynamic system I'm sure entropy comes into play, but how is it the main reason the universe is the same (ish) temperature in all directions?
Last I looked it was atom smashers experiments gone wrong.
There's a bit of speculation that Fermi labs purposely delivered flawed magnets to CERN in the hopes that they'd be able to push their own accelerators past their limits and detect the Higgs (ie: God particle) before the LHC began operation.
The universe isn't the same temperature in all directions right now. There are large burning areas sprinkled throughout, for one thing.
I'll help you out a little. Now, you're thinking this device is like a catapult? Naw. Instead, consider it similar to a race track. Only instead of racing cars around it, you race particles. And instead of having everyone going the same direction, you get one group going aroung clockwise and another group going anti-clockwise. And instead of having each group stay in the right lane all the time, you design your track so at certains points you can make the lanes cross each other and thus get your two groups of particles to crash into each other. Hope that helps a little.
You should also check out this totally bitchin site, which will give you some backgorund information on particles:
http://particleadventure.org/index.html