Forum Moderators: open
[boston.com...]
Jim
Therefore in the very short time that it did exist, it would have nothing to "feed on" and so could not grow any larger. As the lifetime of a black hole is proportional to its mass, and the mass would be exceedingly low, it would exist for only a few microseconds -- if that.
Oh, and the CERN physicists have wives and kids too, you know...
In short, don't worry about the LHC -- unless they send you the bill for its construction and operation(!). :o
Jim
Any black hole that could be created with the power available in a man-made system such as the LHC would be so small as to "evaporate" almost instantaneously in a flash of Hawking radiation.
As the lifetime of a black hole is proportional to its mass
Oh, and the CERN physicists have wives and kids too, you know
Kudos to all the scientists who've brought us to this point :)
They're going to create mini-black holes just to see what will happen.
That sounds... reckless.
All that happens in the LHC happens on our planet every day. Perhaps even in your own body. Two particles collide thats all.
Several years ago scientists measured a particle (don't remember what it was, photon, proton, neutron, whatever) from a supernova that had the energy equivalent of a thrown baseball. A million times higher than the LHC can produce.
All in all, quite a feat of engineering. And, if in their replication of the first few milliseconds of the original Big Bang something should go wrong, perhaps millions of years from now someone (something) smarter will discover the cause of the second Big Bang.
That view of the computer center servers is impressive.
This latest CERN project deploys 210 Supermicro SuperBlade servers equipped with Intel Xeon Quad-Core processors.
...according to Stephen Hawking's theories. No worries, I'm sure he's right.
Anyway, the first few black holes didn't do much- just disapated as theorized. But apparently they created a sort of background radiation that continued to build up and created a type of global "holing," which eventually started to coalesce. All the matter in the nearby area started to deteriorate, sucking in more matter from the surrounding areas. I barely managed to escape before the whole planet got sucked in, so I'm not sure exactly how things ended (or if it's still going on).
Anyway, you guys do what you want- I'm just jumping through. I'm still trying to find another universe that doesn't have Paris Hilton in it.
See ya! :)
Joking apart, that is some serious kit, and the pictures are excellent.
From what I can tell, they just want to know how black holes form. And that certainly doesn't seem well-calculated to help solve real-life problems.
One of the main purposes of the LHC is to find the Higgs Boson, an elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model but that has never been observed. The Standard Model is a theory that unites three of the four known fundamental forces among elementary particles - Strong Nuclear, Electromagnetic and Weak interaction.
In short the LHC is another step in finding the "Theory of everything" that fully explains all existing physical phenomena, linking all four major forces together, including gravity.
As to real life problems: Even if the major experiments should contribute nothing to solving real life problems in the near future there are always by-products when such big projects are launchend. The LHC is operated by CERN and one of those by-products in the past has been the World Wide Web.
Jim
During the construction of the nuclear bomb, some scientists believed that it was possible for the blast to evaporate the atmosphere and in turn kill everything on the planet. Luckily that didn't happen, but you have to be absolutely, positively, 100% certain before doing anything that could annihilate the planet.
Didn't CERN have a bit of a problem a few months ago that had the scientists scratch their heads saying "Oops! We didn't think of that."
During the construction of the nuclear bomb, some scientists believed that it was possible for the blast to evaporate the atmosphere and in turn kill everything on the planet. Luckily that didn't happen, but you have to be absolutely, positively, 100% certain before doing anything that could annihilate the planet.
The problem is that in science and especially with the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics nothing is 100% sure. It' all about probabilities. There is a small probability that is infinite small but larger than zero that in the next moment you will materialize on the moon.
There is also an infinite small possibility - but larger than zero that a black hole appears in my toilet when I go to the bathroom the next time. But I think I'll take the risk anyway.
Nevertheless, our sun has been fusing hydrogen into heavier elements for 4.5 thousand million years, and it hasn't disappeared into a self-made black hole yet.
Jim
In theory the experiments should pose no threat, but a slight miscalculation or mechanical failure could spell disaster. And here we are, yet again, with another problem.
This is just one in a string of recent SNAFUs. Sure, stuff happens, but when you're dealing with such forces, you better have all your ducks in a row before you flip the switch!
I will say that we humans have to take chances, or we'll never progress any further. It's just a little scary when the possible risks include complete annihilation of the planet.
I get off my soapbox now :)
I'd just like to point out again that the energies available in any man-made system are far too small for any kind of "disastrous event" to be likely.
Hiroshima and Chernobyl spring to mind as counter-examples.
Unless I misunderstand the topic, the discussion involves total annihilation. Please explain how an atomic device and a nuclear meltdown are counter-examples to jdMorgan's statement in that context.
Please explain how an atomic device and a nuclear meltdown are counter-examples to jdMorgan's statement in that context.
the energies available in any man-made system are far too small for any kind of "disastrous event" to be likely.
I was providing a counter-example to that specific statement, which is incorrect at face value. Man made systems can, in fact, have extremely high amounts of energy that go well past the threshold of potential for "disastrous events."
Glitch shuts Large Hadron for two months
"The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) said there had been a major helium leak last week into the tunnel housing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the biggest and most complex machine ever made."
[news.com.au...]
They were bound to run into problems
If a black hole were to be created in the LHC, it -like all products of "atom-smasher" collisions- would "evaporate" -convert back to energy- in a timescale ranging from microseconds to femtoseconds.
Unlike the sun, with high-density matter plentifully available to feed a nascent black hole, the LHC is evacuated to a density ten times lower than the moon's atmosphere -- It is, essentially, devoid of any matter except the particles which are being accelerated. There is nothing inside for a micro black hole to 'feed on'.
The main problem with the LHC project is that no matter what they say, the fact that they are addressing a population the majority of which has no knowledge of subatomic particle physics, dooms their efforts. "Bosons and leptons and quarks - Oh my!"
Not losing any sleep over this one... Took the classes, read the books, not worried.
Jim
If a black hole were to be created in the LHC, it -like all products of "atom-smasher" collisions- would "evaporate" -convert back to energy- in a timescale ranging from microseconds to femtoseconds
Hawking believes this as well...he's never been wrong! Oh wait...
I believe the LHC is completely safe but for anyone to say it's 100% safe is foolish as the main point of the LHC is to answer black hole questions. Something could go wrong...not likely, but it's possible. The benefits outweigh the negatives in this case.
[edited by: StoutFiles at 3:18 am (utc) on Sep. 22, 2008]
I was providing a counter-example to that specific statement
I consider myself to be a scientific guy, but I try to consider all possibilities for a given idea, no matter how far-fetched. Nothing is impossible! Some people, myself included, simply have a wider perception of reality that include possibilities not accepted by the mainstream.
Having said that, I don't think CERN will destroy the planet, but I find it appalling that people with concerns (including some physicists) are faced with such condescending attitudes.
Many folks have more "minor" concerns, such as losing control of the photon beam, which is possible if they have a system failure. Even those ideas are scoffed at. And we really need to stop taking the word of guys like Hawking as gospel. It's analogous of a religious following along the lines of "The savior has spoken, and we must obey."
I'm on the soapbox again, oh my. :)
In the short term, we only have a billion years left on this planet, before it will be hot to support life (as the sun increases in luminosity and heat output by 10% every billion years)
So the human race must master all aspects of physics, and move beyond the cradle earth.
CERN is a piece in the puzzle, towards the human race survival (at least beyond the next billion years).
