It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Mini Black Hole (Possibly) Created

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I work at RHIC and have made a tiny contribution to the discovery mentioned in the original post.

I'll be brief here: the "black hole at RHIC" speculation is just that - a speculation. If there was even a very remote theoretical possibility of a black hole being created at RHIC, the theorists would be all over it, like flies on honey. Besides being a guaranteed Noble prize material, such topic has an unparalleled coolness factor exactly because everybody, even a layperson, can get really excited (watch this thread) about the potential of Sci-Fi type of event and/or disaster taking place in Long Island, NY.

The fact that this is not seriously cosidered is telling me a lot. Right now I'm sitting about a mile and a half from the place of the supposed possible creation of black holes, and I don't break sweat


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Aelita]




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
CERN is not to be compared with the RHIC test at all. For one the CERN collider is much much bigger. And their goal is not to make a black hole it’s to find the Higgs “god particle”. also to make a mini big bang. Which in return might cause mini black holes.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition
CERN is not to be compared with the RHIC test at all. For one the CERN collider is much much bigger. And their goal is not to make a black hole it’s to find the Higgs “god particle”. To make a mini big bang. Which in return might cause mini black holes.


How does detection of the Higgs particle relate to "mini big bang"? Well, it doesn't. Also, calling it "God particle" smacks of sensationalism. It's interesting, yes.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition
CERN is not to be compared with the RHIC test at all. For one the CERN collider is much much bigger. And their goal is not to make a black hole it’s to find the Higgs “god particle”. To make a mini big bang. Which in return might cause mini black holes.


How does detection of the Higgs particle relate to "mini big bang"? Well, it doesn't. Also, calling it "God particle" smacks of sensationalism. It's interesting, yes.


I don’t know I asked myself the same question but it’s not me that said it… it was CERN read it on their site, via press releases and media videos/clips... I know they are looking for the higgs particle. I only called it the god particle "in quotes" because some people relate to it as that, I do not. Many types of people are on here I thought id be nice and broaden the relations of what I was talking about. And CERN plain as day admits they are going to try and recreate the big dang. So before you get all snappy... I was not the one relating the two. I never said the to had to do with each other, except the obvious fact that CERN was designed to study both and more..

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition
CERN is not to be compared with the RHIC test at all. For one the CERN collider is much much bigger. And their goal is not to make a black hole it’s to find the Higgs “god particle”. To make a mini big bang. Which in return might cause mini black holes.


How does detection of the Higgs particle relate to "mini big bang"? Well, it doesn't. Also, calling it "God particle" smacks of sensationalism. It's interesting, yes.


I don’t know I asked myself the same question but it’s not me that said it… it was CERN read it on their site, via press releases and media videos/clips... I know they are looking for the higgs particle. I only called it the god particle "in quotes" because some people relate to it as that, I do not. Many types of people are on here I thought id be nice and broaden the relations of what I was talking about. And CERN plane as day admits they are going to try and recreate the big dang. So before you get all snappy... I was not the one relating the two. I never said the to had to do with each other, except the obvious fact that CERN was designed to study both and more..


My bad I see how you thought I was relating the two. It was a bad choice of words and placing of them. It should have been “they will also be trying to remake a mini big bang”

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
What date did they do this? Did it coincide with that large earthquake last week? Just curious..... Somethings may be best left undone. What if they create something that feeds on matter and they cannot turn it off?

X



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CmptrN3rd5
WTF why are they trying to create a black hole on Earth!?!!?!


Just what i was thinking. Seems a bit strange.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
People, chill,

nobody's trying to create black holes. I repeat, stop the press, there is no attempt to create a blackhole, and there is no proven and/or credbile theory that one can be created in a lab like RHIC.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I always thought we would create something like this and it would engulf the universe, then we would start all over again, only to meet the same end.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
People, chill,

nobody's trying to create black holes. I repeat, stop the press, there is no attempt to create a blackhole, and there is no proven and/or credbile theory that one can be created in a lab like RHIC.


Wrong CERN is quoted saying 100's of times they can and will create one/many. The real question is will they evaporate like they say they will.

Just spend about 3 hours at the CERN site and you will see you’re so called nonexistent credible theories.

July 2 2007 (is projected for the first collision) the LHC will create a black hole (if that’s not bad enough... on earth.)

Basic knowledge of black holes:

1. It sucks in all mater, even light…
2. it sucks all mater as a sphere (in 360) meaning that it has no side, (if it were possible to stand on one side of a black hole and walk around to the other side of it, it would still be the side of the hole). Some people like to think it goes to another dimension. Basically it’s a puncture in the fabric of your universe that def goes somewhere.

Now I don’t know if the first collision will be a success on the first try. But it won’t be to long after it’s all operational that they nail it.

One of the major differences in this collision, beside just the scale of it being the largest and most energetic experiment ever done and its goal of recreating the big bang while looking for the higgs particle. The mater will not collide into a plate (a sheet of metal, as done in the other experiments from past decades with the smaller collider) in this experiment Beams of lead nuclei will be accelerated to the speed of light smashing together with a collision energy of 1150 TeV.

What their official spokes person says is: there is no danger and at the slightest sign of any thing going wrong they will simply shut it off…

Problem
1. It sucks in all mater!
2. if it was possible that a switch was still around to switch off , do you really trust some jerk off to be able to think, know and react at “the speed of light” to turn it off. Man they must have someone really good.

Five experiments, with the huge detectors, will study what happens when the LHC's beams collide. They will handle as much information as the entire European telecommunications network does today!

As well as having the highest energy of any accelerator in the world, the LHC will also have the most intense beams. Collisions will happen so fast (800 million times a second) that particles from one collision will still be travelling through the detector when the next collision happens. Understanding what happens in these collisions is the key to the LHC's success.

The experiments are: Feel free to wiki/google these.

ATLAS
CMS
ALICE (hmmm what happened to alice? she went down a hole)
LHCb
TOTEM

Video links:

The Cathedrals of Science - CERN : 1954-2004

cdsweb.cern.ch...

TPE, le CERN
Nebuleuse Productions

video.google.com...

Lords of the Ring

video.google.com...

The ATLAS Experiment movie:

atlasexperiment.org...

CERN video archive:

cdsweb.cern.ch...

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
check out this its a little funny...

aliceinfo.cern.ch...



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition

Originally posted by Aelita
People, chill,

nobody's trying to create black holes. I repeat, stop the press, there is no attempt to create a blackhole, and there is no proven and/or credbile theory that one can be created in a lab like RHIC.


Wrong CERN is quoted saying 100's of times they can and will create one/many. The real question is will they evaporate like they say they will.


OK, I found a couple of articles in the CERN Courier. They were indeed quoted many times. That doesn't mean they said this 100 times.

The question about evaporation (in case they are created, which is not proven at all) is answered I believe in both papers -- if the energy scale predicted is right, the black holes are already being created when a super energetic cosmic ray strikes Earth. Our planet and other celestial bodies are being bombarded by those for the last few billion years 24/7 and nothing has happened.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersonr
How do we know what these people are doing is safe.

I have often wondered that maybe one day they will by accident create energy so intense it just sucks earth in on it's self and they had no way of stopping it we would all be brown bread


Since when have we ever known if things in science are safe? We haven't. But the risk is worth the product.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join