Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The play with the fire - Possible destruction of earth in 2007 through mini-black hole?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
If someone offers you knowledge, a lot of knowlede that may change our understanding of the universe and that could lead to still not imaginable technological breakthroughs, improveing our technological possibilities,
but this to a price of a risk. A risk that to a small probabily during the process of gathering the knowledge you completly destroy the whole planet and all it's life. Litteraly wipe out the humankind of the existence.

Would you take that risk?

It's not that you have a choose. The risk we will take in summer (july) 2007 when the Large Hardron Collider (LHC) in CERN takes up its work and indeed is able to creates Mini-Black hole as the scientist hopes it is.

Should we worry about this Mini-Black-Holes?

Scientist of course say no:

"They decay immeditaly -> harmless"

check page 16:
www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp...

but this is based on their theoretic still unproven modell, that black holes bleed out by radiateing Hawking radiation.

What if this assumption is wrong?:
www.misunderstooduniverse.com...

And what when its true but they forget about a little thing like that a black hole grows when it is feeded with matter? Is there matter in the LHC that could feed the black hole? Oh yes..the beams are not just 2 single protos but a number. Could be enough to feed the hole long enough to survive till the concret LHC walls.
From then on it's unstoppable. I would say at the end it is all a matter of probability. Make use of a small probability and hope the best is gamebling.
This will not be a one time experiment but a continues. Creating Mini-Black-Holes after Mini-black-Holes. It requires just one at the wrong time at the wrong place to destroy the world.

Creating a beast (black-holes) and also when it is a mini we not even know enough about on earth is not a good idea. Yes the knowledge we can gain is a hugh motivation, for me too, but I wouldnt take that risk. Too many unknown and risking all life is not something you should play with. In this case I wonder, are our most clever scientist the most stupid people at the end?

I dont want to paint black. I hope that they did calculate everything through and it is sure that nothing can happen. I hope that their theorie is not faulty and Hawking was right with his radiation theorie. And I hope that we learn a lot through this experiment.

There is a chance that they are not able to create black holes, then when their multi-dimension theorie is wrong.
On the other hand I read somewhere that this mini-black-hole could vanish into the other dimesnions, if so...isnt it then likely that it also could appear somewhere else in 3d space again? Somewhere and (somewhen!) where it shouldn't be?

What do you think about this all?




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
NOPE STOP RIGHT THERE!!
I don't want to hear about black holes, comets, nukes, economic collapse, poisonous canned tuna. I can't take anymore. I can't sleep, everytime it thunders out I rush to the window incase a nuke landed, everytime I hear a train I'm looking for torndoes. Everytime the price of gold fluctuates I'm pulling my money out of the bank & stock market.
I can't take it anymore.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by g210
Creating a beast (black-holes) and also when it is a mini we not even know enough about on earth is not a good idea. Yes the knowledge we can gain is a hugh motivation, for me too, but I wouldnt take that risk. Too many unknown and risking all life is not something you should play with. In this case I wonder, are our most clever scientist the most stupid people at the end?


No they are not. They are more educated and know more about current physics than anyone on these boards. They have worked for years even decades studying, researching and developing new theories that have improved our understanding of the world around us. They don't just let anyone play with this immensley powerful tool. These are the creme de la creme of current science.

More objectively though, I think mini-black hole is a slight misnomer as they are realistically nothing like an actual black hole.

And of course a final point; the collisions that are going to be taking place in the LHC are taking place constantly around us, on earth and in space. All the LHC is doing is performing these collisions more often, in a place where they can be studied.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Planet eating black holes?
Hah! Give me a break! I laugh at your feeble attempt to induce paranoia upon the general populus.


In a blatent attempt at fearmongering oneupsmanship, I present to you the following: Review of Speculative Disaster Scenarios at RHIC

Fears have been expressed that heavy ion collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC), which Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is now commissioning, might initiate a catastrophic process with profound implications for health and safety. Dr. John Marburger, Director of BNL asked our committee to review the issues and to reduce to a single comprehensive report the arguments that address the safety of each of the speculative `disaster scenarios'."

Concerns have been raised in three general categories:
A. Formation of a black hole or gravitational singularity that accretes ordinary matter.
B. Initiation of a transition to a lower vacuum state.
C. Formation of a stable strangelet that accretes ordinary matter.


While black holes, and strangelets are certainly interesting, let's focus on vacuum instability:

Vacuum Instability
Although certainly nothing in our existing knowledge of the laws of Nature demands it, several physicists have speculated on the possibility that our contemporary vacuum is only metastable, and that a sufficiently violent disturbance might trigger its decay into something quite different. A transition of this kind would propagate outward from its source throughout the universe at the speed of light, and would be catastrophic.


Or, in other words: Some scientists believe that the vacuum of empty space isn't really empty at all; and that it actually contains a ****load of energy, and this vacuum may be unstable. They believe that, given a large enough energy source as a trigger, the vacuum could fall to a lower, more stable state, releasing its energy, and vaporizing the Earth in slightly less than the time it takes to say "Oh ****!"


While theory strongly suggests that any possibility for triggering vacuum instability requires substantially larger energy densities than RHIC will provide, it is diffcult to give a compelling, unequivocal bound based on theoretical considerations alone.

Or, in other words: These scientists have looked at the numbers, and don't believe they have enough energy to trigger a chain reaction that would vaporize the Universe, but they're not sure.

Have a nice day!


Xeno



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophobe
Planet eating black holes?
Hah! Give me a break! I laugh at your feeble attempt to induce paranoia upon the general populus.



No, the other way: black hole eating planet.


Originally posted by Xenophobe
In a blatent attempt at fearmongering oneupsmanship, I present to you the following:
...
Or, in other words: These scientists have looked at the numbers, and don't believe they have enough energy to trigger a chain reaction that would vaporize the Universe, but they're not sure.


Nice and what does this have to do with a black hole?

If you check the first link I provided you see that they declare that with the LHC they have enough energy to produce black holes. In fact that's what they hope to archive and what the build this accelerator for because thats what they want to study. Mini or not, a black hole is a black hole and you can differ them only by 3 attributes: mass, charge, and spin. And all a black hole needs to grow is matter (mass/energy) which is there. The only point they relay on is that the life time of mini-black-hole is very very short based on Hawkings unproved statement that each Black Hole radiates Hawking radiations. If you bet life on an unproven theorie I dont know what can be worse. And also when Hawking was right and the life time is short there is still a danger that the blackhole can eat more matter and gow before it evaporates. According to Hawking, the lifetime depends on the mass of the black hole. So it's a race, if there is matter close to it crashed or colliding (beam) into it faster than it evaporates..


All I know is a block hole is nothing to joke about. It's a dangerous and still not fully understood thing. One little mistake or miss assumption, and human do alot mistake and miss assumption, also kick ass scientist, and you can 'kiss us goodbye.'

I dont know how serious danger this experiments really are.
But I would liked to discutate it here.

For me its simple that:
That they relay with their experiment on an unproven base is alarming to me. Indicates for me that they are that blended by the promising results that they left their mind at home.
First prove that nothing can happen with proven theories than make the experiemnt. And not make an experiment with such a potential danger and hope the best. At least that's how I see it.

So if you or one from cern can prove, really prove, that this things are harmless I would very welcome that! But this prove is missing you see.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I'm an exphysicist gone businessman, but I did study enough to have a some what informed opinion on this.

First of all, there is strong evidence that the LHC has already created it's first black hole, and we are still here.

Secondly, based on pretty firm and tested theory, to be in danger you would need to find a way to cram 100,000 tons of matter into a space smaller than an atomic nucleus in less than 0.00000000000000000001 second. If you can do that, it is more dangerous than a black hole. Less weight or slower speed and you get nothing, the hold just goes poof (like the possible one).

Lastly, there is still nothing on this planet we have done that doesn't happen all over the universe naturally. Every day particle rain down on the earth that are *STILL* higher energy than our colliders, yet after 4 billion years, the earth is still here.

All in all, the scale is too small and nature already showed us it is a safe path.

If you concern is that the theories may be wrong, then study them. You will see that is a relative statement. They may be wrong, but we know they aren't that wrong.

Just because newton was wrong doesn't me his theories didn't work well enough to make howitzers and ballistic missile...they only break down when talking about stars or atoms.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by g210
Nice and what does this have to do with a black hole?

Just pointing out that, out of the myriad of possible doomsday scenarios, a black hole may just be the least of our worries.




If you check the first link I provided you see that they declare that with the LHC they have enough energy to produce black holes. In fact that's what they hope to archive and what the build this accelerator for because thats what they want to study.

At best, there is only a slight chance that the LHC could produce a mini black hole (see Jacques Distler's Blog). Highly energetic collisions, on an energy scale similar to the LHC, are already being studied by cosmic ray observatories, and have shown no evidence of black hole creation to date (see the Aires Project). I'm going to chalk this one off as wishful thinking on the part of certain physicists, and I'll wait for a more energetic accelerator before I start worrying.




Mini or not, a black hole is a black hole and you can differ them only by 3 attributes: mass, charge, and spin. And all a black hole needs to grow is matter (mass/energy) which is there. The only point they relay on is that the life time of mini-black-hole is very very short based on Hawkings unproved statement that each Black Hole radiates Hawking radiations.

It has also been said that, if a black hole is created at the LHC, it will be millions of times smaller than an atom and unable to "eat" any matter/energy.

As an aside, here is another unproven theory: It may be possible to destroy a black hole with a similar mass of antimatter.




All I know is a block hole is nothing to joke about. It's a dangerous and still not fully understood thing.

True, and that's why the scientists find things like black holes fascinating.




First prove that nothing can happen with proven theories than make the experiemnt. And not make an experiment with such a potential danger and hope the best. At least that's how I see it.

I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as a proven "theory". By definition, a theory is an idea that is unproven.

Here's a question: If scientists knew, all of the possible results of an experiment beforehand, then why would they need to experiment?

Science is about exploration, and every form of exploration has its risks and its rewards. High energy physics is no exception.

That being said, I think I understand your concern; that scientists, in their never-ending pursuit of knowledge, might overstep the boundaries of common sense, and put us all in danger.

At the moment, I think that the best we can do is to keep an open dialogue between the scientific community and ourselves, and hope that the scientists exercise their best judgments.


Xeno



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
If just for the sake of argument, a small black hole got out of control... is there anything you can do to stop it ? Strong magnetic fields, liquid nitrogen etc.. would it do anything ? Also if you dropped a bomb on a small black-hole would it just absorb the energy.. or could it be disrupted somehow if it was a small one..



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
@ Quest /Xenophobe thanks for the interessting answer and links.


Originally posted by Quest
.... and nature already showed us it is a safe path.


That's what I dont see. Could we observe a mini-black-hole already once and saw it decay?

I miss a confirmation through observation, and Xenophobe somewhat confirms that we dont have such an observation today that would make Hawkings theorie
more than a theorie:


Originally posted by Xenophobe
Highly energetic collisions, on an energy scale similar to the LHC, are already being studied by cosmic ray observatories, and have shown no evidence of black hole creation to date.


This is 2 sided: It can me great we are safe and they will fail to create BH's or ops we have truely no clue what happens if we once are able to create one because we never observed one.

The mini-black-hole is smaller than an atom nucleon right but I dont see how this should make it impossible for it to eat mass/energy specially when it becomes bombarded with. (And also if it couldnt eat the yummy nucleons because of size reason (what i doubt) in then collision all kind of elementar particle becomes created small enough)

However the required mass to keep it alive long enough to be dangerous (in asumption it really behaves like hawking says) might be a point. Never calculated it. Does someone have the formula?

@SilverSurfer:
Hmm a BH can have charge ..so I would mean theoretical a charged BH should be controllable by a strong enough magnetic and or electric field if you know the momentum it has. So maybe..just maybe if you are lucky and have catched it still in the LHC you could accelerate it (although not sure if the LHC is able to accelerate particles from zero speed) and fire it out of the LHC at light speed! Earth saved!

With an uncharged BH you will have your trouble. Eighter it has momentum and flies anywhere or it has non or close to none and will then attrackted by earths mass travel directly to the core of the earth. Then for sure you have lost.

if you can destroy a BH with antimater as Xenophobe noted I dont know.
Well cern has a little antimater...just probabily not close enough to the BH when it would be required.

byway just found this page... read about
'How do black holes evaporate'
cosmology.berkeley.edu...

he seems to share my 'view' a litte about that it is a danger unproven point.

But to the benefit of this discussion here I see that if Haking was right..we porbabily really have nothing to worry because of it's really short lifetime......if all went well.
(sorry couldnt resist to add this words.)



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
They just can't resist to try out the new theories, they'd rather think of that than the risk. Through this self serving misjudgment, it's possible that we will all die.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Well, I for one, don't understand how "Hawking Radiation" could lead to the evaporation of a black hole.

What I understand: Quantum vacuum fluctuations create particle-antiparticle pairs outside of the event horizon. One particle from the pair is emitted as Hawking Radiation, and one falls into the black hole.

What I don't understand: Since the particle pair is created outside of the event horizon, I would think that the pair's mass is completely unrelated to the mass of the black hole itself. Additionally, since one particle of the pair falls into the black hole, I would think that this would lead to an increase in the mass of the black hole..

Does anyone understand Hawking's theory well enough to explain to me the mechanism involved in the transfer of energy from within the event horizon, to a quantum fluctuation outside of the event horizon?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
They just can't resist to try out the new theories, they'd rather think of that than the risk. Through this self serving misjudgment, it's possible that we will all die.


Steve,

Who, exactly, are you referring to when you say "They"?
What risks have been ignored?
Why do you think that "They" are self-serving?
What misjudgements have "They" made?

I would argue that it's a proven fact that we're all gonna die.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
There is a theory out there, I forget its name, that says all higher intelligent life forms eventually destroy themselves.

All it takes is for one doctor to create the perfect virus, one chemist to create the perfect poison or one physicist to create the perfect, whateverthehellphysicists do.

Pretty bleak outlook if you ask me, but understandable given the context of this post.

Just my thoughts,

wupy



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
There is a theory out there, I forget its name, that says all higher intelligent life forms eventually destroy themselves.


I don't put much faith in theories based on a single data point, that being "all higher intelligent life forms". So far we only know of one instance of "higher intelligent life forms", and that is us.

For the same reason, I find that the Drake Equation is practically useless.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophobe
Who, exactly, are you referring to when you say "They"?
What risks have been ignored?
Why do you think that "They" are self-serving?
What misjudgements have "They" made?


Feeling defensive about your profession or hobby is understandable. I'm not putting down experimental physics or denouncing that area of interest. However, being of the human race I'm sure some scientific researchers are not immune to making incalcuable mistakes and errors. Alot of them are more interested in their goals and research, than the risks and moral concerns their work may arise for everyone else. Now for your last question, I need only pick one example,



Steve



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   



No they are not. They are more educated and know more about current physics than anyone on these boards. They have worked for years even decades studying, researching and developing new theories that have improved our understanding of the world around us. They don't just let anyone play with this immensley powerful tool. These are the creme de la creme of current science.

Dont get me wrong but einstine him self was wrong couple of times, I think it involves a risk.
There can be 2 outcomes.
1 we can gain the knolege of how a black hole works, in the event of having a black hole in proximity of earth we would know how to deal with it, in case it starts eating earth up, a black hole reaching earth is not imposible, while they are active they move around.

2 we can make a tolal desaster and the outcome can be a complete desaster.
We as humans are not ready for it, we are primitive, we cant even get of the ground safe when going in space, we berly make it in to orbit,and when we want to go further it seems it's a problem.
Man tecnologicly is not prepeard for this, we dont understend how it works, there is only a theory of it and not one there are many theorys of black holes, just like the creation of the universe, it's just a theory, we dont really know how it was created, the same with black holes.
So at this time scientists dont offer anything acurate100% about black holes, it's just theorys.
What would be the best would be to wait until better tecnology is present, when some factors may link black wholes to new discoveries made my man kind, I think there is just too big of a risk, we are not ready, the outcome can be a disaster.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
However, being of the human race I'm sure some scientific researchers are not immune to making incalcuable mistakes and errors.

I agree, researchers make mistakes and errors all the time.




Alot of them are more interested in their goals and research, than the risks and moral concerns their work may arise for everyone else.

I think that statement is an overly broad generalization, and that it is not based upon any factual data. Many scientists have written at great length about their views on ethics, morals and science. Probably the most fascinating moral dilemma of modern times is the one which you bring up, the atomic bomb. More specifically, The Manhattan Project.

The following are links to articles that address the moral concerns of the Manhattan Project's scientists:
PBS: A Science Oddyssey - The Manhattan Project
Teller on Teller
Lawrence and the Bomb
The Nuclear Age - Einstein

The following site has a lot of information:
Atomic Bomb: Decision
Atomic Bomb:The Franck Report
Atomic Bomb:Scientific Panel
Atomic Bomb:The Szilard Petition

I think you'll see that scientists were very much concerned about the moral implications of using the atom bomb in an attack against Japan, and of the later repercussions.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Oh well,

If they succeed we won't know what hit us as we evaporate into nothing. So why worry?

Peace,
- Naz (One day I'm gonna use my real name silly myspace habits)



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Everyone that is posting on this thread has conveniently ignred what I and one other poster have said. That the collisions which occur inside the LHC happen all the time on earth and in space. All the LHC is doing is performing the collisions in a controlled environment where they can be observed.

If the collisions were going to form a civilisation destroying black hole it would have happened already.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Everyone that is posting on this thread has conveniently ignred what I and one other poster have said. That the collisions which occur inside the LHC happen all the time on earth and in space. All the LHC is doing is performing the collisions in a controlled environment where they can be observed.


I pointed that out too. But people would rather worry than learn.

No biggy though. Not like the LHC will shut down.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join