Fight to save Earth from tiny black hole, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 2-4-2008 @ 08:51 PM by Sublime620
Even if Hawkings is Wrong
"Still, let's assume that even if Hawking is a genius, he's wrong, and that such black holes are more stable," Landsberg said. Nearly all of the black holes will be traveling fast enough from the accelerator to escape Earth's gravity. "Even if you produced 10 million black holes a year, only 10 would basically get trapped, orbiting around its center," Landsberg said.

However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.

At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."


As I remember it, the Hawkings effect has been observed, just not proven. They have seen energy emitting from tiny black holes, they just having proven why or how.

That's what I remember, but I could be wrong.


reply posted on 2-4-2008 @ 09:17 PM by InterestedObserver
reply to post by Sublime620



That's more comforting, but about the Hawking Radiation being observed: it was only observed in computer models I believe.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 07:06 AM by LDragonFire
reply to post by antar



heh heh heh you said abreast...

ok anyway here is what we are talking about:


And some one mentioned aliens intervening in case of potential disaster.

I do find it interesting is is so far behind it's intended start up date. I believe is was meant to go online in 05 or 06.

In response to a serious shortfall in its budget that came to light last year, CERN looks set to delay the start-up of its Large Hadron Collider (LHC) by twelve months. The measure is part of a new long-term plan published by the lab’s management, which proposes the transfer of SFr500m – about £210m – from other areas of CERN’s budget to pay for the collider. According to the plan, the LHC would not collide its first protons until April 2007.
CERN delays collider start-up


The above article is from Mar 27, 2002

And some more information about the people involved:
Wagner, who studied physics and conducted cosmic ray research at the University of California-Berkeley, claims a restraining order on Fermilab and the Energy Department, which helps supply the accelerator's superconducting magnets, would shut down CERN's Large Hadron Collider, the newspaper said. He said CERN hasn't properly addressed concerns that the research conducted at the collider might create a miniature black hole or some other form of matter that might destroy the Earth, the newspaper said.

The LHC, which has been operated by CERN since 1994, aims to create as near as possible conditions which existed in the Universe a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang when particles collided at great speed, thus giving physicists an insight into the Universe's origins. "Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature," reports the New York Times. The 27-kilometre accelerator built to conduct this experiment on the France-Switzerland border will commence its latest experiments in particle smashing in May
Injunction sought against Large Hadron Collider


So if I'm correct it's supposed to go online next month?


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 07:39 AM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by RabbitChaser



Dead Link.

Can you highlight the key points for us here?


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 08:11 AM by Maxmars
It's not the astronomically low chance that bothers' me, Its the result.

If you were to say there's an astronomically low chance it will empty your bank account, that's one thing. If you say the chance is your right leg will be shorter than your left, that's another.

But the stakes on the theoretical table (the premise we seem to all be accepting here) are 'total' annihilation. Hmmm, high stakes no? So tell me, considering the potential loss, who has the right to say no one other than our illustrious and esteemed scientists should have a say in whether this particular experiment should proceed?

If I were you next door neighbor, and you knew I was tinkering with something that could destroy not only my home, but yours as well, is it unreasonable to demand an opportunity to 'stay' the 'experiment?'

I don't care to discover just how 'experimental' their experiments are. I'm sure you must all be aware of the problem; it's not what we know, it's what we DON'T know that troubles us here. Now, I'm not one for the suppression of science, frankly, physics, for me, is like baseball for some - I'm an aficionado of the field.

But I must say, NOTHING, including what we see as the 'potential for discovery', should override a person's right to demand satisfaction that their safety and well-being are not being cast aside as inconsequential or 'acceptable' risk.

After all, if a catastrophe is precipitated by this bold experiment (even if the result is not total annihilation) what are the scientist going to say to those subject to the devastation? "Oops! Sorry, science and all that, you know?"


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 08:20 AM by alphabetaone
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



This may be what he was referencing:


The research of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and the physicist Kip Thorne has shown that time travel is theoretically possible, but no-one has yet found a way to produce the energy necessary to keep a "wormhole" open.



Telegraph Article Source for Above

The 2 would tie in nicely together...To achieve time travel, one would need an incredible amount of energy. So much so, to maintain an open wormhole.

A particle collider/accelerator seems it would do the trick.

Just my $.02



AB1


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 08:26 AM by dramafreak
en.wikipedia.org...
The collider tunnel contains two pipes enclosed within superconducting magnets cooled by liquid helium, each pipe containing a proton beam.

Could someone explain please how exactly it works? Is a particle inside the tunnel held by the magnets so it stays in the centre of the 'tube' and doesn't come in contact with the walls?



If so, then if a black hole is created how can it get out of control if it is held safely by the superconducting magnets?

Excuse my ignorance.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 08:50 AM by Maxmars
Originally posted by dramafreak
en.wikipedia.org...
The collider tunnel contains two pipes enclosed within superconducting magnets cooled by liquid helium, each pipe containing a proton beam.

Could someone explain please how exactly it works? Is a particle inside the tunnel held by the magnets so it stays in the centre of the 'tube' and doesn't come in contact with the walls?



If so, then if a black hole is created how can it get out of control if it is held safely by the superconducting magnets?

Excuse my ignorance.


You are not ignorant at all. The question is very appropriate. If we assume that using magnetic repulsion and attraction you can create a sort of invisible magnetic tube within the collider, the particle trapped in this tube will never be able to slide or float towards the physical 'wall' or surface of the collider's tube.

Of course, that is assuming that the 'particle' in question does not change it's magnetic character through its 'lifetime' (i.e. it's stable) if it should change (become more or less positive or negatively charged) over time the magnetic tube would have to be adjusted accordingly to keep it 'centered'.

Of course, scientists are 'confident' that they can control the particle, once created. The only minor concerns being, if they are wrong, if something fails in the system, if they are not aware of the actual changes that might happen to a particle, if the particle isn't actually stable as they predict..., then we all die. Oh well.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Maxmars]


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:18 AM by jbondo
reply to post by RabbitChaser



I just started a thread on that subject. I can only search so much I guess but I should have known someone would mention it.

Anyway, IMO a large majority of scientists would not only risk their own lives to prove theory but I'm sure they have no problem risking all of our lives and the planet as well.

Remember, theory is just another term meaning "educated guess".
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^