NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm trying to find out about an experiment that they're doing in I believe France, but I can't remember much about it, I figured someone here would probably remember:

If I remember correctly, they're testing a theorem on states of energy or somesuch. Honestly, the only real thing I remember is that if the theorem is wrong, it would create a black hole. Anyone remember what they're trying to do or at least can give me a rundown?

I believe you're looking for the Large Hadron Collider.

Of course, the truth is, the Earth has been hit with cosmic rays tens of millions of times more powerful than the LHC's capacity for the past 4.7 billion years and absolutely nothing has happened. Either that, or Hawking radiation caused these effects to dissipate almost instantly and no negative effects occurred anyways.

So, don't lose sleep over it. ;)

I believe you're looking for the Large Hadron Collider.

Of course, the truth is, the Earth has been hit with cosmic rays tens of millions of times more powerful than the LHC's capacity for the past 4.7 billion years and absolutely nothing has happened. Either that, or Hawking radiation caused these effects to dissipate almost instantly and no negative effects occurred anyways.

So, don't lose sleep over it. ;)

Yep. Microblackholes below a certain Schwarzchild radius would dissipate all of its energy in Hawking radiation before it could have any adverse effects.

And Tel, this is what you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

More specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Safety_concerns

Haven't physicists already made micro black holes already anyways?

Haven't physicists already made mirco black holes already anyways?

Heeeell no.

This is so cool, I had no idea. Nice post Telesha.
Check this out http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/universe/
it really does matter, there's no stopping it.

Heeeell no.

Hmm. Could have sworn they had.

Getting reality confused with science fiction? We offer a variety of treatements, in the form of either a blue or a red pill!

:D

Hmm. Could have sworn they had.

Getting reality confused with science fiction? We offer a variety of treatements, in the form of either a blue or a red pill!

:D

Take the blue pill! You don't want to know what's out there! Umm...I mean there's nothing out there! Redpills are druggies and the red pill are drugs that they're pushing!

Don't listen to him! Take the red pill! Bluepills are the real druggies!

Dang, seems I was way off. Thanks for the reading material, my searches were coming up nil.

Always a pleasure. Physics is fascinating, but it's often too easy to mix up science fiction with reality.

Take the blue pill! You don't want to know what's out there! Umm...I mean there's nothing out there! Redpills are druggies and the red pill are drugs that they're pushing!

Don't listen to him! Take the red pill! Bluepills are the real druggies!

Dang, seems I was way off. Thanks for the reading material, my searches were coming up nil.

Always a pleasure. Physics is fascinating, but it's often too easy to mix up science fiction with reality.

When I read that, my mind flashed to an episode of Stargate: Atlantis.

Carter: "And if you're wrong?"
Mckay: *mumbling* "It could create a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the Universe as we know it..."

If I'm reading it right, even if said black hole were created, it would collapse instantly due to Hawking radiation, assuming such radiation exists. That's where I get lost, trying to read up on Hawking radiation.

When I read that, my mind flashed to an episode of Stargate: Atlantis.

Carter: "And if you're wrong?"
Mckay: *mumbling* "It could create a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the Universe as we know it..."

If I'm reading it right, even if said black hole were created, it would collapse instantly due to Hawking radiation, assuming such radiation exists. That's where I get lost, trying to read up on Hawking radiation.

It's fairly math intensive, but essentially Hawking showed theoretically that black holes will radiate thermal energy as if they were ideal black bodies whose temperatures (which directly relates to the energy output. Energy output is proportional to temperature ^ 4, I think multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant [again, I haven't taken Thermo in about half a year. I'm a bit sketchy on the details]) are inversely proportional to the black hole's mass. In other words, the bigger the black hole, the cooler it can be treated as being, and the less energy it radiates. The smaller it is, the hotter it is, and the more energy it radiates.

Hmm. Could have sworn they had.
:D
Eutrusca (Forrest) was involved with a thread that i think you're referencing, about something underwater.
That thread occurred a year or two ago - i remember it since i, of course, was also following this particular topic.
Maybe i'll have luck digging it up.

Related article: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199

Related article: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199

Is "evaporation" (per: caption) really the word they want to use here? :p

Is "evaporation" (per: caption) really the word they want to use here? :p

It's the correct term. It radiates all of its energy away and dissipates.

It's the correct term. It radiates all of its energy away and dissipates.

Erm ...
Evaporation is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state.

The process by which a liquid changes into a gas.

The phase change of liquid water into water vapor.

This actually goes on quite a while.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:evaporation&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

So are you saying that radiation turns from the state it was in into gasses and dissipates as such?

Yes, I'm aware of the definition of evaporation. Thanks.

I'll look around for WHY it's called evaporation, but it is the accepted scientific term for it.

I was reading up on this just the other day and was thinking that, given the context, they might as well coin their own. :)

I was reading up on this just the other day and was thinking that, given the context, they might as well coin their own. :)

It makes some sense, since the black hole is essentially vaporizing.

It makes some sense, since the black hole is essentially vaporizing.

Moreover, when the temperature of the black hole is higher than the mass of a particle, the particle must be emitted during evaporation in proportion to its number of internal degrees of freedom.

whereas:

Actually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.

-and-

The one that escapes carries energy away from the black hole and may be detected by some observer far away. To that observer, it will look like the black hole has just emitted a particle. This process happens repeatedly, and the observer sees a continuous stream of radiation from the black hole.

and on the other end ...

An important difference between the black hole radiation as computed by Hawking and a thermal radiation emitted from a black body is that the latter is statistical in nature, and only its average satisfies what is known as Planck's law of black body radiation, while the former satisfies this law exactly. Thus thermal radiation contains information about the body that emitted it, while Hawking radiation seems to contain no such information, and depends only on the mass, angular momentum and charge of the black hole. This leads to the Black hole information paradox.

However, according to the conjectured gauge-gravity duality (also known as the AdS/CFT correspondence), black holes in certain cases (and perhaps in general) are equivalent to solutions of quantum field theory at a non-zero temperature. This means that no information loss is expected in black holes (since no such loss exists in the quantum field theory), and the radiation emitted by a black hole is probably a usual thermal radiation. If this is correct, then Hawking's original computation should be corrected, though it is not known how (see below).
Hmmm. So my question earlier ....
So are you saying that radiation turns from the state it was in into gasses and dissipates as such?
As you'd said, you'd look for a reason, but i think my question is making a little more sense now. :)

Eutrusca (Forrest) was involved with a thread that i think you're referencing, about something underwater.
That thread occurred a year or two ago - i remember it since i, of course, was also following this particular topic.
Maybe i'll have luck digging it up.

… … … yeah… that's what I was talking about… totally…

:p

… … … yeah… that's what I was talking about… totally…

:p

Forrest wasn't wont for most hardcore physics threads, but he did well with that one. I think Smunkee knew about it too.

Hehe, sorry Brev. I may be a physics major, but I'm not well versed enough on this branch to really say. On a related note, I've had a little too much too drink.

Hehe, sorry Brev. I may be a physics major, but I'm not well versed enough on this branch to really say. On a related note, I've had a little too much too drink.

Have some more!
But not too much.

Hehe, sorry Brev. I may be a physics major, but I'm not well versed enough on this branch to really say. On a related note, I've had a little too much too drink.

No apologies, mon capitan. *bows*
You're one of the better posters 'round here.
'sides, i've been loving physics a long LONG time, and like any other real physics fan, there's some really fucking irritating questions that you have to wait to get answered :p

I don't want to 'jack the thread, but i was reading about this fella in South America who had an interesting idea about the "constant" and a few mitigating circumstances involving it ... as in, the constant wasn't always as such.

Have some more!
But not too much.

That's what got me into this mess! :)

I believe you're looking for the Large Hadron Collider.

Of course, the truth is, the Earth has been hit with cosmic rays tens of millions of times more powerful than the LHC's capacity for the past 4.7 billion years and absolutely nothing has happened. Either that, or Hawking radiation caused these effects to dissipate almost instantly and no negative effects occurred anyways.

So, don't lose sleep over it. ;)

I think we should find this Hawking fellow and give him a Nobel Prize! LMAO:D

Have some more!
But not too much.

Seconded. :)

Here's fun with it ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718614.200-the-quest-for-the-cosmological-constant-einstein-called-itthe-biggest-blunder-of-his-life-but-modern-astronomers-may-need-thecosmological-constant-to-save-the-big-bang.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-4GCWXVH-6&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F14%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b313cd9975161d57e4803fe670acabf2


OOOH! I think this is the idea, if it isn't the fella .... :
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p14s03-bogn.html
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/physics/magueijo.htm

That one's more useful .....

There's also audio ...:
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3195


Also got one more idea worth posting, next post.

No apologies, mon capitan. *bows*
You're one of the better posters 'round here.
'sides, i've been loving physics a long LONG time, and like any other real physics fan, there's some really fucking irritating questions that you have to wait to get answered :p

I don't want to 'jack the thread, but i was reading about this fella in South America who had an interesting idea about the "constant" and a few mitigating circumstances involving it ... as in, the constant wasn't always as such.

You mean the cosmological constant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Constant

I think we should find this Hawking fellow and give him a Nobel Prize! LMAO:D

Spit into my mouth. :p

Seriously though, it's worth noting differences between "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe In A Nutshell" about his views on "time travel".

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html

Spit into my mouth. :p

Seriously though, it's worth noting differences between "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe In A Nutshell" about his views on "time travel".

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html

I always found The Elegant Universe to be a much more interesting book on Physics.

I always found The Elegant Universe to be a much more interesting book on Physics.

I have it. I was disappointed when Greene got on PBS and basically castrated his own book.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/2009000/2009540.widec.jpg&imgrefurl=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077351/&h=340&w=250&sz=16&hl=en&start=0&um=1&tbnid=2FbEcy19g5SxzM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3DThe%2BElegant%2BUniverse%2BPBS%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

*grrr*
I haven't, however, read his follow-up. Have you? I'm not sure i want to wade through so much of the anecdote before getting to M or Brane references. His sequence on Calabi-Yau shapes was interesting, and i spent a while "bending" my mind around them.
:p
http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~mbw/astro18200/calabi-yau-space-small.jpg

Branes are a fun subject, but I haven't gotten that far (still reading The Elegant Universe).

I just wish he wasn't so bad at explaining the more complex math.

Edit: Ok, not BAD, per se. Just wish he did it a better fashion.

Branes are a fun subject, but I haven't gotten that far (still reading The Elegant Universe).

I just wish he wasn't so bad at explaining the more complex math.


Edit: Ok, not BAD, per se. Just wish he did it a better fashion.
Agreed. What do you think of Michio Kaku? He has some interesting insights on a few things ... although he'd said one thing i took relatively strong issue with, but my memory sucks and i don't remember what it was.

Agreed. What do you think of Michio Kaku? He has some interesting insights on a few things ... although he'd said one thing i took relatively strong issue with, but my memory sucks and i don't remember what it was.

I'm reading Hyperspace right now, actually. (not right this second, but I checked it out from the library a few days ago)

I'm reading Hyperspace right now, actually. (not right this second, but I checked it out from the library a few days ago)

Ah - any tasty bits so far? I'm reasonably sure i haven't read that one.

Ah - any tasty bits so far? I'm reasonably sure i haven't read that one.

I don't really enjoy his writing style. It's a lot of fluff padding a lot of good science, and I'd rather do without the fluff.

This thread made me think...if the new experiments were successful and they found that missing particle that makes matter have mass (or whatever it was), would that be mentioned in the news?

I mean, it would be a huge discovery and more or less prove the validity of the standard model. I would think that should make headlines, but do you think it will?

*snip*


Oy, take a metaphor for a moment, buddy. :p

This thread made me think...if the new experiments were successful and they found that missing particle that makes matter have mass (or whatever it was), would that be mentioned in the news?

I mean, it would be a huge discovery and more or less prove the validity of the standard model. I would think that should make headlines, but do you think it will?

Depends on whether or not something happens to Paris Hilton et al. at the same time.

This thread made me think...if the new experiments were successful and they found that missing particle that makes matter have mass (or whatever it was), would that be mentioned in the news?

I mean, it would be a huge discovery and more or less prove the validity of the standard model. I would think that should make headlines, but do you think it will?

Doubt it. It should be front page news, and everyone in the scientific community would probably be talking about it for months, but I doubt it'd make headlines.

Black Holes, eh?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BlackHole.gif

Black Holes, eh?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BlackHole.gif

That is the ... slowest ... smilie I've seen yet.

No, if you've got one for Wagner's The Ring Cycle I DON'T want to see it. Thanks.

Stupid large hadron collider! I hope the project fails.

Stupid large hadron collider! I hope the project fails.

Aside from being a Neo-Luddite, any reason? Or do you just not like things that require intelligence.

Aside from being a Neo-Luddite, any reason? Or do you just not like things that require intelligence.

Haha, so funny!

I don't think risking the planet is worth any amount of scientific gain.

Haha, so funny!

I don't think risking the planet is worth any amount of scientific gain.

:rolleyes: riiiiiight. Next you'll say the Manhattan Project was a bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Safety_concerns

Read.

Perhaps you'll learn something that'll elevate you out of your complete ignorance. Perhaps you won't.

:rolleyes: riiiiiight. Next you'll say the Manhattan Project was a bad idea.

Yup. It was. Nuclear weapons are one of man's worst moments.

Oh, and I've read about the LHC before, and it seems like people are banking on the idea that Hawking Radiation will stop a black hole from forming. Sounds good, but Hawking Radiation is just a theory that not all scientists agree with.

It seems like a big risk for an insignificant gain. Who, outside the scientific community, even care how particles work? In short I view the entire project as a waste of time.

Yup. It was. Nuclear weapons are one of man's worst moments.

Oh, and I've read about the LHC before, and it seems like people are banking on the idea that Hawking Radiation will stop a black hole from forming. Sounds good, but Hawking Radiation is just a theory that not all scientists agree with.

It seems like a big risk for an insignificant gain. Who, outside the scientific community, even care how particles work? In short I view the entire project as a waste of time.

Your third sentence makes no sense. "Nuclear weapons are one of man's worst moments." This sounds like that trite "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms," hippie bullshit all over again.

Also, you've just now shown no understanding of the science you're attempting to talk about.

It won't "stop a black hole from forming." It's a well-founded scientific hypothesis that, if true (which seems likely) would cause a newly formed micro-black hole to evaporate before it could do any harm.

And the gain is hardly insignificant. If the Higgs Boson is created by the experiments done by the LHC, it would provide with information that could fill important gaps in our understanding of the Standard Model.

Your third sentence makes no sense. "Nuclear weapons are one of man's worst moments." This sounds like that trite "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms," hippie bullshit all over again.

Also, you've just now shown no understanding of the science you're attempting to talk about.

It won't "stop a black hole from forming." It's a well-founded scientific hypothesis that, if true (which seems likely) would cause a newly formed micro-black hole to evaporate before it could do any harm.

And the gain is hardly insignificant. If the Higgs Boson is created by the experiments done by the LHC, it would provide with information that could fill important gaps in our understanding of the Standard Model.


Well, you're right about my grammar. I meant to write 'the age of nuclear weapons', or 'the discovery of nuclear weapons...', but I made a typo.

Don't you think risking the earth on a 'likely' hypotheses seems a bit...arrogant? wrong? It just feels wrong to me.

Oh yes, we must always know know know! We must know everything! Knowledge is great, but knowledge of this sort is useless. Knowledge of the world however, of the animals, the plants, the people, the rivers, the mountains, etc, that is useful. Knowledge of particles? Bah! Its useful for making unnecessary things, then by default, is useless!

Well, you're right about my grammar. I meant to write 'the age of nuclear weapons', or 'the discovery of nuclear weapons...', but I made a typo.

Don't you think risking the earth on a 'likely' hypotheses seems a bit...arrogant? wrong? It just feels wrong to me.

Oh yes, we must always know know know! We must know everything! Knowledge is great, but knowledge of this sort is useless. Knowledge of the world however, of the animals, the plants, the people, the rivers, the mountains, etc, that is useful. Knowledge of particles? Bah! Its useful for making unnecessary things, then by default, is useless!

Yes, we must. If you're really going to decry scientific advancement, I have to wonder what you're doing typing on a computer.
The urge to know has led to the development of most of the technology you take for granted today.
But hey, why not go down your road of reasoning. "Knowledge of particles"? Electrons are particles, hotshot. So stop using anything electrical. Go, do it. Unless of course you're a hypocrite knee-jerking at an issue you know jack diddly shit about.

I don't think risking the planet is worth any amount of scientific gain.

Despite the fact that the Earth has been bombarded by natural cosmic rays millions of times more powerful for the past 4.7 billion years with nothing happening?

Despite the fact that the Earth has been bombarded by natural cosmic rays millions of times more powerful for the past 4.7 billion years with nothing happening?

Shhh, shhh, all that "reason" and "intelligence" gets in the way of good ol' fashion ignorance and paranoia.

Even if micro-black holes are created, even if Hawking evaporation turns out to be wrong, even if for some bizarre reason the hadron collider makes black holes when eons of more powerful cosmic rays have not ... a micro black-hole would pose almost no risk to the Earth.

The worst case scenario I can imagine is that the hole is created in a perfect orbit at ground level, and whizzes around for a while cutting individual atoms out of the biosphere. Far more likely is that it would fall into an orbit within the earth's core where I'm guessing (real physicist could tell us) that tidal forces would degrade it's orbit until it fell into the center ... where it would sit doing essentially nothing for a long long time before we had any trouble.

There may even be a tiny black hole there already.

So Trollgaard, you should find something else to worry about. Did you know that old clocks and watches have actual jewels inside? They were used as a long-wearing bearing for the cogwheels ... so if it says on an old mechanical timepiece "17 jewels" there is a very real chance that a minature troll may be inside already, trying to steal the jewels. You might want to check that.

This thread made me think...if the new experiments were successful and they found that missing particle that makes matter have mass (or whatever it was), would that be mentioned in the news?

I mean, it would be a huge discovery and more or less prove the validity of the standard model. I would think that should make headlines, but do you think it will?

Yes.

Whether or not some politically-inclined idiots will attempt to malign and misrepresent the data and results right off the bat, though, is the question.

Oy, take a metaphor for a moment, buddy. :p

Spock ... about those "colorful metaphors" ...

Seriously, i ain't much of a metaphor cat. I'm more into anecdotes. :p

That is the ... slowest ... smilie I've seen yet.

No, if you've got one for Wagner's The Ring Cycle I DON'T want to see it. Thanks.

Nah, just a huge collection of Goatse smilies.

Nah, just a huge collection of Goatse smilies.

If you're looking for micro black holes, that's a good place to start...

Despite the fact that the Earth has been bombarded by natural cosmic rays millions of times more powerful for the past 4.7 billion years with nothing happening?

Other than, possibly, Tunguska.

BTW - when they decided with the goahead for the first nuclear detonation, there was a reasonable suspicion that the yield could sustain itself far more than it did, which obviously if it did would mean things would be significantly different here today.
They didn't know but they did it anyway.

As it were, they weren't even sure of the radiological yield and perhaps retrievable material.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/trinity.htm
The actual result as it was finally calculated -- 21,000 tons (21 kilotons) -- was more than twice what Fermi had estimated with this experiment and four times as much as had been predicted by most at Los Alamos.

EDIT: Most famously, Oppenheimer later recalled that the explosion had reminded him of a line from the Hindu holy text, the Bhagavad-Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Good quote, good book.

If you're looking for micro black holes, that's a good place to start...

...and end!!
Wahahahaha!!!!

Choke on that metaphor, Dina! :p

Other than, possibly, Tunguska.

BTW - when they decided with the goahead for the first nuclear detonation, there was a reasonable suspicion that the yield could sustain itself far more than it did, which obviously if it did would mean things would be significantly different here today.
They didn't know but they did it anyway.

Bah. Tunguska was a comet.

I've heard three different explanations of what Tunguska was, from three different books. I find the belief that it was a possible micro-black hole about as plausible as the belief that it was an alien ship.

Bah. Tunguska was a comet.
Inconclusive.

I've heard three different explanations of what Tunguska was, from three different books. I find the belief that it was a possible micro-black hole about as plausible as the belief that it was an alien ship.You know, of course, that it's not a hinderance of your case but more a bolster to consider it, especially since it's still not really concluded about that instance yet, eh? ;)

Hey, when you physicists are done explaining the existence of the internet (heheh CERN) could you give me an opinion on the threat posed to the earth by a micro black hole? If such a thing could endure, of course.

I'd heard (before Hawking) that black holes up to a few kilos essentially wouldn't affect ordinary matter ... not enough gravitation. It doesn't sound right now (that would be a lot of gravitation at atomic distances?) so was that just some bullshit I heard years ago?

Hey, when you physicists are done explaining the existence of the internet (heheh CERN) could you give me an opinion on the threat posed to the earth by a micro black hole? If such a thing could endure, of course.Aren't there already some links here? :confused:


I'd heard (before Hawking) that black holes up to a few kilos essentially wouldn't affect ordinary matter ... not enough gravitation. It doesn't sound right now (that would be a lot of gravitation at atomic distances?) so was that just some bullshit I heard years ago?
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/black_holes.html
On the other hand, a black hole exerts the same force on something far away from it as any other object of the same mass would. For example, if our Sun was magically crushed until it was about 1 mile in size, it would become a black hole, but the Earth would remain in its same orbit.

Something like that?

EDIT: Or this?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

Radius for Black Hole of a Given Mass
Object Mass Black Hole Radius
Earth 5.98 x 1027 g 0.9 cm
Sun 1.989 x 1033 g 2.9 km
5 Solar Mass Star 9.945 x 1033 g 15 km
Galactic Core 109 Solar Masses 3 x 109 km

Other than, possibly, Tunguska.


Possible. At the very least, however, it's comforting to know that a micro black hole would only cause that much damage as opposed to, well, destroying the Earth or something like that.

Of course, if it happened in New York City...

Possible. At the very least, however, it's comforting to know that a micro black hole would only cause that much damage as opposed to, well, destroying the Earth or something like that.

Of course, if it happened in New York City...Well, if Deus Malum is right, wasn't that a Tea Leoni and Morgan Freeman movie or something?
;)

Well, if Deus Malum is right, wasn't that a Tea Leoni and Morgan Freeman movie or something?
;)

Right about what, it being a comet?

Right about what, it being a comet?

Yup. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/

...and end!!
Wahahahaha!!!!

Choke on that metaphor, Dina! :p

:p

:p

Or, at the VERY least, gag. :p

Yup. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/

Heh. Whatever it was that hit Tunguska wasn't big enough to cause that kinda damage. Not on that wide-spread level at least.

Heh. Whatever it was that hit Tunguska wasn't big enough to cause that kinda damage. Not on that wide-spread level at least.
We've probably read the same sources on that one. :)
It's just the first thing that popped to mind.

We've probably read the same sources on that one. :)
It's just the first thing that popped to mind.

Heh, all good.

...

Wait a second...how could Tunguska NOT have been a comet/asteroid?

...

Wait a second...how could Tunguska NOT have been a comet/asteroid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Speculative_hypotheses

...

Wait a second...how could Tunguska NOT have been a comet/asteroid?

Well, that's just so booring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Speculative_hypotheses

Oooh.

I like the natural H-Bomb explanation.

So what is most commonly accepted, and which do you guys prefer, and why?

Aren't there already some links here? :confused:

There's heaps. I can't say I've read them all, but there seems to be two recurring themes: Hawking evaporation means their lifetimes would be very short. AND this can't happen because it would have happened already from cosmic radiation hitting the earth.

What I'm curious about is IF (a) Hawking is wrong and evaporation doesn't happen, and (b) the large hidden dimensions are there, allowing a black hole at the low energies of the LHC, and (c) there are some special circumstances in the LHC which cannot apply to random collisions of high energy cosmic rays ... IF in other words the impossible happened and a black hole of mass equivalent to 14 TeV (optimum collision in the LHC) was created ... would it pose a threat to the earth even so ?

That's a very tiny black hole. Google assures me that 14 TeV is about 2.5 x 10^-20 grams.
Imagine that tiny weight squeezed inside an event horizon ... I'm guessing that even if the hole had a charge, the chance of an electron finding itself inside that event horizon and therefore trapped is going to be ... ouch, brain-numbingly small.

So I'm imagining it spending a long long time in a degrading orbit inside the earth, going right through the solid matter there. Or would it behave like a particle among other particles?

Or is there simply no known answer? A quantum gravity problem?


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/black_holes.html

Something like that?

EDIT: Or this?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

Nope. Those all deal with far bigger black holes.

There's heaps. I can't say I've read them all, but there seems to be two recurring themes: Hawking evaporation means their lifetimes would be very short. AND this can't happen because it would have happened already from cosmic radiation hitting the earth.

What I'm curious about is IF (a) Hawking is wrong and evaporation doesn't happen, and (b) the large hidden dimensions are there, allowing a black hole at the low energies of the LHC, and (c) there are some special circumstances in the LHC which cannot apply to random collisions of high energy cosmic rays ... IF in other words the impossible happened and a black hole of mass equivalent to 14 TeV (optimum collision in the LHC) was created ... would it pose a threat to the earth even so ?

That's a very tiny black hole. Google assures me that 14 TeV is about 2.5 x 10^-20 grams.
Imagine that tiny weight squeezed inside an event horizon ... I'm guessing that even if the hole had a charge, the chance of an electron finding itself inside that event horizon and therefore trapped is going to be ... ouch, brain-numbingly small.

So I'm imagining it spending a long long time in a degrading orbit inside the earth, going right through the solid matter there. Or would it behave like a particle among other particles?

Or is there simply no known answer? A quantum gravity problem?



Nope. Those all deal with far bigger black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_black_hole

Potentially relevant. And yes, I spend entirely too much time surfing wikipedia for articles on theoretical physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_black_hole

Potentially relevant. And yes, I spend entirely too much time surfing wikipedia for articles on theoretical physics.

Actually, that's pretty interesting, for Wiki.
:)

And, i dare say, "kinetically relevant". :p

Sorry. Well, not sorry, ya gotta take the jokes you can.
Good post, and good response to a good question.
I like this thread.

A quantum gravity problem?

Scalar, perhaps.

Nope. Those all deal with far bigger black holes.
Ah, apparently i had a "problem with scope" ;)

You were talking about gravitational influence, and in a macroscopic appreciation, i guess, i cited the aspect of non-effect as Terra was concerned.

Deus Malum covered it a lot more succinctly, imnsho.

Frame-dragging in spinning black holes was making my ears tingle, but electron black holes really are going to make my head explode. Causality loops??

*wraps head in duct tape, tries again*

Using the handy formula from DM's article on electron black holes, a black hole created with the maximum power possible from the LHC would have a Schwarzchild radius of 3.7 x 10^-47 metres.

That article also suggests a maximum possible size for an electron, if such is not actually a point. It was 10^-24 m.

So these little suckers would be more than twenty orders of magnitude smaller than that.

Frame-dragging in spinning black holes was making my ears tingle, but electron black holes really are going to make my head explode. Causality loops??

*wraps head in duct tape, tries again*See, next time someone asks why you bother frequenting NS, likely even someone ON NS, you can mention this thread. *nods*

Frame-dragging in spinning black holes was making my ears tingle, but electron black holes really are going to make my head explode. Causality loops??

*wraps head in duct tape, tries again*

Using the handy formula from DM's article on electron black holes, a black hole created with the maximum power possible from the LHC would have a Schwarzchild radius of 3.7 x 10^-47 metres.

That article also suggests a maximum possible size for an electron, if such is not actually a point. It was 10^-24 m.

So these little suckers would be more than twenty orders of magnitude smaller than that.

It's fun stuff. I find it even more mind-boggling that, if the theories regarding electron black holes hold water, electrons wouldn't be defined as points, but as ridiculously small ring singularities.

I briefly confused hadrons with hadrosaurs, had an image of the large hadron collider bringing duck-billed dinosaurs together at high velocities. Still it is Friday afternoon...lucky I didn't read it as hardons...

I briefly confused hadrons with hadrosaurs, had an image of the large hadron collider bringing duck-billed dinosaurs together at high velocities. Still it is Friday afternoon...lucky I didn't read it as hardons...

You would not be the first.

I briefly confused hadrons with hadrosaurs, had an image of the large hadron collider bringing duck-billed dinosaurs together at high velocities. Still it is Friday afternoon...lucky I didn't read it as hardons...

Duck billed scientists! Dinosaurs were really a highly intelligent race destroyed when they created a giant particle collider to try and reproduce black holes.

Oooh.

I like the natural H-Bomb explanation.

So what is most commonly accepted, and which do you guys prefer, and why?

Sorry it took me so long to respond - been busy.

I don't have a preference, except that the quirk of me is interested in the less probable but more titillating versions of anything physics-related.
Kinda like how a great number of my posts are ... perverted, in a fashion. :)
The disciplined part of me says that i'll be going with whichever version has the most evidence to support the most sensible circumstance, eventually.

I briefly confused hadrons with hadrosaurs, had an image of the large hadron collider bringing duck-billed dinosaurs together at high velocities. Still it is Friday afternoon...lucky I didn't read it as hardons...

Oh f*ckin' WINNER OF THREAD.
*bows*

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

If no one has pointed it out already, this thread has been done before.

If no one has pointed it out already, this thread has been done before.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12926111&postcount=13

Yep, nobody.

Well, in that case, want to have a black hole theme party where it's more dirty, than scientific?

We did that too!!!
Of course Dinaverg was involved.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12926111&postcount=13

Yep, nobody.

Well, in that case, want to have a black hole theme party where it's more dirty, than scientific?

God damn you pricks and me not being original!

Yeah, Goatse got brought up.

Seriously, though, this is a good thread. A lot of neato ideas in it.

EDIT: Unless i miss my guess, it appears that four consecutive posts have timewarped contigo.

We did that too!!!
Of course Dinaverg was involved.

God damn you pricks and me not being original!

God damn you pricks and me not being original!

Hee. ^_^

ESP caused by French cheese that was tainted by black holiness?

We're all tainted by black holiness ... as for the cheese, though, i'm gonna go with havarti.

Or gorgonzola mixed with mashed potatoes. Mmmmm.


Yup. Maybe it's a cheese event horizon thing with you tonight. 5 for 5!

ESP caused by French cheese that was tainted by black holiness?

Eh? We've ascended to godhood now?

Yeah, Goatse got brought up.

Seriously, though, this is a good thread. A lot of neato ideas in it.

EDIT: Unless i miss my guess, it appears that four consecutive posts have timewarped contigo.

ESP caused by French cheese that was tainted by black holiness?

I probably shouldn't be so bold, but I reckon Hawking is full of shit.

I think I will probably be able to lay out my thesis in somewhat more detail tomorrow.

In fact it may turn out that the excremental backlog is actually projected from my point of view onto an incomplete visualization of the object, viz that Hawking shit, and is not in fact an inherent property of said shit, but rather an artifact introduced by the imperfectly implemented visualization process. In other words: my visualization process may be biased towards shitfulness, corresponding to my undeniable current state of shitfacedness. Until I can make a proper adjustment for imperfections in my current perception, it would be rash to describe Hawking's shit as entirely uncompromised by some degree of verisimillitude.

And basically, I'll never be completely sure until Steve and I get right-and-proper bladdered together and settle the issue with an arm-wrestle.

Eh? We've ascended to godhood now?

Oh don't be so coy. ;)

I've done a little research since i've been out, so i'm bumping this a smidge until i get on later. One of my wifes' model friends is coming to stay with us tonight.

Heehee. ^_^



*approves*

....but she doesn't look like Kari Byron. :/

Oh don't be so coy. ;)

Heehee. ^_^

One of my wifes' model friends is coming to stay with us tonight.

*approves*

Brevious unsure, models posing.

Brevious unsure, models posing.

<3 ya

Here.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVB-49H6B0H-P&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=83bf08ce1e1394b316d0ed091176f022

Not unsure, just busy. Dinaverg got the msg. :D

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000

http://www.openquestions.com/oq-co004.htm

...
More to come ... unsure ...

I probably shouldn't be so bold, but I reckon Hawking is full of shit.

I think I will probably be able to lay out my thesis in somewhat more detail tomorrow.

In fact it may turn out that the excremental backlog is actually projected from my point of view onto an incomplete visualization of the object, viz that Hawking shit, and is not in fact an inherent property of said shit, but rather an artifact introduced by the imperfectly implemented visualization process. In other words: my visualization process may be biased towards shitfulness, corresponding to my undeniable current state of shitfacedness. Until I can make a proper adjustment for imperfections in my current perception, it would be rash to describe Hawking's shit as entirely uncompromised by some degree of verisimillitude.

And basically, I'll never be completely sure until Steve and I get right-and-proper bladdered together and settle the issue with an arm-wrestle.Do you really NEED a thesis about it? :D

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/cover

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00056F3D-4B5A-1DC8-AF71809EC588EEDF

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/19/black.hole.wind/index.html

And just a smidge more?

Great. Now my company is forcing me to watch Alanis Morissette's "My Humps".
So I'm a little distracted.


http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/ScientificAmerican/Cosmic_Conundrum2.pdf

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004567B-11FB-1EDD-8E1C809EC588EF21&pageNumber=5&catID=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Caldwell%20RR%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Some of these links provide more than others. But you know what to do, you know when to do it.

And finally, on the utter topic:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/black-holes-made-here

Brev:
I wred the last link. The others will have to wait a while, but thanks!

Brev:
I wred the last link. The others will have to wait a while, but thanks!

No prob. This is a fun thread.
:)

I saw something else in my passing that may be of interest ...
http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/talks/03_DOE_talk.pdf

http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/talks/bh_phase.pdf

...and still with Hsu ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608175
Spacetime topology change and black hole information
Stephen D.H. Hsu
5 pages, 5 figures

"Topology change -- the creation of a disconnected baby universe -- due to black hole collapse may resolve the information loss paradox. Evolution from an early time Cauchy surface to a final surface which includes a slice of the disconnected region can be unitary and consistent with conventional quantum mechanics. We discuss the issue of cluster decomposition, showing that any violations thereof are likely to be unobservably small. Topology change is similar to the black hole remnant scenario and only requires assumptions about the behavior of quantum gravity in planckian regimes. It does not require non-locality or any modification of low-energy physics."

Steve Hsu has 80 papers on arxiv, several co-authored with Tony Zee, or Brian Murray, or Roman Buniy
a smart and original thinker.
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/.../0/1/0/all/0/1

"We have proposed a solution of the black hole information paradox which depends entirely on details of planckian physics — no modifications of low-energy physics, such as non-locality, are required. The main assumptions are that the endpoint of interior black hole evolution is topology change and that the quantum gravitational dynamics of pinching off are strongly coupled. Thus, small perturbations to the initial state of a black hole lead to different internal state vectors describing the resulting baby universe, even if the semiclassical properties are only slightly changed. Under this assumption, any violation of cluster decomposition will be practically unobservable.

If our scenario is correct, there is no violation of causality or locality at the semiclassical black hole horizon, and no stable planck mass remnant of black hole evaporation. Instead, much as Hawking first proposed, information is lost: to a baby universe, from which it may or may not someday emerge via tunneling. If the information emerges again, evolution within the parent universe is unitary. If information remains in the baby universe, the parent universe appears to evolve from a pure to mixed state, but the evolution of parent and baby together is unitary. There are no dire consequences, such as energy non-conservation."

This resolution of the BH info puzzle is not unfamiliar to LQG researchers, but it is hopeful and refreshing to see it surface like this in a different context---Hsu has been talking to people like Giddings and Strominger, rather than Martin Bojowald, for example.

and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227105134.htm
-
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407090
Actually, i remember this when it came up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/hawking_prog_summary.shtml