Mankind is Doomed (maybe)
Created on: September 18th, 2006
http://techfreep.com/worlds-largest-supercollider-could-destroy-the-universe.htm
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.98) | 391 | 17 | 199 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13,270 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 49 | https://www.bing.com |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 2 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 1 | https://google.com |
| 1 | http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ytmnd+abo |
Well, man kind is doomed one way or another, why not with a bang, or anti-bang as an implosion may be. It's like something you'd read in a Sci-Fi novel, like what happened to Earth in Dan Simmon's Hyperion. Would they bother to do it if their equations aren't exact and *could* create a blackhole that would doom this planet?
Um, no. There's a phenomenon called "Hawking Radiation" where a black hole actually emits a small amount of energy; the larger the black hole, the less energy is emitted. (yeah, I know it doesn't make sense. Check Wikipedia.) Because these black holes are miniscule, the amount of energy they emit will be huge, so they would essentially evaporate before you could say "NEDM." We'll be okay.
Since most standing black holes are created by supergiants collapsing in on themselves, it's quite unlikely that 2 atoms are going to create a sustainable black hole. Creating a sustainable black hole means that the rate of change of gravitational force outweighs the rate of change of repulsion between protons crammed together over a period of time. HIGHLY UNLIKELY in such a small accelerator. Their experiment might break the machine though, which would suck for the scientists.
"Creating a sustainable black hole means that the
rate of change of gravitational force outweighs the rate of change of
repulsion between protons crammed together over a period of time. HIGHLY
UNLIKELY in such a small accelerator. "
Unless there are more than three dimensions, which is kind of what the experiment is about.
People should note that "black hole" merely means that there is a force great enough to pull back in light that would otherwise escape. It does not mean that it lasts for any period of time or that it has anywhere near the potential to pull in more atoms or stay in the attractive state and overpower the natural repulsion.
"Unless there are more than three dimensions, which is
kind of what the experiment is about." If there are more than three dimensions, there are more than three dimensions before the experiment as well. As we only see sustainable black holes in supergiant suns under the condition of collapse, it doesn't seem likely that, whatever the other dimensions are, they would have enough energy in such a small environment to be the first sustainable black hole to be formed from a handfull of atoms on a small planet. Whatever the extra dimensions are, their forces are likely much stronger in a supergiant than they are in a small experiment. And, if not, this experiment is going to happen eventually... science isn't going to wait forever...
Particles are accelerated to even higher energies than this in cosmic events, considering the universe hasn't been destroyed by now due to one I'd be amazed to see it being destroyed by this. For that very little time I would have to be amazed, that is. Also, I'd like to see the collider that can create a black hole so massive that it actually has time to engulf anything that you could actually see before it evaporates.
"A physicist recently speculated that the SETI paradox could be explained if
budding technological civilizations tended to blow themselves up while
attempting to determine the mass of the Higgs Boson. We are treading on
dangerous ground because of our incomplete understanding of physics." And/Or, the Higgs Boson could be detectable with no problems or not actually exist, and advanced civilizations merely are trapped by the insane distances between stars and galaxies and find communication too difficult. It would make sense, as at this point we're basically at a "wormhole or bust" mentality as far as colonizing other solar systems is concerned... wormholes just may not be practical.
Little do they know this is how black holes are formed. An intelligent lifeform evolves to a point where they can creat a black hole and do so, destroying their entire civilization and adding one more black hole to the universe. Every black hole out there is where a highly intelligent civilization once existed...
"That’s cool and all, but whoever wrote that headline needs to get a grip. Creating a tiny black hole on earth would destroy the earth and most things around it, and eventually grow to engulf our galaxy, but the is no way a new black hole could endanger the universe any more then the billions of black holes already out there." Whew, well thats a relief! :D
well actualy
they would be creating a singularity, not a black hole, right?
theyd make that and control it with the supermagnets
and if they actualy do it, there is more of a chance of a rogue black hold owning us at some random time, than us owning ourselves, the real danger at hand... anti-matter explosion it could happen and rip apart the very atoms of our solar system.
and if it did come uncontained, it would just do a RA2 lybia thing and only pwn a small radius..cuz in order to own our solar system, we would need to collapse more matter than 1000 of our suns
Salato
"God damn I hate scientists who are too arrogant. If there is even a 0.0001%
chance that what you are doing could destroy the whole world and universe
don't damn well do it you fools!"
Look at the idiot politicians and say that, plz. Who puts US politicians in power? It's not scientists. Who insists that having huge bombs that poison the very area they go off so that it's royally owned is a GOOD/Necessary thing? If you want to be scared of something, look at your own confident ignorance. Seriously, it's stuff like this YTMND and its comments that scare me more than anything.
Here's a link to a picture show how large the overall area is that the supercollider takes up: http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/pictures/ac_intro1.jpg The US was building one, a bigger, more expensive one, but I hear they scrapped the project after spending a few billion dollars in it. As was mentioned earlier in the comments, there've been many supercolliders before this one.
Hey Korf41. A technological civilization such as ours should be able to colonize the entire galaxy in about 50 million years. Considering the age of our galaxy it is suprising that we do not see any evidence of such a civilization. Google "seti paradox" for interesting discussion of the implications.
The report concluded, "We find no basis for any conceivable threat." For instance, it is not possible to produce microscopic black holes unless certain untested theories are correct. Even if they are produced, they are expected to be harmless due to the Hawking radiation process. - Summed up. You've got little to worry about. We don't have the ability to sustain a blackhole for more than a shortwhile and not long enough for it to cause any conceivable damage.
"God damn I hate scientists who are too arrogant. If there is even a 0.0001%
chance that what you are doing could destroy the whole world and universe
don't damn well do it you fools!" ulitmacanti's statistic was 10^-40, so you're going to need a few more 0's. Also, this may be a speculative statistic meaning that it actually holds no weight whatsoever. It may be impossible to form a sustainable black hole with only the small amount of matter used in such a small (relative to the size of supergiants) particle accelerator. Another thing to note: the black hole phenomenon is a constant feature of massive collapsed stars. A momentary instance of it does not even imply the possibility of a sustained instance of it.
"Hey Korf41. A technological civilization such as ours should be able to
colonize the entire galaxy in about 50 million years. Considering the age
of our galaxy it is suprising that we do not see any evidence of such a
civilization. Google "seti paradox" for interesting discussion of the
implications." The colonization figures are, of course, completely speculative. They also speculate the possibility of some things we aren't sure are possible, and they always speculate the emergence of "new future technology". The problem is, as you can see with these particle accelerators, is that high end scientific research is getting more expensive and requiring more energy. The free dissemenation of information through modern technology...
speeds up those things that can be done without large amounts of funds and energy and eliminates the needless repetition of larger projects, but the rate of high end innovation is unlikely to continue at a blistering pace unless or until or maybe even not if we figure out nuclear fission or another whoah-crazy energy technology. And it'd better happen before we run out of fossil fuels or we'll go into a major worldwide scientific depression. At which point we'll be begging for someone to obliterate us with a black hole.
Also, as for the SETI paradox, its numbers are skewed statistics. It admits that the universe works in cyclical patterns yet refuses to use cyclical statistics. The likelihood of life developing increases as time goes on, so the later into a cycle the more likely it is that life has developed. It took us 4.5 billion years... so those suns on similar cycles to us are just now reaching a point where life can develop. Also, seeing as we do not see evidence of extra-terrestrial life we can conclude that we do not see evidence of extra-terrestrial life. It does not mean that all advanced civilizations blow themselves up. It is unlikely that we are the only ones. A more likely scenario: it's hard out there for a space pimp.
When we ask, "why don't we fly to the moon on weekend getaways" the easy answer is "because interstellar travel is expensive, energy consuming, and dangerous", not "we blew up our whole planet trying to get off the ground". That's why I say that it is more likely that advanced civilizations find it expensive, energy consuming, and dangerous to travel through space and not that they blew themselves up trying. It's not unshakeable logic, but it sure isn't the worst line you could take.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link