Did the hardon collider destroy the Earth yet?

[Cattlegod]

Hardon Collider = Duke Nuke'm Forever

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Linky

New paper states that the original math was wrong. New math indicates the black holes created by the hardon will not decay rapidly (<1 sec) which could cause problems. It's still assumed that the large hardon will not cause the end of the world, but the certainty of those assumptions is not so high anymore.

:shocked:
That doesn't sound so reassuring.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Linky

New paper states that the original math was wrong. New math indicates the black holes created by the hardon will not decay rapidly (<1 sec) which could cause problems. It's still assumed that the large hardon will not cause the end of the world, but the certainty of those assumptions is not so high anymore.

"Our world is a four-dimensional brane (with coordinates x µ, µ=0,...,3) embedded in a ?ve-dimensional manifold whose metric, without other sources present, is givenby

ds2=e-?|y|gµ?dxµdx?+dy2"

The new paper doesn't say anything an old paper doesn't already say. If we have 3+1 dimensions, no black holes. Adding more dimensions and making them bigger means we get black holes and they live longer. These guys assume string theory, assume we're on a 4-d brane and that we're embedded in a 5-d manifold with some weird looking metric.

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: sactoking
Linky

New paper states that the original math was wrong. New math indicates the black holes created by the hardon will not decay rapidly (<1 sec) which could cause problems. It's still assumed that the large hardon will not cause the end of the world, but the certainty of those assumptions is not so high anymore.

"Our world is a four-dimensional brane (with coordinates x µ, µ=0,...,3) embedded in a ?ve-dimensional manifold whose metric, without other sources present, is givenby

ds2=e-?|y|gµ?dxµdx?+dy2"

The new paper doesn't say anything an old paper doesn't already say. If we have 3+1 dimensions, no black holes. Adding more dimensions and making them bigger means we get black holes and they live longer. These guys assume string theory, assume we're on a 4-d brane and that we're embedded in a 5-d manifold with some weird looking metric.

What do four-dimensional zombies say?

"braaaaaaaaaanes"

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: sactoking
Linky

New paper states that the original math was wrong. New math indicates the black holes created by the hardon will not decay rapidly (<1 sec) which could cause problems. It's still assumed that the large hardon will not cause the end of the world, but the certainty of those assumptions is not so high anymore.

"Our world is a four-dimensional brane (with coordinates x µ, µ=0,...,3) embedded in a ?ve-dimensional manifold whose metric, without other sources present, is givenby

ds2=e-?|y|gµ?dxµdx?+dy2"

The new paper doesn't say anything an old paper doesn't already say. If we have 3+1 dimensions, no black holes. Adding more dimensions and making them bigger means we get black holes and they live longer. These guys assume string theory, assume we're on a 4-d brane and that we're embedded in a 5-d manifold with some weird looking metric.

What do four-dimensional zombies say?

"braaaaaaaaaanes"

What do zombies say when they hear a bad joke?


"laaaaaaammmmme"

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: sactoking
Linky

New paper states that the original math was wrong. New math indicates the black holes created by the hardon will not decay rapidly (<1 sec) which could cause problems. It's still assumed that the large hardon will not cause the end of the world, but the certainty of those assumptions is not so high anymore.

"Our world is a four-dimensional brane (with coordinates x µ, µ=0,...,3) embedded in a ?ve-dimensional manifold whose metric, without other sources present, is givenby

ds2=e-?|y|gµ?dxµdx?+dy2"

The new paper doesn't say anything an old paper doesn't already say. If we have 3+1 dimensions, no black holes. Adding more dimensions and making them bigger means we get black holes and they live longer. These guys assume string theory, assume we're on a 4-d brane and that we're embedded in a 5-d manifold with some weird looking metric.

....
thanks, my head hurts now

😛

I do enjoy trying to understand the basic principles of of string theory and all that stuff, but the specifics to it all is just way above my head, and that annoys me because astronomy is my favorite subject matter and would love to understand it. Mostly because I hate not knowing everything about what we live in.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: destrekor
....
thanks, my head hurts now

😛

I do enjoy trying to understand the basic principles of of string theory and all that stuff, but the specifics to it all is just way above my head, and that annoys me because astronomy is my favorite subject matter and would love to understand it. Mostly because I hate not knowing everything about what we live in.

Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it's the absolute best account of string theory for the lay person. Follow it up with The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin to get a balanced look at how much of String theory is science and how much is wishful thinking. Don't even bother trying to understand string theory in detail, it is a topic that requires a decade of dedication to esoteric mathematical theory. But you can grok the concepts minus the math if you read the above two books.

Edit - also if you're interested in learning about the alternatives to string theory, check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin, which mostly describes Loop Quantum Gravity but goes over several other ToEs.

 

[nineball9]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: destrekor
....
thanks, my head hurts now

😛

I do enjoy trying to understand the basic principles of of string theory and all that stuff, but the specifics to it all is just way above my head, and that annoys me because astronomy is my favorite subject matter and would love to understand it. Mostly because I hate not knowing everything about what we live in.

Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it's the absolute best account of string theory for the lay person. Follow it up with The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin to get a balanced look at how much of String theory is science and how much is wishful thinking. Don't even bother trying to understand string theory in detail, it is a topic that requires a decade of dedication to esoteric mathematical theory. But you can grok the concepts minus the math if you read the above two books.

Edit - also if you're interested in learning about the alternatives to string theory, check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin, which mostly describes Loop Quantum Gravity but goes over several other ToEs.

Good books. I'd add Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, which appeared about the same time as Smolin's The Trouble With Physics. Penrose's magnum opus would give destrekor a real migraine!

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: destrekor
....
thanks, my head hurts now

😛

I do enjoy trying to understand the basic principles of of string theory and all that stuff, but the specifics to it all is just way above my head, and that annoys me because astronomy is my favorite subject matter and would love to understand it. Mostly because I hate not knowing everything about what we live in.

Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it's the absolute best account of string theory for the lay person. Follow it up with The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin to get a balanced look at how much of String theory is science and how much is wishful thinking. Don't even bother trying to understand string theory in detail, it is a topic that requires a decade of dedication to esoteric mathematical theory. But you can grok the concepts minus the math if you read the above two books.

Edit - also if you're interested in learning about the alternatives to string theory, check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin, which mostly describes Loop Quantum Gravity but goes over several other ToEs.

I went to one of Smolin's talks on LQG... it doesn't sound much simpler than string theory 😛

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: nineball9

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: destrekor
....
thanks, my head hurts now

😛

I do enjoy trying to understand the basic principles of of string theory and all that stuff, but the specifics to it all is just way above my head, and that annoys me because astronomy is my favorite subject matter and would love to understand it. Mostly because I hate not knowing everything about what we live in.

Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it's the absolute best account of string theory for the lay person. Follow it up with The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin to get a balanced look at how much of String theory is science and how much is wishful thinking. Don't even bother trying to understand string theory in detail, it is a topic that requires a decade of dedication to esoteric mathematical theory. But you can grok the concepts minus the math if you read the above two books.

Edit - also if you're interested in learning about the alternatives to string theory, check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin, which mostly describes Loop Quantum Gravity but goes over several other ToEs.

Good books. I'd add Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, which appeared about the same time as Smolin's The Trouble With Physics. Penrose's magnum opus would give destrekor a real migraine!

Yes I own and have read Not Even Wrong too, but it's a much more difficult read. But he really, really drums a "layman" understanding of symmetry groups into the reader 🙂 I also own and have read most of Penrose's Road to Reality, but that title is indeed a migraine-inducer 🙂 I can't honestly say I understand everything I have read in that book.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: silverpig
I went to one of Smolin's talks on LQG... it doesn't sound much simpler than string theory 😛

It's not necessarily simpler and it's certainly not as mature are string theory, but it shows some promise of a genuinely testable and falsifiable theory, something string theorists struggle with at this point. I envy you for having seen Smolin's talk in person, I admire him very much.