Is the world going to end this Saturday?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
I'm not suggesting that it will happen. But according to what I have read, there IS a possibility, and though infinitesimally small it does exist.

There's also the infinitely small possibility that me masturbating furiously will somehow make my cock turn to gold or mush. Neither has happened yet, no matter how hard/often I try.
 

OdiN

Banned
Mar 1, 2000
16,430
3
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
I'm not suggesting that it will happen. But according to what I have read, there IS a possibility, and though infinitesimally small it does exist.

There's also the infinitely small possibility that me masturbating furiously will somehow make my cock turn to gold or mush. Neither has happened yet, no matter how hard/often I try.

But that wouldn't be too much to worry about. At least for the rest of the planet.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Ns1
I'm not suggesting that it will happen. But according to what I have read, there IS a possibility, and though infinitesimally small it does exist.

There's also the infinitely small possibility that me masturbating furiously will somehow make my cock turn to gold or mush. Neither has happened yet, no matter how hard/often I try.

But that wouldn't be too much to worry about. At least for the rest of the planet.

Who knows, if I keep trying maybe I'll eventually cause a rip in the time/space continuum.

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: OdiN
I thought one of the things they are hoping to create with the LHC was micro black holes.

So....it is in a vacuum? What about the other particles being hurled around? It's my understanding that they aren't just going to hurl one particle at a time, so by the time that they knew of a problem like this - there would be other matter.

But assuming it is contained - would they have to keep in that way indefinitely? That would have to be a lot of power to use up I would think.
Some people are hoping it'll create black holes. If I understand it correctly, the creation of black holes will only occur if string theory is correct, so it's probably proponents of string theory who are hoping for their formation.

Even if there are other particles in there, there aren't many of them at all. It's a very high-quality vacuum within the acceleration chamber. And let's say you have a whopping 1kg black hole inside the chamber. It's still going to have the gravitational attraction of 1kg. I don't know if that force can even be measured.

F = (G * m1 * m2) / R^2
G = 6.67 * 10^-11 N

Two 1kg objects 1m apart = 6.67 * 10^-11 N of force, which is about 1.5 * 10^-11 lbf.


Now, from the LHC's website, they talk about using "trillions of protons," each with an energy of around 7 TeV.
Update, and some calculations were corrected: The LHC uses 2808 "bunches" of about 10^11 protons each. So that's 280,800,000,000,000 protons (2.808 * 10^14), for a mass of 4.6967 * 10^-13 kg.

Now those things are going to have energy put into them, to make them move at very high speeds.
7 TeV each.
1 eV = 1.60219 *10^-19 J.
7 TeV = 1.12153 * 10^-6 J.

Take that back into mass.
m = e/c^2 = (1.12153 * 10^-6 J) / (299 792 458 m/s)^2
m = 1.24788 * 10^-23 kg, multiplied by 2.808 * 10^14 for the number of protons
m = 3.504 * 10^-9 kg

Add the original mass of the protons.
Total mass = 3.505 * 10^-9 kg = 3.5 micrograms.

(DrPizza? Verification? :))


So assuming that all of the particles in there collide and form one black hole, it'd have a mass of 3.5 micrograms.

I'm not worried.



Originally posted by: Ns1
Who knows, if I keep trying maybe I'll eventually cause a rip in the time/space continuum.
Your foreskin != the spacetime continuum.

Thank god for that.


Interesting snippets from this PDF:
"As an example, particles in the LHC move at 0.999997828 times the speed of light at injec-
tion (energy = 450 GeV) and 0.999999991 times the speed of light at top energy (energy = 7000 GeV). "
Damn that's fast.

"In absolute terms, these energies, if compared to the energies we deal with everyday, are not impressive. In fact, 1 TeV is about the energy of motion of a lying mosquito. What makes the LHC so extraordinary is that it squeezes energy into a space about a million million times smaller than a mosquito."

"The pressure in the beam pipes of the LHC will be about ten times lower than on the Moon. This is an ultrahigh vacuum."

"The phenomenon of tides in the ocean due to the influence of the Moon (and to a lesser extent that of the Sun) is well known. They cause the level of water on the edge of the sea to rise and fall with a cycle of some 12 hours. The ground is also subject to the effect of lunar attraction because the rocks that make it up are elastic. At the new Moon and when the Moon is full, the Earth?s crust rises by some 25 cm in the Geneva area under the effect of these ?ground tides?. This movement causes a variation of 1 mm in the circumference of the LHC (for a total circumference of 26.6 km) and this produces changes in beam energy. Thus, physicists must take the Moon into account in their measurements."



Or just skip to page 48 of the PDf, it talks about the "dangers" of the LHC. You should be more worried about cosmic radiation, as it's got much higher energies, and has been bombarding Earth (and every other object in the solar system) since it was formed. Still no strangelet cascade. Still no Earth-eating black hole. Surprise, surprise.

 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: udneekgnim
from what I've read, any micro black hole that might be created will disappear practically instantaneously

But of course if you get one that doesn't disappear you're pretty much screwed.

not necessarily, has anyone ever considered that the world might be consumed "practically instantaneously"?

Why would the world be consumed "practically instantaneously"?? Please explain. Let's say that we do discover that a black hole with a mass on the order of 10^-24 kilograms is stable. (It's not.) Please explain "practically instantaneously" using science rather than science fiction.

But there is still the remote possibility. I dunno, it just seems we keep pushing farther into things and meddling perhaps more than we should at this stage of limited understanding.
You don't understand two things:
One: "remote possibility" - you're thinking of the normal person's definition of "remote possibility." It takes on an entirely new meaning with quantum physicists. Think of it this way: what would you say that the probability is of you running straight into a 3 foot solid brick wall, and passing through the wall, damaging neither yourself nor the wall. That's the probability that we're talking about. The quantum physicist would say "there's a remote possibility"; you'd say "bullshit", and then they could set out to prove mathematically that there is a chance not quite equal to zero. What's the probability that you can jump up into the air, and then upon impact with the ground, suddenly you find that every last particle in your body rematerializes on the surface of Mars. You'd have just long enough to think to yourself "fuck, those quantum mechanics were right" before you succumbed. That brings me to point two.

Two: addressing "limited understanding" - the physics involving particle physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, etc.) are the MOST accurately tested theories in science. That doesn't mean that we know everything. One of the big puzzlers - "why is there mass?" may be answered by the LHC. (The search for the Higgs boson)

As far as "more important things" - what? It's sad that in this country, the importance (especially by the current administration) of science is unrealized. Do people realize that it was only a little more than 100 years ago that the electron was discovered? Protons less than 90 years ago? The neutron wasn't discovered until 1932; prior to that discovery, while Einstein recognized the enormity of E=mc², he didn't think we'd ever be able to use that energy. Think about it... 1932 leads to the ability to split the nucleus (ignoring for a moment that rutherford split hydrogen nuclei from 4 or 5 elements by bombarding them with alpha particles.) How many years after 1932 was it that we had the nuclear bomb (arguably a bad thing; then again, assurances of mutual destruction may have limited military conflicts to a degree), and more importantly nuclear power? How about the invention of the transistor? And, not just the phenomenon that was discovered, but actually understanding how the transistor worked. Think about it in terms of how long a person lives. If a person was born the day the transistor was invented, they still haven't reached retirement age!

 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: udneekgnim
from what I've read, any micro black hole that might be created will disappear practically instantaneously

But of course if you get one that doesn't disappear you're pretty much screwed.

not necessarily, has anyone ever considered that the world might be consumed "practically instantaneously"?

Why would the world be consumed "practically instantaneously"?? Please explain. Let's say that we do discover that a black hole with a mass on the order of 10^-24 kilograms is stable. (It's not.) Please explain "practically instantaneously" using science rather than science fiction.

But there is still the remote possibility. I dunno, it just seems we keep pushing farther into things and meddling perhaps more than we should at this stage of limited understanding.
You don't understand two things:
One: "remote possibility" - you're thinking of the normal person's definition of "remote possibility." It takes on an entirely new meaning with quantum physicists. Think of it this way: what would you say that the probability is of you running straight into a 3 foot solid brick wall, and passing through the wall, damaging neither yourself nor the wall. That's the probability that we're talking about. The quantum physicist would say "there's a remote possibility"; you'd say "bullshit", and then they could set out to prove mathematically that there is a chance not quite equal to zero. What's the probability that you can jump up into the air, and then upon impact with the ground, suddenly you find that every last particle in your body rematerializes on the surface of Mars. You'd have just long enough to think to yourself "fuck, those quantum mechanics were right" before you succumbed. That brings me to point two.

Two: addressing "limited understanding" - the physics involving particle physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, etc.) are the MOST accurately tested theories in science. That doesn't mean that we know everything. One of the big puzzlers - "why is there mass?" may be answered by the LHC. (The search for the Higgs boson)

As far as "more important things" - what? It's sad that in this country, the importance (especially by the current administration) of science is unrealized. Do people realize that it was only a little more than 100 years ago that the electron was discovered? Protons less than 90 years ago? The neutron wasn't discovered until 1932; prior to that discovery, while Einstein recognized the enormity of E=mc², he didn't think we'd ever be able to use that energy. Think about it... 1932 leads to the ability to split the nucleus (ignoring for a moment that rutherford split hydrogen nuclei from 4 or 5 elements by bombarding them with alpha particles.) How many years after 1932 was it that we had the nuclear bomb (arguably a bad thing; then again, assurances of mutual destruction may have limited military conflicts to a degree), and more importantly nuclear power? How about the invention of the transistor? And, not just the phenomenon that was discovered, but actually understanding how the transistor worked. Think about it in terms of how long a person lives. If a person was born the day the transistor was invented, they still haven't reached retirement age!

:beer:

Well put.
 

OdiN

Banned
Mar 1, 2000
16,430
3
0
Still - why would you believe one scientist over another - who can be sure either is correct?
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,018
216
106
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Why would the world be consumed "practically instantaneously"?? Please explain. Let's say that we do discover that a black hole with a mass on the order of 10^-24 kilograms is stable. (It's not.) Please explain "practically instantaneously" using science rather than science fiction.

ze black hole zucks ze vorld into eet bevore eet collapzeez!
 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
So if the world ends this Saturday, which of you will be the first to run here to report it on ATOT?
 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,488
2
0
Originally posted by: OdiN
So....not only do we have to worry about microscopic black holes, but also the possibility of stable strangelets which could apparently cause a chain reaction and transform all matter it comes into contact with, a vaccum bubble being created, or magnetic monopoles. All of which could have the possibility, however remote, of completely destroying the earth, or worse. And their rationale is "Well, cosmic rays don't do it, so we're fine!". This certainly is reassuring. Do they even fully understand cosmic rays? At least they have some supporting data from RHIC to back up part of it, but for other stuff they are relying on theory and assuming that if cosmic rays don't do any of this, we can't do it with the LHC. But can we be absolutely sure? I don't think we can. Scientific advancement doesn't mean much if the entire planet and human race is destroyed. Is any chance that this might happen - however remote - really worth the risk? What, exactly, are they going to learn by these experiments that is worth that risk?

Also - maybe this is the start of causality loop - we actually cause a reaction that transforms the entire universe into this....protomatter was it? Which actually causes the big bang and we start all over again. That would be kinda funny actually. What if humans actually caused the big bang, after the universe was created by a divine being and he is just sitting up there facepalming when we figure out a way to annihilate the entire thing.

The thought of that brings lol to my heart.
 

FleshLight

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,883
0
71
Originally posted by: OdiN
Still - why would you believe one scientist over another - who can be sure either is correct?

Some scientists majored in political science. Others have phds in physics with a specialization in quantum mechanics.
 

GooeyGUI

Senior member
Aug 1, 2005
688
0
76
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Ughhh
First of all, the link goes to something called "endofworld". Then, everything in the article, starting with what's bolded is nothing more than irresponsible fear mongering by either an asshole who wants attention or an f'ing idiot who doesn't have a clue.

As for the attention seeking kooks who are bringing forth the lawsuit - I'm guessing they did it in the U.S. and not some other country where they have certain tort reforms - loser pays winners costs. I'd rather we find some country with horrible human rights violations for them to file suit in instead - losing would mean a bullet to the back of the head & organ donations. At least some good would come from their idiotic lawsuit. To think that "doomsday" scenarios haven't been exhaustively thought out by CERN & responsible scientists, and to think that instead, a decision should be made in U.S. court where some of our judges have many times proven themselves to been very lacking in technical knowledge even of computers - is ridiculous.

The link goes to virginmedia which should have given you a clue that this was not an in depth article on LHC.

I will give you credit for recognizing the actual reason this was posted, so I put your answer in bold. I will fail you that you ass/u/me I was trying to create panic and that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I will leave some doubt as to your actually finding out what this post is about because the thread contained a discussion considering lawsuits already.

However, other more dangerous particles will also be produced for which searches are planned, such as black holes, and never seen before particles of matter, and even now, the architects of what is being termed a ?Doomsday? machine, the U.S. Department of Energy, Fermilab, the National Science Foundation and CERN are being sued in federal court over fears that this experiment may in fact destroy the planet.

The underlined (previously in bold) single SENTENCE cannot be disassembled and have the same meaning.

Ever run a nuclear Rx? I have! Fail that you say, "I don't have a clue" when I have taken all the physics (with calculus) that goes with my EE. I don't want to leave out I used to work at LLNL too, so I won't.

I sort of figured the point of your post was to point out that all the groups mentioned above are being sued to prevent the LHC from being used. I didn't say that it was you who was fear mongering, but rather, the idiot who wrote the article & the idiots suing all those groups (which you'd have to have your head stuck in the ground if you have any interest at all in particle physics not to have read about this during the past 6 months.)


But, curious order with your credentials - starting with the least relevant (EE required physics (with calculus!) which I doubt actually addressed particle physics very much), then a nuclear reactor, then LLNL. Weird. Of course, both types of facilities have a need for EE's; that doesn't necessarily make them knowledgeable about particle physics. Both facilities also have a need for janitors.

A formal education in the sciences has a tendency to steer people away from superstition.

The rest of your post is just plain insulting.

 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Nostradamus was an idiot, and so is anyone that even references him.
Ya? He got some very powerful guys to look the other way when he we doing their wives...
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TallBill
Nostradamus was an idiot, and so is anyone that even references him.
Ya? He got some very powerful guys to look the other way when he we doing their wives...

You're thinking of Rasputin.
 

Aquila76

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
3,549
1
0
www.facebook.com
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: udneekgnim
from what I've read, any micro black hole that might be created will disappear practically instantaneously

But of course if you get one that doesn't disappear you're pretty much screwed.

Let's say they smash two protons together and get a black hole. That black hole will have the mass of two protons. Nearby protons wouldn't notice much of a change.


The example I've seen used is this:
The chance of a black hole being created is about the same as winning the lottery every day for three weeks.
But then, it's also possible that dragons will pop out of the LHC when it's powered on - possible from a quantum physics standpoint. I think from that view, anything is possible, such as every proton in Earth decaying at the same time, and it's all about probability. Some things are just really improbable.

The dragon thing would be kinda cool, ala stargate or something.

It would be better if Schrödinger's cat came flying out of it. Or maybe not.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
When activated the collider could show one of the most elusive particles in our Universe, the Higgs boson, also called the ?God particle?. This observation could confirm the Standard Model of physics unifying three of the four known fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, leaving out just gravity.

All that is fine. But can it cook hot pockets faster than my microwave ?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: Modelworks
When activated the collider could show one of the most elusive particles in our Universe, the Higgs boson, also called the ?God particle?. This observation could confirm the Standard Model of physics unifying three of the four known fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, leaving out just gravity.

All that is fine. But can it cook hot pockets faster than my microwave ?
From the PDF:
"At full energy, each of the two proton beams in the LHC will have a total energy equivalent to a 400 t train (like the French TGV) travelling at 150 km/h. This is enough energy to melt 500 kg of copper."

It'll cook your Hot Pockets and your microwave. :D