Uh... rememeber who? What? I never learned that in the first place. I can't remember something I never knew. All I know about black holes is that if there was one close to Earth, it would be bad.
This explains an early memory I have of flying down to Earth and possessing my current body as well as the occasional feeling that I've experienced this life before. When they create that black hole, we're all going to die and our consciousness is going to be forced backwards in time to possess bodies from the past.
Actually, I think the scientist is so used to speaking in terms of probabilities that he always uses 'totally miniscule' in place of 'physically impossible'.
Who cares, if artifically created black holes would swallow the earth, it would happen so exponentially fast that you wouldn't know what happened.
Net value = chance * significance
chance is miniscule, but significance is infniite, so the net value because infinite
Correct. The type of Black Holes the accelerator would produce would evaporate almost instantaneously due to Hawking radiation -> no risk of swallowing the earth.
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
That's OK...with a blackhole comes a wormhole, and wormholes=gating to other planets...
Oh, wait, the gov't shut that one down...
You want the G'ould here?!
Four words for you...
Hallowed are the Ori.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I wonder if, given the heat, pressures, and turbulence within the sun, tiny black holes are being created there all the time? But then, those particles probably don't move anywhere near as fast as things inside particle accelerators.
I assume that theoretical physicists know a little bit more about black holes and high speed particle behavior than common folk do.
Two objects with a mass of 1kg each would produce a 2kg black hole. It would have the same gravitational attraction of a 2kg block, just concentrated into an incredibly tiny area. The event horizon would also encompass an extremely tiny volume. The only thing there would be containment of this 2kg black hole before it acquired more mass.
Now, inside particle accelerators. I am assuming this, but I don't know for sure: A particle accelerator is probably an evacuated tube (air molecules would get in the way), with magnets all over the place to control the motion of the particles. Such a system would contain any black holes, and prevent them from acquiring additional mass, thus they'd be able to quickly disintegrate in peace.
Besides, if there really was a significant chance of these things being really destructive, don't you think the military would be providing many billions of dollars of funding to improve the technology, and create stable, movable black holes?
I assume that theoretical physicists know a little bit more about black holes and high speed particle behavior than common folk do.
How upset are you that we hardly have ANY resources devoted to finding near-Earth objects that might pose a threat of an all-out extinction event? That is a lot more likely to happen than death by black hole.
Ever had high school science?
Two objects with a mass of 1kg each would produce a 2kg black hole. It would have the same gravitational attraction of a 2kg block, just concentrated into an incredibly tiny area. The event horizon would also encompass an extremely tiny volume. The only thing there would be containment of this 2kg black hole before it acquired more mass.
Now, inside particle accelerators. I am assuming this, but I don't know for sure: A particle accelerator is probably an evacuated tube (air molecules would get in the way), with magnets all over the place to control the motion of the particles. Such a system would contain any black holes, and prevent them from acquiring additional mass, thus they'd be able to quickly disintegrate in peace.
Besides, if there really was a significant chance of these things being really destructive, don't you think the military would be providing many billions of dollars of funding to improve the technology, and create stable, movable black holes?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
To ease your minds a little bit, you've gotta remember that the guys setting these probabilities are dealing with quantum mechanics and the like... According to quantum theory, the probability of you disappearing during the next instant, and spontaneously appearing on the surface of Mars is *NOT* zero... it's miniscule, but it's not zero. The probability of the entire planet just spontaneously vanishing during the next instant is *NOT* zero. It's miniscule, but not zero.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, they had evidence of a black hole at one of the other particle accelerators last (March?)
I remember printing the article out for my physics class.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, they had evidence of a black hole at one of the other particle accelerators last (March?)
I remember printing the article out for my physics class.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I was correct... It was March of last year when I read about it...
Did a little searching, came up with this article:
excellent reading material
Quite worrying. IIRC, a black hole isn't stable until its mass is approximately equal to that of Mount Everest. What they're making in the lab is FAR from that. Also, if it was stable, I *think* it'd take a long time to "eat" up the earth. What we know of gravity still applies; it's not going to have the gravitational attraction that say, a black hole in our galaxy has.
Did a little searching, came up with this article:
excellent reading material
Quite worrying. IIRC, a black hole isn't stable until its mass is approximately equal to that of Mount Everest. What they're making in the lab is FAR from that. Also, if it was stable, I *think* it'd take a long time to "eat" up the earth. What we know of gravity still applies; it's not going to have the gravitational attraction that say, a black hole in our galaxy has.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
Maybe it's already happened, maybe the earth got sucked into a giant black hole years ago and ATOT is just your own personal hell.
A comet could come and smash the Earth to bits. Your town coudl be hit by a nuclear weapon. You could get hit by a car.
It is significantly more likely that you'll be struck to death by lightning tomorrow that the entire Earth be sucked up by a science experiment.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Here's an easier to understand article: here
So... this is old news. (I think the issue was discussed in HT last year as well.)
Oh, and I finally looked at the article someone linked to above... my suspicions were correct - it'd take a helluva long time to destroy the earth, even if they did create a stable black hole.
So... this is old news.
(I think the issue was discussed in HT last year as well.)Oh, and I finally looked at the article someone linked to above... my suspicions were correct - it'd take a helluva long time to destroy the earth, even if they did create a stable black hole.
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
It is significantly more likely that you'll be struck to death by lightning tomorrow that the entire Earth be sucked up by a science experiment.
lol... I used to think the same, till my dad got struck and survived about a year ago
lol... I used to think the same, till my dad got struck and survived about a year ago
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter