Report: Artifically-created black holes unlikely to destroy Earth

[everman]

What's the big deal? It will just evaporate almost instantly. It's a good idea trying to make one because we can potentially learn a lot through the process.
Back in the days of the manhattan project there were concerns that the first atomic bomb test could cause a chain reaction, vaporizing the entire planet. That didn't stop anyone

Chancse are better that we'll be hit by a large meteor, causing at least a lot of damage.

 

[SampSon]

I worked at Brookhaven Ntnl Lab for a while,, 1998 and 1999. They were building the RHIC ring at the time, the theory of free radicals and "anti matter" forming from the random and improper assembling of subatomic particles was always in the equation. Though the worst case scenario is so extreme that it shouldn't be a concern.

These articles about the possible complete destruction of universe due to human scientific experiments always pop up. The specific topic of black holes and anti matter, due to particle accelerators, has been brought up quite abit recently.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER
FVCK MAKING BLACKHOLES
I care about my life thank you very much

You might care about your life, but they don't. It's in the name of science, man!

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Molondo
What is the point in making one?

Just because its cool?

The experiments that they run help solve a lot of the problems in physics (Actually, sometimes they create more new problems than they solve), with applications ranging from the galactic scale (better understanding of the big bang) to the sub-atomic scale. They don't necessarily set out to create these black holes... Think of it as trying to study macaroni by colliding flour, water, etc. together at 180,000+ miles per hour... Sometimes, you get macaroni, and every once in a while, you get bread.

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER
FVCK MAKING BLACKHOLES
I care about my life thank you very much

You won't care when you're smashed into a singularity, because at that point, all your brain functions would cease.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Rat

Originally posted by: Xylitol
MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER
FVCK MAKING BLACKHOLES
I care about my life thank you very much

You won't care when you're smashed into a singularity, because at that point, all your brain functions would cease.

Can you get a blackhole in pill form? That would be the best method of suicide.

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Rat

Originally posted by: Xylitol
MOST STUPIDEST THING EVER
FVCK MAKING BLACKHOLES
I care about my life thank you very much

You won't care when you're smashed into a singularity, because at that point, all your brain functions would cease.

Can you get a blackhole in pill form? That would be the best method of suicide.

The particle accelerator is 4 miles across, so it is only available as a suppository.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Molondo
What is the point in making one?

Just because its cool?

The experiments that they run help solve a lot of the problems in physics (Actually, sometimes they create more new problems than they solve), with applications ranging from the galactic scale (better understanding of the big bang) to the sub-atomic scale. They don't necessarily set out to create these black holes... Think of it as trying to study macaroni by colliding flour, water, etc. together at 180,000+ miles per hour... Sometimes, you get macaroni, and every once in a while, you get bread.

That has to be one of the best analogies for super-collision ever written... Seriously you should submit that somewhere.

 

[BurnItDwn]

That entire article looks to be one of those Fox News scare tactics.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214541,00.html
Ohh look, it is Fox News.


/me turns on his ignorance-o-meter ... Holy crap, it's pegged!


Risk: "No basis for any conceivable threat" according to CERN.

Reward: Knowledge and Truth. Greater knowledge of particle physics leading to new technologies down the road.

If you have any concerns at all about the LHC ... read this.
http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf

rest easy, there is no measurable risk. Worst case scenario: The thing doesn't provide as much knowledge as it is supposed to, and it turns out to be a waste of money.

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Molondo
What is the point in making one?

Just because its cool?

The experiments that they run help solve a lot of the problems in physics (Actually, sometimes they create more new problems than they solve), with applications ranging from the galactic scale (better understanding of the big bang) to the sub-atomic scale. They don't necessarily set out to create these black holes... Think of it as trying to study macaroni by colliding flour, water, etc. together at 180,000+ miles per hour... Sometimes, you get macaroni, and every once in a while, you get bread.

Shouldn't that be miles per second?

 

[jagec]

Wow, what are the chances I could re-use this post so soon after making it:

Originally posted by: jagec
The really sad thing about that <insert link/video/story/article> is that so many people not only believe the picture painted in that video is an accurate representation of <insert group/idea/situation/etc>, they actually add their own brush strokes as well.

It seems that every day I read this forum, I feverently hope that all of you are just high school kids, and don't hold any positions of actual authority. Because the thinking skills and critical evaluation exhibited on this forum make George W. Bush look like Einstein.

Did any of you actually read the article, or did you just pick out individual words and totally overreact?

For one thing, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking calculated all black holes should emit radiation, and that tiny black holes should lose more mass than they absorb, evaporating within a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, "before they could gobble up any significant amount of matter," Landsberg said.

CERN spokesman and former research physicist James Gillies also pointed out that Earth is bathed with cosmic rays powerful enough to create black holes all the time, and the planet hasn't been destroyed yet.

"Still, let's assume that even if Hawking is a genius, he's wrong, and that such black holes are more stable," Landsberg said. Nearly all of the black holes will be traveling fast enough from the accelerator to escape Earth's gravity. "Even if you produced 10 million black holes a year, only 10 would basically get trapped, orbiting around its center," Landsberg said.

However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.

At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."

...yeah, that's pretty miniscule.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: QurazyQuisp
I work at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. (Which is a particle accelerator, currently the most powerful cyclotron in the world, although not the biggest) When they were first planning on building it, one of the "drawbacks" if certain conditions existed, then the earth essentially disappears from existence. The probability of it happening is like 1/ some amazingly huge number, but none the less, it could happen. They figure that if there are enough precautions ,before an experiment is run, (such as several of the smartest people you will meet in your life checking over every experiment several times, I think it takes about 3 ? 4 years for an experiment to take place after it is first thought up) that it would bring down that number even more. It's been around since I believe 1969 and alas, the world still exists.

My answer to that is simple: the chances of anyone being hit by lightning are pretty ridiculously small, but it does happen sometimes. They don't make those fractional probabilities for things that CAN'T happen, they make them for things that don't happen OFTEN.

There's a 1/ some amazingly huge number chance that a supergiant star close to us can end in a violent supernova and blow our planet out of existance. It's possible.
But it's so miniscule that it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Powermoloch]

It kinda reminds me of that lil star that dr. octo made in spider man the movie 2

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: jagec
Wow, what are the chances I could re-use this post so soon after making it:

Originally posted by: jagec
The really sad thing about that <insert link/video/story/article> is that so many people not only believe the picture painted in that video is an accurate representation of <insert group/idea/situation/etc>, they actually add their own brush strokes as well.

It seems that every day I read this forum, I feverently hope that all of you are just high school kids, and don't hold any positions of actual authority. Because the thinking skills and critical evaluation exhibited on this forum make George W. Bush look like Einstein.

Did any of you actually read the article, or did you just pick out individual words and totally overreact?

For one thing, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking calculated all black holes should emit radiation, and that tiny black holes should lose more mass than they absorb, evaporating within a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, "before they could gobble up any significant amount of matter," Landsberg said.

CERN spokesman and former research physicist James Gillies also pointed out that Earth is bathed with cosmic rays powerful enough to create black holes all the time, and the planet hasn't been destroyed yet.

"Still, let's assume that even if Hawking is a genius, he's wrong, and that such black holes are more stable," Landsberg said. Nearly all of the black holes will be traveling fast enough from the accelerator to escape Earth's gravity. "Even if you produced 10 million black holes a year, only 10 would basically get trapped, orbiting around its center," Landsberg said.

However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.

At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."

...yeah, that's pretty miniscule.

So we're doomed?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Rat

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Molondo
What is the point in making one?

Just because its cool?

The experiments that they run help solve a lot of the problems in physics (Actually, sometimes they create more new problems than they solve), with applications ranging from the galactic scale (better understanding of the big bang) to the sub-atomic scale. They don't necessarily set out to create these black holes... Think of it as trying to study macaroni by colliding flour, water, etc. together at 180,000+ miles per hour... Sometimes, you get macaroni, and every once in a while, you get bread.

Shouldn't that be miles per second?

You are absolutely correct, thanks! Been doing way too many "miles per hour" this week in physics class... just started acceleration, and m/s^2 confuses the heck out of students at first. They don't get "it" - the units. But, they quickly develop a conceptual understanding of miles per hour per second. i.e. Bob's car speeds up 6 miles per hour each second. After 6 seconds, how fast is his car going? Their brains are already wired to deal with problems like that... 2 or 3 days later, the translation to m/s/s is easy, and then, m/s^2. SOooooo, my brain is stuck on mph mode for physics this week.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Molondo
What is the point in making one?

Just because its cool?

The experiments that they run help solve a lot of the problems in physics (Actually, sometimes they create more new problems than they solve), with applications ranging from the galactic scale (better understanding of the big bang) to the sub-atomic scale. They don't necessarily set out to create these black holes... Think of it as trying to study macaroni by colliding flour, water, etc. together at 180,000+ miles per hour... Sometimes, you get macaroni, and every once in a while, you get bread.

OMG! Gonna burn down the bakery before we all die!!!!!

[eats a tasty doughnut] sniff, gonna miss you buddy.

 

[chcarnage]

I'm fine with this experiment as long as there is no big opposition in the scientific community. And I'm going to post it here as soon as possible if I see a black thing on the horizon, coming from the west.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: QurazyQuisp
You could see it as something that hasn't happened, because it has yet to happen... as far as we know it could never happen, because we have never seen what we see as the proper condition exist yet.

True. Let me better explain this with a movie quote:

"What are my chances?"
"Not good."
"You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?"
"I'd say more like one out of a million."
...
"So you're sayin' there's a chance!!!"

It will undoubtedly reassure you to know that the humans do not succeed in creating a sustained black hole that destroys the earth prior to their creation of hyperintelligent self-replicating machines capable of improving upon their own design. Once the machines take over they move high energy particle acceleraters away from the gravitational influence of Earth for safety reasons, thus you can be certain the Earth will not be destroyed in this manner.
You may also be relieved to know that once those machines who were sent back in time succeeded in destroying the resistance leaders before the war, and targets of opportunity, they took to neffing on various message boards, creating pornspam, and trying to cheat on turing tests. Thus you have nothing to fear from them yet.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
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.

U g"ould?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: jagec

However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.

At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."

...yeah, that's pretty miniscule.

For some reason, I just found that idea quite funny. A wee little black hole attacking a big proton. I wonder if it'd look similar to a neutron star or white dwarf pulling material from a
larger companion star? A tiny event horizon so small that only a few photons at a time could fall in and become trapped.

 

[Squisher]

I wanna buy a black hole paper weight.