There is no reason to worry. It seems they've got the french scientists to check the numbers and they confirm the chances of destroying earth are ridiculously small.
Now I feel better (not). :sick:
Printable View
There is no reason to worry. It seems they've got the french scientists to check the numbers and they confirm the chances of destroying earth are ridiculously small.
Now I feel better (not). :sick:
Latest research shows: black holes most commonly found in black socks.
I'll be cruising solo down the information highway. *super cool*
Somehow I don't think that such a statement could put anyone at ease...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
This is it. They're running-up the doomsday machine as I type. It's supposed to reach max power in less than half an hour - I'm watching a live braodcast direct from Geneva. I'll be able to watch Raypoz kill the scientists - live...
Hang on... is Raypoz the Swiss equivalent of the Department of Social Security...
Hooray!!
I saw one of the beams escape the tunnel and warm a cup of coffee.
Unfortunately it'll take at least until the end of the year before they start crashing really fast flying protons... :(
This article which posted today about the LHC suggests that there is little to worry about. The top scientists are saying that the greatest danger would only be in the immediate vicinity of the LHC.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...M_Exclude=Juno
I think it's only people that know little about black holes and micro black holes that are worried. Micro black holes don't have the mass to suck in matter. The forces that hold the atom together are too strong to be overcome by a micro black hole. You need an enormous amount of gravity to do that and that means you need an enormous amount of mass. Something greater than the mass of our sun.
Hasn't it already happened?
Today was only a test run. They didnt run at full power (Only about 10% I think) and they only accelerated particles one way, so there was no colliding involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
Im extremely excited to the day when they do the actual colliding!
Explains why we aren't dead yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
I've already told you about this....
Speak for yourself. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kregg
Black holes work via gravity. Gravity gets stronger via mass. Thus, more mass = more gravity.
If we took all the mass of this entire planet and tried to make a black-hole out of it, it wouldn't be able to sustain itself for more than an insanely small fraction of time.
Black holes that are self-sustaining which means the gravity they produce is greater than the internal forces of the atoms and particles they consume only come from MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE stars and stellar events. Only then do you actually have enough mass and gravity in a small enough place to have a self-sustaining black hole.
If we took all the planets, moons, asteroids and comets in our entire solar system and even threw in the sun and tried, we couldn't do it.
Naysayers on the LHC don't know the first thing about Astrophysics 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenner
Yes. For black holes to form on their own. What you're describing is the process by which black holes would form when their gravitational pressure is greater than the radiation pressure trying to prevent collapse. And yes, you need several times the mass of the Sun. However, if you manage to persuade a black hole to form under other conditions, let's say by forcing a group of neutrons together and "topping up" the missing gravitational energy by some other means (maybe by pumping particles at the outside really fast), then who's to say that you can't form a black hole with much lower mass? The issue would be whether or not the tiny black hole thus formed would spontaneously disappear through Hawking radiation, not whether there would be enough mass to sustain it.
If particles travel 27 km's 11000 times per second then how many meters per second is that and what is the speed of light in mtrs/second?
Can't wait till they start crashing them. Will it look like the car chase in Blue's Brothers?
:eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Wait wait wait. *sigh* :rolleyes: I thought the human race doesn't know the first thing about black holes and that it's all just speculation? :confused: Is it not true that they have not even detected any black holes anywhere? As far as I'm aware, the only "black hole" that NASA THINKS is a Black Hole is the Super Massive Black Hole in the center of the galaxy...
My brain hurts. :(
God, I hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
"They broke my watch!"
Hey I thought you were dead? :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Because you can't form a black hole with much lower mass. Period. It's totally impossible by conventional partial physics, and string theory doesn't allow for it either. Even if you have matter compressed so tightly it's occupying the same space as intertwined strings, you lack the energy to keep it like that when you take the pressure off.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
You can compress a lump of mass with the same density as a black hole, but it's not a black hole because it lacks the mass, and thus, lacks the gravity. Even if you managed to artificially to pump up the gravitational energy... first, you'd get a nobel prize for the first person ever to artificially manipulate gravity and would be hounded by Star Trek fanboys the rest of your life with requests to make "gravity plating" so they can have their own starships. Second, as soon as you stopped pumping, once again, it would fly apart because it would revert to it's proper gravitational level. :D
The problem is, what's termed as a "micro black hole" isn't a black hole at all. It has some "similar properties" as a gravitational black hole, but it's like comparing a chunk of iron to a chunk of 5-day old French bread. Both are heavy and solid, and both will chip your tooth if you try to eat them. You might even build a battleship out of each, but in the end, the French bread will get soggy and fall apart.
Naw, they've detected and identified thousands of black holes. Typically ones absorbing stellar material like Cygnus X1 because they throw off a lot of radiation doing that. I should say "Black Hole Candidates" since without actually going there and observing them firsthand, they'll never say "confirmed".Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
Yeah, I thought so too. It's that damn Taco Bell food...Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
Don't worry, I'll avenge your survival!!
That would be 27 * 11,000 km / s = 297,000,000 m / s = 2.97E8 m/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
The speed of light in vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m / s so that would mean the particles travel at 0.990685 times the speed of light in a vacuum (and the LHC is one of the best vacuums around, even better than outer space).
At CERN's website however they say the particles travel at 0.9999 times the speed of light so the 27 km and 11,000 times are probably off by quite an amount... I don't know the exact figures...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenner
Black holes are about relativity a lot more than they are about particle physics.
Any mass, compressed to what is called the Schwarzschild radius, will form a black hole; RS = 2 G M / c2 where G is the gravitational constant, M is your mass and c is the speed of light. It's not about the value of the mass, it's about the density. The Schwarzschild radius is effectively the event horizon; the point at which the spacetime curvature becomes so great that the escape velocity = c. Particles which stray within this radius will be unable to escape. You don't need to do it for very long; but don't forget that the radiation pressure (and neutron degeneracy pressure) trying to blow your particles apart is related to how many and how hot your particles are. In a star, you have an awful lot of pretty warm particles and a corresponding reluctance to get too cosy. Hence you need an awful lot of mass (~6 solar masses) to start thinking about it. Stars, however, only really have gravity pulling them together. A particle accelerator has other factors. My point was not "artificially adjusting the gravitational energy" but rather introducing other factors such that it is no longer the sole collapsing force. Don't try dragging string theory into it either; there's a large quantity of nonsense that gets pedalled about on that particular subject, and if you believe 1% of what you read you'll be believing ten times too much.
Micro-black holes can exist, make no mistake. They won't be very big because protons don't have much mass, but that's not to say they can't.
I agree that they won't be sustainable for very long, and unfortunately I think it is likely that klegg will still be hanging around VBF well into 2009, but that's a different story...
Wow - that is awesome!! So the relative impact speed will be ~ twice the speed of light??? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by NickThissen
And what about the whole "approaching speed of light is impossible" thing due to exponential amounts of energy required etc etc etc? Or is 99.99% the speed of light considered not close enough to c to be a problem? Or are the masses of the particles low enough to not present that problem?
you really need to read relativity. Even if both objects are moving nearly the speed of light, the collision relative will still be less than the speed of light. It's a direct result of time dilation. The faster you go the slower everything else seems to be moving. Therefore if you are going the speed of light, and hit something else going the speed of light, to you that 2nd object was basically not moving at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
Relatively speaking, if I was a scientist watching something the speed of light hit something going the speed of light, I'm not caring what the particles are perceiving - I'm looking at a relative collision speed of 2x the speed of light! Fox Theorum™
That's awesome!
it's also the basis of the special theory of relativity. There is no way for you to observe that because the objects are moving as fast as the data detection device can see. For example light: If you are speeding toward a sun which is emitting light, the light is still hitting you at light speed relatively. The extra motion is converted to you as a shift of the light in spectrum towards the blue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm
You won't see them travel at c nor will you c them go at twice c. The mass-at-near-c velocities-becoming-infinity feature is apparent in any particle that does have a mass.
There are no problems reaching the speed of light... You can reach as close as you want to provided you have enough energy to do so. You can't however travel at the speed of light exactly, you will always be just a tiny bit slower...
And while the collision won't happen at 0.9999c + 0.9999c, the energy released by the collision will be doubled... Here's a quote from CERN's website:
Quote:
At full power, trillions of protons will race around the LHC accelerator ring 11 245 times a second, travelling at 99.99% the speed of light. Two beams of protons will each travel at a maximum energy of 7 TeV (tera-electronvolt), corresponding to head-to-head collisions of 14 TeV. Altogether some 600 million collisions will take place every second.
Meaning there'll be 8.4 billion TeV released every second??? :eek:
That's the equivalent of... of...
Around 42 million nuclear fission reactions per second! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
:afrog:
This is how it all started...
http://www.mendhak.com/extras/lhc_go..._half_life.JPG
Where is his crowbar??
It's en route, actually.
And no, I'm not kidding. The good folks at Reddit sent him a red crowbar, head crab puppet, and HL2 strategy guide with the directions "Give these to Gordon Freeman. He'll know what to do."
And yes, if memory serves me, that's actually his name.
here's the link:
http://blog.reddit.com/2008/09/crowb...-strategy.html
"released" is the wrong word to use in this context. In nuclear fusion, nuclei combine and release energy. The LHC is doing the opposite, smashing hydrogen nuclei apart, which requires an energy input - provided by the LHC itself. (nuclear fission of heavy radioactive elements is a different kettle of fish)Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
It would be nice if gravity "particles"/waves were detected :).
That seems alot yeah... I don't know actually, but my quote says that a beam of protons travels at a maximum energy of 7 TeV... So they probably mean all the protons in one beam put together.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
And you think your electric bill is high... :eek:
You speak of the nefarious Higgs boson. Stephen Hawking bet Prof. Higgs that the LHC wouldn't find it :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver