Concern Over Creating Black Holes 597
Maria Williams writes to tell us about worry surrounding the impending startup of CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Some fear that the device, in creating mini black holes, could jeopardize Life As We Know It. While the tiny black holes should evaporate quickly — throwing off so-called Hawking radiation that can be detected — CERN software developer Ran Livneh reminds us that "Any physicist will tell you that there is no way to prove that generated black holes will decay." The LHC site assures us there's nothing to worry about. The flap is reminiscent of the time the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider went live. The worry then was that "negative strangelets" could gobble up the world.
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
There was concern over atomic weapons too... (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [wikipedia.org] (wikipedia, blah blah blah)
Cosmic rays have prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Fermi knew the answer long ago (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Creating them is a problem (Score:1, Informative)
A black hole cannot just "suck in" whatever it wants, the matter and energy in question must physically come in contact with the boundary of the body to begin with. Note that no object in the immediate vicinity of a newly formed black hole has its orbit disturbed in any significant way. The gravity of a black hole to anything standing outside its bounds is not particularly fascinating - they do not behave like a drain, contrary to the way they're usually drawn.
The holes being created (IF they even get created) would be so incredibly tiny that they would immediately be attracted to the core of the planet, happily flying right in between molecules and even atoms, only occasionally colliding with them and obtaining their mass.
If, by chance, they are wrong about the decay and one escapes, it could take much longer than you or I need to worry about it until it becomes massive enough (density != mass!) to destroy the planet.
Of course, while we're speculating on silly doomsday scenarios, it could also randomly collide fast enough to grow at an exponential rate and destroy us all nearly instantaneously.
That's not too likely either though.
Re:You Fear What You Don't Understand (Score:1, Informative)
Unless our understanding of gravity is WAY off here, there's nothing special about this region of space except that we have a bunch of mass compressed into a small area. The black hole has no chance of affecting us because the mass that makes it up is no greater than the mass we put into it. Unless we seriously misunderstand gravity, this thing will disappear instantly because it can't hope to sustain itself.
Re:The world didn't end last time... (Score:2, Informative)
Fortunately, I don't have a sense of humor. This allows me to point out that, in theory anyhow (I've never seen one in person), all black holes are the same size. Their mass may vary, their size does not.
Re:There was concern over atomic weapons too... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perspective (Score:2, Informative)
If by very concerned you mean they had an office pool betting on the yield of the first atom bomb, then you would be correct, 'ignite the atmosphere' was a longshot, nothing to be seriously concerned about.
They wrote a paper on it in 1942
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00
A very short narrative about the events in question
http://www.sciencemusings.com/2005/10/what-didnt-
And David Brin (Score:3, Informative)
Earth [amazon.com]
where an artificial black hole grows out of control and slowly eats the planet earth from the inside out.
Re: Fermi's Paradox! (Score:2, Informative)
"The story goes that, one day back on the 1940's, a group of atomic scientists, including the famous Enrico Fermi, were sitting around talking, when the subject turned to extraterrestrial life. Fermi is supposed to have then asked, "So? Where is everybody?" What he meant was: If there are all these billions of planets in the universe that are capable of supporting life, and millions of intelligent species out there, then how come none has visited earth? This has come to be known as The Fermi Paradox.
Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within a few million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. A few million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise."
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox [wikipedia.org]
Reminds me of a SCIFI book I read (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Utter Crap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fermi knew the answer long ago (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please, for the love of God... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ack! (Score:3, Informative)
So?
Well, the event-sphere is actually small enough to fit between two atoms and not even touch their electrons. If the black-hole passed through the earth, it would come out the other side with about half velocity and about twice its original mass. And that's only if Hawking radiation is fallacious. If it's not, then the black hole will only have an event horizon until the decrease in mass causes its schwartzchild radius to drop below its volumetric radius - at which point, it's not a black hole anymore, it's just shitlessly dense regula-ass matter.
interestingly enough (Score:3, Informative)
Back then, the "republican" conservatives opposed the expansion of slavery and made freeing the slaves a goal. I believe they actually won the election before the civil war. Techically, Lincoln started out as a "whig", although by then the whig party was split along pro-slave/anti-slave lines and most of the anti-slave whigs (including Lincoln) became republicans by the time of the election.
Often, the pro-slave ex-whigs called themselves the "conservatives" (in an attempt to reconcile the whig party), but they mostly just teamed up with the democrats in the south and of course the democrats lost that antebellum election and the conservative "republicans" won.
Perhaps you can make the case that technically the north-conservatives won and the south-conservatives lost, but I don't think that makes your case...
Re:SETI paradox resolved (Score:2, Informative)
You can also read it online: http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question
Re:Natural Particle Accelerators (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, even though the particle was traveling that fast, it interacted with the thin upper atmosphere, right? Isn't that where the telescope was looking to see the flashes?
Re:Please, for the love of God... (Score:2, Informative)
You made two mistakes. First, you want to impose your own ideas onto the past, rather than understand the past. Second, you wish to overly simplify the past. Believe me, the Progressive Era (or the first century AD, or medieval Europe) was just as complicated, the politics just as confusing, as it is today. Humans are complicated creatures, no matter where or when you find them. The progressives were united by their common desire to see reform and fairness in American life. How this might be accomplished ran the entire spectrum, from more conservative individuals who only wanted to tinker around at the edges, to those who wanted to overthrow the entire system. Nothing in human history is simple enough to fit inside your black and white world view. Maybe you should add a little color to your thoughts.