Author Topic: CERN Black Hole maybe not so benign? (Read 11263 times)

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:21:52 PM »

Quote

The reality is that the priesthood, philosophers, scientists, etc rejected many of those ideas as well.

None of those fields are inherently contradictory nor impossible to hold simultaneously. Aren't today, never were in the past.

buzz_knox · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:24:10 PM »

Quote from: carebear on January 30, 2009, 05:21:52 PM

None of those fields are inherently contradictory nor impossible to hold simultaneously. Aren't today, never were in the past.

I wasn't trying to draw a distinction. I was just pointing out that the article's reference to other theories that were opposed by scientists was accurate.

seeker_two · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:08:14 PM »

Quote from: 280plus on January 30, 2009, 04:49:41 PM

We're screwed for sure...

....and the bad thing is.....TEOTWAWKI from a black hole may actually be better than a full four years of Obama.....

Viking · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:11:07 PM »

Quote from: seeker_two on January 30, 2009, 08:08:14 PM

....and the bad thing is.....TEOTWAWKI from a black hole may actually be better than a full four years of Obama.....

Exactly. Also, the black hole WILL take care of the recession. For good.

280plus · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:49:02 PM »

Ther's always a bright side, even to black holes...

Josh Aston · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:03:17 PM »

So no flying off to tera form other planets huh? Or will there be enough time to get some people in orbit?

280plus · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:07:37 PM »

Well, if you start building your rocket now...

AJ Dual · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Josh Aston on January 30, 2009, 09:03:17 PM

So no flying off to tera form other planets huh? Or will there be enough time to get some people in orbit?

I suppose it might take a few years, for the Earth to be consumed, or just shrink and suffer enough tectonic disruption to become uninhabitable. Assuming the wars of nihilism and panic, riots, suicides etc. didn't make it impossible, perhaps some kind of international crash program could make some kind of station, stocked with supplies to keep mining the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, comets etc. for supplies and consumables, plants, animals, and sufficient genetic diversity of people.

Although, a small black hole just the mass of Earth would probably be very dangerous just from the incidental x-rays from solar wind, micrometeorites, dust, etc. that it would be sucking up. Anything near the orbit of the former Earth might be too dangerous. Or it's orbital dynamics could change, and if it fell closer to the sun, really blast the whole solar system from it's accretion disk of solar material. Nowhere would be safe out to the orbit of the outer gas giant planets.

Josh Aston · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:27:29 PM »

Or maybe the massive energy given off as Earth is sucked up into this black hole will expel all of us to Mars. I'll just shield myself with tons of liberals and hope their mass is enough to let me survive the really quick ride to the new earth.

seeker_two · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:23:22 PM »

Quote from: 280plus on January 30, 2009, 09:07:37 PM

Well, if you start building your rocket now...

Forget that....I'm looking for hitchhikers & blue telephone boxes....

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:58:23 PM »

Don't foget to carry a towel.

Physics · « **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2009, 01:30:27 AM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on January 30, 2009, 11:58:23 PM

Don't foget to carry a towel.

Which is the most important rule in towel safety.

Cromlech · « **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2009, 02:19:56 AM »

Don't Panic!

Thor · « **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:47:56 AM »

What I wonder about is why couldn't a small black hole become a LARGE one?? Is there some astro-physics principle that precludes a black hole growing ??

Secondly, many calendars predict TEOWAWKI will be around 2012. That means, we will never see another President and be stuck with Obama until the end

I gues I'll just have to say ......

"So long and thanks for all the fish"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:55:24 AM »

Quote from: Thor on January 31, 2009, 11:47:56 AM

Secondly, many calendars predict TEOWAWKI will be around 2012. That means, we will never see another President and be stuck with Obama until the end

I gues I'll just have to say ......

"So long and thanks for all the fish"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

Dude, you are so harshing my mellow!

I'll just have my last meal at the restaurant at the end of the universe...

AJ Dual · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2009, 12:16:13 PM »

Quote from: Thor on January 31, 2009, 11:47:56 AM

What I wonder about is why couldn't a small black hole become a LARGE one?? Is there some astro-physics principle that precludes a black hole growing ??

By "small" black hole, we're talking one that's sub-atomic in size, and sub-atomic in mass.

So while the event horizon is still a point of no-return, it's smaller than anything else it may touch. if it does anything, it might just split a few particles. Also really tiny black holes are theorized (the math works out) by Stephen Hawking to "evaporate". The little random quantum jumpiness that's everywhere at that tiny a scale means mass-energy just "jumps out" of of the black hole. And quantum jumping/tunneling is the one thing that goes faster than light. And that's why a black hole initially looks like a point of no-return because things normally can't move faster than light, but on the quantum scale they can.

I'm repeating myself, but such a black hole, even if the LHC can form one, is dying/evaporating, and everything around it (atoms/particles) that it could "eat" is bigger than it is by many times. And because it's overall mass is still so infinitesimally small, it has no more total gravitational pull than any other individual particle does.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2009, 06:04:00 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on January 31, 2009, 12:16:13 PM

By "small" black hole, we're talking one that's sub-atomic in size, and sub-atomic in mass.

So while the event horizon is still a point of no-return, it's smaller than anything else it may touch. if it does anything, it might just split a few particles. Also really tiny black holes are theorized (the math works out) by Stephen Hawking to "evaporate". The little random quantum jumpiness that's everywhere at that tiny a scale means mass-energy just "jumps out" of of the black hole. And quantum jumping/tunneling is the one thing that goes faster than light. And that's why a black hole initially looks like a point of no-return because things normally can't move faster than light, but on the quantum scale they can.

I'm repeating myself, but such a black hole, even if the LHC can form one, is dying/evaporating, and everything around it (atoms/particles) that it could "eat" is bigger than it is by many times. And because it's overall mass is still so infinitesimally small, it has no more total gravitational pull than any other individual particle does.

I didn't understand any of that, therefore...

WITCH!!!!!! Burn the witch!!!!

280plus · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2009, 06:56:04 PM »

Quote

I'm repeating myself, but such a black hole, even if the LHC can form one, is dying/evaporating, and everything around it (atoms/particles) that it could "eat" is bigger than it is by many times. And because it's overall mass is still so infinitesimally small, it has no more total gravitational pull than any other individual particle does.

Sure, you say that now. Let's see what you have to say when we're all being sucked into the thing and getting spaghettified and all, you'll be changing your tune real quick then mister! I can hear you now, it'll probably sound something like "OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII... "

bedlamite · « **Reply #43 on:** February 07, 2009, 09:31:08 PM »

Quote from: 280plus on February 07, 2009, 06:56:04 PM

Sure, you say that now. Let's see what you have to say when we're all being sucked into the thing and getting spaghettified and all, you'll be changing your tune real quick then mister! I can hear you now, it'll probably sound something like "OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII... "

Woah, wrong book.

digitalandanalog · « **Reply #44 on:** February 07, 2009, 10:56:42 PM »

Wouldn't be kinda cool if all of us just ceased to exist (died in the name of science) because some wacky group of scientists accidentally killed us all?

I know...seems like kind of a bummer, but I still have to giggle...just a little bit.

PTK · « **Reply #45 on:** February 07, 2009, 11:06:55 PM »

It would be one of the very few mass deaths I would approve of.

280plus · « **Reply #46 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM »

If I understand the story correctly, some scientists thought by detonating the H bomb it might start a chain reaction with the hydrogen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet. They set it off anyways.

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #47 on:** February 08, 2009, 06:48:04 PM »

That's kind of a real acid test for the existence of an omniscient overseer.

Would the karmic pantheon allow us silly monkeeboys to implode this section of space?

I figure a planet like this one is a fairly valuable cosmic resource.
Nuking ourselves could be acceptable event, because the biosystem would eventually regenerate.

Even the blind watchmaker would have to regret totally loosing the real estate,
or does reality fall thru the rabbit hole and exist in some other realm?

Gungnir · « **Reply #48 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:01:52 PM »

Actually the H-Bomb concern in atmosphere isn't quite correct.

The concern with the H-Bomb was for use as a maritime weapon, where there is a burst under high pressure (say a Nuclear Depth Charge). Where the fluid dynamics at the depth of the explosion, combined with the higher concentrations of Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium, had a theoretical possibility of creating a sustained fusion reaction in the earths Oceans. I don't think it was ever tested, they moved to Tac-Nukes of purely fissile materials instead (like SubROC).

Antibubba · « **Reply #49 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:52:16 AM »

Quote

I'm repeating myself, but such a black hole, even if the LHC can form one, is dying/evaporating, and everything around it (atoms/particles) that it could "eat" is bigger than it is by many times. And because it's overall mass is still so infinitesimally small, it has no more total gravitational pull than any other individual particle does.

So at what mass does a black hole become sustainable? IOW, when does Hawking radiation of mass/energy away from it become less than mass/energy pouring into it? I can't imagine the LHC being able to create that level of output.

News:

Author Topic: CERN Black Hole maybe not so benign? (Read 11263 times)