See you all in a black hole! page 2

69 posts

Flag Post

U guyz! Guyz!

Teh hardons collided. Srrsly u guyz.
Teh hardons. Collided. Srrsly!
U guys! Srrsly!

Well I didn’t catch the blog. What did I miss?

 
Flag Post

Black hole formed and we all died. We got better, though — turns out passing through an event horizon is pretty safe. Now we’re in an infinitely small universe that, because of scale, looks infinitely large still. Pretty cool, pretty cool.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Science, in all its methodical and understated glory.

 
Flag Post

So how long are we going to have to wait for some new discoveries, or whatever the hell they were looking for?

 
Flag Post

Impossible to tell, really. Could be hours, could be months. Lots of data to sift through.

 
Flag Post

Given that the LHC will be producing 15 exobytes of data per year, it will take some time. We need new models of data mining, visualisation and manipulation to cope with datasets that large.

 
Flag Post

I wouldn’t have minded if we had skipped combustion at all. No use of coal or oil. Somehow everything is nuclear powered. Or we had skipped the asbestos phase. Or lead, MTPB?, in our fuel. Doing unspeakables with African jungle mammals.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Madman0311:

U guyz! Guyz!

Teh hardons collided. Srrsly u guyz.
Teh hardons. Collided. Srrsly!
U guys! Srrsly!

Well I didn’t catch the blog. What did I miss?

The whole universe got sucked through a strangelet and flipped 180 degrees, but the good news is it’s impossible to tell from the inside.

 
Flag Post

Remember that there is a little chance for you to die everytime you something, i mean its dangerous to live, no one have survived life yet.

 
Flag Post

Worry more about these:
5 Cosmic Events That Could Kill You Before Lunch
5 Bizarre Ways the Weather Can Kill You Without Warning

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Given that the LHC will be producing 15 exobytes of data per year, it will take some time. We need new models of data mining, visualisation and manipulation to cope with datasets that large.

There’s still the small chance that they find something insanely mind-blowing at random within a few hours of getting into all those numbers.

 
Flag Post

this might be dumb.. but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

i dont think it will cause black hole but we dont know much at all about the really small and the really big and how they interact to truly know what could happen, but on the other hand we will never know unless we do the tests so lets hope for the best

 
Flag Post

The category “Nature” is an artificial construct with no actual boundaries. There is no such thing as natural. Our controlled environment of science is just as “natural” as the uncontrolled random events in the stratosphere. The difference is that one was made by man and the other was made by circumstance. If random circumstances determine nature, what is a significant amount of randomness before a thing becomes natural again?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:

this might be dumb.

good thing you know that

but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

nope. The collisions are happening in a vacuum. There is less matter available to a black hole that might spawn inside the LHC. There is also NO DIFFERENCE between an “artificial” microsingularity and a “natural” microsingularity.
Also, chances are that you have no idea how chaos-theory applies to the weather. This means that you would feel like you should not mess arround with it, yet every breath you take can have consequences for the entire planet, and might destroy us all. now stop messing around with the weather before you are going to cause a hurricane.


i dont think it will cause black hole but we dont know much at all about the really small and the really big and how they interact to truly know what could happen, but on the other hand we will never know unless we do the tests so lets hope for the best


we know enough about quantummechanics and relativity to understand how this machine will not destroy the universe. If you want to, you could calculate for yourself what the size of a blackhole formed in the LHC would be, and how long it takes for it to evaporate completely.

We have 2 protons colliding, each with an energy of 7 TeV. (we assume the LHC will run on full-power, since that is what they are planning to do in 2013). Now we assume, that in the colission, all energy will be converted to mass. we ignore the mass of the protons, since this is to small to have a noticeable effect.
since, E=MC^2, we would end up with roughly 2,5 * 10^-23 Kg.
this equals 0.000000000000000000000000000000000025 kg, just so you know what we are talking about.
now we can calculate the radius of the blackhole by using
r = (2*M*G)/(c^2) = (2*(2.5*10^-23) * (6.67*10^-11))/(3.00*10^8)^2 = 1.11* 10 -41 meters.

Using the formula for hawking-radiation, we can calculate the time it takes for this microsingularity to evaporate completely.
t = 5120*(pi)* G^2xM^3/(reduced-planck-constant)x c^4 = 1.18×10^-67 seconds.

There you have your answer. in case all energy of a collision in the LHC will be converted into a black hole, it is going to be to small to affect us, and live to short to grow bigger.

 
Flag Post

BombCog: Very true, and hoped for.

Still, the majority of such discoveries will come once we are capable of manipulating such data in meaningful ways. We’ll still have it, even whilst analysis methods catch up.

Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:

this might be dumb.. but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

It occurs in the conditions of the collision chamber and detection grids, so that’s still filled with fast moving and stationary particles at a very low density. Also, you’re suggesting we only experiment in order to learn, on things we already know and fully understand? What’s the point in that?

 
Flag Post

Most knowledge expansion is good knowledge expansion, and despite being relatively crap with understanding advanced physics I can’t wait to see what fun stuff it turns up, if anything.

I do check here every day though, just to make sure.

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

BombCog: Very true, and hoped for.

Still, the majority of such discoveries will come once we are capable of manipulating such data in meaningful ways. We’ll still have it, even whilst analysis methods catch up.

Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:

this might be dumb.. but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

It occurs in the conditions of the collision chamber and detection grids, so that’s still filled with fast moving and stationary particles at a very low density. Also, you’re suggesting we only experiment in order to learn, on things we already know and fully understand? What’s the point in that?

some people are worried that if this messes up somehow not forseen it could destroy the earth its not as if something odd happens and your petri dish experminent has to be run again its the very earth we are talking about i wish we could do thee experiments far out in space past the orbit of pluto or something

 
Flag Post

It’s like you didn’t read anything in this thread and are falling back on ignorant fears.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

BombCog: Very true, and hoped for.

Still, the majority of such discoveries will come once we are capable of manipulating such data in meaningful ways. We’ll still have it, even whilst analysis methods catch up.

Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:

this might be dumb.. but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

It occurs in the conditions of the collision chamber and detection grids, so that’s still filled with fast moving and stationary particles at a very low density. Also, you’re suggesting we only experiment in order to learn, on things we already know and fully understand? What’s the point in that?

some people are worried that if this messes up somehow not forseen it could destroy the earth its not as if something odd happens and your petri dish experminent has to be run again its the very earth we are talking about i wish we could do thee experiments far out in space past the orbit of pluto or something

Originally posted by kirdaiht
we know enough about quantummechanics and relativity to understand how this machine will not destroy the universe. If you want to, you could calculate for yourself what the size of a blackhole formed in the LHC would be, and how long it takes for it to evaporate completely.

We have 2 protons colliding, each with an energy of 7 TeV. (we assume the LHC will run on full-power, since that is what they are planning to do in 2013). Now we assume, that in the colission, all energy will be converted to mass. we ignore the mass of the protons, since this is to small to have a noticeable effect.
since, E=MC^2, we would end up with roughly 2,5 * 10^-23 Kg.
this equals 0.000000000000000000000000000000000025 kg, just so you know what we are talking about.
now we can calculate the radius of the blackhole by using
r = (2*M*G)/(c^2) = (2*(2.5*10^-23) * (6.67*10^-11))/(3.00*10^8)^2 = 1.11* 10 -41 meters.

Using the formula for hawking-radiation, we can calculate the time it takes for this microsingularity to evaporate completely.
t = 5120*(pi)* G^2xM^3/(reduced-planck-constant)x c^4 = 1.18×10^-67 seconds.

There you have your answer. in case all energy of a collision in the LHC will be converted into a black hole, it is going to be to small to affect us, and live to short to grow bigger.


science says it won’t destroy earth. do you actually read posts?

anyway, we are just feeding one of vanguarde’s many personalities here. van, I think you should see your psychiater again, since you obviously have a severe form of e-schizophrenia
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by kirdaiht:
Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

BombCog: Very true, and hoped for.

Still, the majority of such discoveries will come once we are capable of manipulating such data in meaningful ways. We’ll still have it, even whilst analysis methods catch up.

Originally posted by FarmingFoolPig:

this might be dumb.. but would the fact we are creating these micro black holes artifically and not naturally like in the upper atmospere a cause for worry or something or just the fact we are messing around with stuff we dont know about in order to learn about it is somewhat dangerous or what about the location of the machine itself it’s not in the upper atmospere like the natural collisions so could that be a problem we dont know about?

It occurs in the conditions of the collision chamber and detection grids, so that’s still filled with fast moving and stationary particles at a very low density. Also, you’re suggesting we only experiment in order to learn, on things we already know and fully understand? What’s the point in that?

some people are worried that if this messes up somehow not forseen it could destroy the earth its not as if something odd happens and your petri dish experminent has to be run again its the very earth we are talking about i wish we could do thee experiments far out in space past the orbit of pluto or something

Originally posted by kirdaiht
we know enough about quantummechanics and relativity to understand how this machine will not destroy the universe. If you want to, you could calculate for yourself what the size of a blackhole formed in the LHC would be, and how long it takes for it to evaporate completely.

We have 2 protons colliding, each with an energy of 7 TeV. (we assume the LHC will run on full-power, since that is what they are planning to do in 2013). Now we assume, that in the colission, all energy will be converted to mass. we ignore the mass of the protons, since this is to small to have a noticeable effect.
since, E=MC^2, we would end up with roughly 2,5 * 10^-23 Kg.
this equals 0.000000000000000000000000000000000025 kg, just so you know what we are talking about.
now we can calculate the radius of the blackhole by using
r = (2*M*G)/(c^2) = (2*(2.5*10^-23) * (6.67*10^-11))/(3.00*10^8)^2 = 1.11* 10 -41 meters.

Using the formula for hawking-radiation, we can calculate the time it takes for this microsingularity to evaporate completely.
t = 5120*(pi)* G^2xM^3/(reduced-planck-constant)x c^4 = 1.18×10^-67 seconds.

There you have your answer. in case all energy of a collision in the LHC will be converted into a black hole, it is going to be to small to affect us, and live to short to grow bigger.


science says it won’t destroy earth. do you actually read posts?

anyway, we are just feeding one of vanguarde’s many personalities here. van, I think you should see your psychiater again, since you obviously have a severe form of e-schizophrenia

well my dad says science can be wrong and is often wrong more than one thinks

 
Flag Post

Sounds like your dad is woefully uneducated. Tell me, is he a car dealer?

Science isn’t wrong, it may be inaccurate, but that’s only because it attempts to unite all the facts into a cohesive theory. As we gain more facts, the theories become more accurate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Sounds like your dad is woefully uneducated. Tell me, is he a car dealer?

Science isn’t wrong, it may be inaccurate, but that’s only because it attempts to unite all the facts into a cohesive theory. As we gain more facts, the theories become more accurate.

no he is not uneducated he is smart also he is a farmer and that is what i want to be we do not live anywhere near a city nor a car dealer

people keep asking me odd things on my page and stuff here

i just hope for all our sake science is right about this stuff

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Sounds like your dad is woefully uneducated. Tell me, is he a car dealer?

Science isn’t wrong, it may be inaccurate, but that’s only because it attempts to unite all the facts into a cohesive theory. As we gain more facts, the theories become more accurate.

only half true. If a fact does not “fit” in a theory, then the entire theory can be wrong. This doesn’t mean “science” as a whole would be wrong, but every part of it, regarding this fact that doesn’t fit, is. In general, theories can be wrong, science is always right.

Science itself is simply incapable of being wrong. When it looks like science is wrong, science changes in such a way that it will no longer be wrong. Anyway vanguarde, could the father of your latest e-SplitPersonality have any example of where science, of a whole is or was wrong?

 
Flag Post

I was laughing at people getting upset about the LHC being dangerous.

Till I saw this ofcourse.

Now I’m terrified. His name is Paul Frimen.