very interesting
Black holes in cern
Forum Index > General Forum |
no.1
516 Posts
very interesting | ||
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
| ||
HypnoticPoo
Singapore291 Posts
HAHA dragons. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can’t afford their mortgages and in some places now they can’t even afford rice. None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe. Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some checking just to make sure. The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature. But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious issue that has bothered scholars and scientists in recent years — namely how to estimate the risk of new groundbreaking experiments and who gets to decide whether or not to go ahead. The lawsuit, filed March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu, seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an environmental assessment. It names the federal Department of Energy, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the National Science Foundation and CERN as defendants. According to a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is representing the Department of Energy, a scheduling meeting has been set for June 16. Why should CERN, an organization of European nations based in Switzerland, even show up in a Hawaiian courtroom? In an interview, Mr. Wagner said, “I don’t know if they’re going to show up.” CERN would have to voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction, he said, adding that he and Mr. Sancho could have sued in France or Switzerland, but to save expenses they had added CERN to the docket here. He claimed that a restraining order on Fermilab and the Energy Department, which helps to supply and maintain the accelerator’s massive superconducting magnets, would shut down the project anyway. James Gillies, head of communications at CERN, said the laboratory as of yet had no comment on the suit. “It’s hard to see how a district court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental organization in Europe,” Mr. Gillies said. “There is nothing new to suggest that the L.H.C. is unsafe,” he said, adding that its safety had been confirmed by two reports, with a third on the way, and would be the subject of a discussion during an open house at the lab on April 6. “Scientifically, we’re not hiding away,” he said. But Mr. Wagner is not mollified. “They’ve got a lot of propaganda saying it’s safe,” he said in an interview, “but basically it’s propaganda.” In an e-mail message, Mr. Wagner called the CERN safety review “fundamentally flawed” and said it had been initiated too late. The review process violates the European Commission’s standards for adhering to the “Precautionary Principle,” he wrote, “and has not been done by ‘arms length’ scientists.” Physicists in and out of CERN say a variety of studies, including an official CERN report in 2003, have concluded there is no problem. But just to be sure, last year the anonymous Safety Assessment Group was set up to do the review again. “The possibility that a black hole eats up the Earth is too serious a threat to leave it as a matter of argument among crackpots,” said Michelangelo Mangano, a CERN theorist who said he was part of the group. The others prefer to remain anonymous, Mr. Mangano said, for various reasons. Their report was due in January. This is not the first time around for Mr. Wagner. He filed similar suits in 1999 and 2000 to prevent the Brookhaven National Laboratory from operating the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That suit was dismissed in 2001. The collider, which smashes together gold ions in the hopes of creating what is called a “quark-gluon plasma,” has been operating without incident since 2000. Mr. Wagner, who lives on the Big Island of Hawaii, studied physics and did cosmic ray research at the University of California, Berkeley, and received a doctorate in law from what is now known as the University of Northern California in Sacramento. He subsequently worked as a radiation safety officer for the Veterans Administration. Mr. Sancho, who describes himself as an author and researcher on time theory, lives in Spain, probably in Barcelona, Mr. Wagner said. Doomsday fears have a long, if not distinguished, pedigree in the history of physics. At Los Alamos before the first nuclear bomb was tested, Emil Konopinski was given the job of calculating whether or not the explosion would set the atmosphere on fire. The Large Hadron Collider is designed to fire up protons to energies of seven trillion electron volts before banging them together. Nothing, indeed, will happen in the CERN collider that does not happen 100,000 times a day from cosmic rays in the atmosphere, said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a particle theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. What is different, physicists admit, is that the fragments from cosmic rays will go shooting harmlessly through the Earth at nearly the speed of light, but anything created when the beams meet head-on in the collider will be born at rest relative to the laboratory and so will stick around and thus could create havoc. The new worries are about black holes, which, according to some variants of string theory, could appear at the collider. That possibility, though a long shot, has been widely ballyhooed in many papers and popular articles in the last few years, but would they be dangerous? According to a paper by the cosmologist Stephen Hawking in 1974, they would rapidly evaporate in a poof of radiation and elementary particles, and thus pose no threat. No one, though, has seen a black hole evaporate. As a result, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sancho contend in their complaint, black holes could really be stable, and a micro black hole created by the collider could grow, eventually swallowing the Earth. But William Unruh, of the University of British Columbia, whose paper exploring the limits of Dr. Hawking’s radiation process was referenced on Mr. Wagner’s Web site, said they had missed his point. “Maybe physics really is so weird as to not have black holes evaporate,” he said. “But it would really, really have to be weird.” Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a paper last year that black holes would probably not be produced at the collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum gravity might appear. As part of the safety assessment report, Dr. Mangano and Steve Giddings of the University of California, Santa Barbara, have been working intensely for the last few months on a paper exploring all the possibilities of these fearsome black holes. They think there are no problems but are reluctant to talk about their findings until they have been peer reviewed, Dr. Mangano said. Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.” interesting indeed.. it sounds like crackpot theory, but its surprisingly legit | ||
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6631 Posts
| ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
aseq
Netherlands3929 Posts
| ||
oneCrash
United States8 Posts
It is not likely that something will go wrong but even if it did, people don't seem to get that it takes a HUGE amount of matter to produce a HUGE black hole. We are smashing the littlest bits of matter we can get our hands on over. Two protons will not a serious black hole make. In theory. :-D | ||
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
| ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
CERN != Aperture science. CERN != Black Mesa. | ||
Raithed
China7077 Posts
| ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
| ||
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
"Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some checking just to make sure." Rofl! This made me laugh. | ||
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
"Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.” I love speculative science. | ||
Myxomatosis
United States2392 Posts
| ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On June 08 2008 23:58 Klive5ive wrote: Yeah this is a guy with a doctorate in law and a writer trying to argue against over 500 over the best Physics professors in the world. Basically. | ||
Physician
United States4146 Posts
countdown to the main experiment : ) Nice site for dummies: http://www.uslhc.us/What_is_the_LHC Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider | ||
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 08 2008 23:29 oneCrash wrote: When a black hole is created, as far as we understand, its strength is directly related to the amount of matter that collapses to make it and then it grows based on the matter it can suck it. So any black hole made at the LHC would safely fit into some woman's handbag at its absolute biggest. The easy solution is to make a container for it, put it on a space shuttle, and launch it into space on the next ride IF it were to happen. It is not likely that something will go wrong but even if it did, people don't seem to get that it takes a HUGE amount of matter to produce a HUGE black hole. We are smashing the littlest bits of matter we can get our hands on over. Two protons will not a serious black hole make. In theory. :-D Oddly enough that's what I was thinking when I read this article. | ||
H
New Zealand6129 Posts
"Flight security, what's in that bag?" "A black hole." "JESUS CHRIST" | ||
edahl
Norway483 Posts
On June 09 2008 00:15 Myxomatosis wrote: just don't kill us all plz Or wait until after BWWI. | ||
clazziquai
6685 Posts
PLEASE! | ||
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
And cosmic rays with much higher energies than what goes on inside accelerators have been hitting the earth since forever. | ||
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
| ||
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
| ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
I don't know if miniscule black holes are unstable due to Hawkins radiation. | ||
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
| ||
trickser
Germany139 Posts
| ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
8882
2717 Posts
Yeah, the guys who get the funding are supposed to asses their own work and if they say that it's dangerous they will get laid off. Do you seriously trust them? Also, there are many black holes in the universe. Perhaps most civilizations end up being sucked up into them. If the chance is minimal, actually any there should be a "NO GO". Actually this is the thing that should be banned, bombared by Dubya and then by Osama, because this can bring harm to all of us. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:06 8882 wrote: Yeah, the guys who get the funding are supposed to asses their own work and if they say that it's dangerous they will get laid off. Do you seriously trust them? Also, there are many black holes in the universe. Perhaps most civilizations end up being sucked up into them. If the chance is minimal, actually any there should be a "NO GO". Actually this is the thing that should be banned, bombared by Dubya and then by Osama, because this can bring harm to all of us. Hahahaha, good one | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:06 8882 wrote: Yeah, the guys who get the funding are supposed to asses their own work and if they say that it's dangerous they will get laid off. Do you seriously trust them? Also, there are many black holes in the universe. Perhaps most civilizations end up being sucked up into them. If the chance is minimal, actually any there should be a "NO GO". Actually this is the thing that should be banned, bombared by Dubya and then by Osama, because this can bring harm to all of us. The problem with that is many physicists not connected with CERN also say that there is nothing to be worried about. If anything, gamma ray bursts or super-novae are more of a concern than blackholes being formed by the LHC. Edit: I may be being Romanian here, but I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:05 trickser wrote: I just dont get it? How the hell are black holes supposed to be created by that, could someone explain the scientific background on this? I mean black holes are made through a critical mass of matter which together has so much gravity that it just keeps sucking everything in, or not? The critical mass only applies to stars. Black holes are created when the size of some object is smaller than a certain radius which depends on its mass. So even small objects can become black holes, if they are small/dense enough. So the absolute mass is still very small, but they are very dense. Their gravity-field is not stronger that that of any other object of the same mass, but if you come too close you cannot escape according to general relativity. Except GR offers no way for a once created Black hole to disapear again. But QM is believed to cause them to evaporate. Small black holes are believed to be evaporating through some quantummecanical behavior such as hawking-radiation. The problem is, that we have no reliable theory describing both general relativity and quantum-mechanics at the same time. This means we cannot describe the behavior of such a small black hole reliably. So there is much information we can gain from observing small heavy objects, but on the other hand this introduces doubts, because we do not know enough about it to be certain they are harmless. I'm very sure nothing will happen, but the problem is that the worst case scenario is really bad, when compared to the informational gain we can expect. There are several reasons why you cannot contain a black hole in a container. Electically charged black holes become neutral quite fast by succing in matter with the opposite charge. So basically the only force which interacts with a BH is gravity. So if it does not evaporate and has no momentum it falls down into the core earth, where it might grow exponetially over the years,and finally "eat" the whole earth. The moon etc should be left untouched. But all of this is wild speculation, and I don't think they are a real danger. Especially compared to crazy politicians with a nuclear arsenal like Bush, Putin, etc. | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
| ||
Guss
Sweden712 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:05 trickser wrote: I just dont get it? How the hell are black holes supposed to be created by that, could someone explain the scientific background on this? I mean black holes are made through a critical mass of matter which together has so much gravity that it just keeps sucking everything in, or not? isnt that exactly what happends when u shoot that many protons towards 1 spot? they melt together to create a superheavy mass? | ||
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
| ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:41 EAGER-beaver wrote: All this speculation over black holes is really kooky. As the article and many people have already pointed out, the earth gets bombarded with cosmic radiation millions of times more powerful then the latest cern particle accelerator can provide. Ultimately I think this accelerator is just another huge money sink. Solar arrays that attempt to collect information about comsic rays (at a fraction of a cost) could provide answers that would push theoretical physics much further then cern could ever hope to, but only the Japanese are trying this direction. Any source to back up your argument about solar arrays? | ||
thoraxe
United States1449 Posts
| ||
Guss
Sweden712 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:56 thoraxe wrote: I've always wanted to die from a black hole or a Death Star ray. id wanna be lightsabered by darth vader | ||
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:06 8882 wrote: Yeah, the guys who get the funding are supposed to asses their own work and if they say that it's dangerous they will get laid off. Do you seriously trust them? Also, there are many black holes in the universe. Perhaps most civilizations end up being sucked up into them. If the chance is minimal, actually any there should be a "NO GO". Actually this is the thing that should be banned, bombared by Dubya and then by Osama, because this can bring harm to all of us. ORLY? you seem really knowledgeable on the reason for why civilizations come to an end...considering we haven't found any yet. Besides its not just the "guys who get the funding" that have said it wont pose a threat, it's a number of credible physicists comletely unrelated to the project. | ||
8882
2717 Posts
On June 09 2008 03:12 eG)HeavenS wrote: ORLY? you seem really knowledgeable on the reason for why civilizations come to an end...considering we haven't found any yet. Besides its not just the "guys who get the funding" that have said it wont pose a threat, it's a number of credible physicists comletely unrelated to the project. and who are you actually? any sort of expert? the experts that assessed the risk of hadron collider (seriously, I confuse the name with "hard-on collider" every time) said that there is minimum risk. so if it the risk is 0,1%.. we could make a simple calculation Expected win = 99,9% * the knowledge we gain = some knowledge Expected loss = 0,1% * infinity = infinity Expected result = expected win - expected loss = -infinity Or are my calculations wrong? If we win, we get some useless knowledge. If we lose, we lose all. HMM but apparently if the scientists tell us that everything is fine it will be fine, let me guess, are you the one who believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction? | ||
oneCrash
United States8 Posts
Their gravity-field is not stronger that that of any other object of the same mass, but if you come too close you cannot escape according to general relativity. There are several reasons why you cannot contain a black hole in a container. Electically charged black holes become neutral quite fast by succing in matter with the opposite charge. So basically the only force which interacts with a BH is gravity. So if it does not evaporate and has no momentum it falls down into the core earth, where it might grow exponetially over the years,and finally "eat" the whole earth. The moon etc should be left untouched. But all of this is wild speculation, and I don't think they are a real danger. Especially compared to crazy politicians with a nuclear arsenal like Bush, Putin, etc. Well argued, however, you simultaneously argued against yourself. What would the "danger zone" of a two, or even one hundred, proton-produced black hole be? Something we could even notice without looking. At that size, you could step on it, and sure, your shoe atoms might be pissed, but you'll be okay, i.e. only stray particles on a subatomic level would be affected at first. Given, if we sat around and poked our own little black hole with proverbial atomic sticks for awhile, it would grow to a relevant size where it could "eat" a relevant amount of matter. However, as is, that wouldn't happen. In theory. Again, this is all theory. It is also conceivable that if we made a black hole it could do nothing due to an inability to overcome the strong force if it were on that same scale. It wouldn't be the first time that objects behave radically differently as related to size. Or it could make dragons. A Swiss guy said it. It's probably true. EDIT: 8882, Statistically, you are more likely to die by getting out of bed than by staying in bed. Let's use a similar example: You get out of bed and get stuff done X .999999999999 = some stuff done You get out of bed and EXPLODE X .0000000000000000001 = DEATH^(INFINITYXRAWRBBQLOZLKBYE) Probability theory isn't even real math. The two things real mathematicians always make fun of: probability and statistics. Disregard them or all arguments become immediately inane. If we do all die the day the LHC starts up, it probably won't be from the LHC. Russia might decide its a good day to make sure their nukes still work, ya know, just in case. | ||
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
| ||
d.arkive
United States843 Posts
| ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 09 2008 03:22 8882 wrote: and who are you actually? any sort of expert? the experts that assessed the risk of hadron collider (seriously, I confuse the name with "hard-on collider" every time) said that there is minimum risk. so if it the risk is 0,1%.. we could make a simple calculation Expected win = 99,9% * the knowledge we gain = some knowledge Expected loss = 0,1% * infinity = infinity Expected result = expected win - expected loss = -infinity Or are my calculations wrong? If we win, we get some useless knowledge. If we lose, we lose all. HMM but apparently if the scientists tell us that everything is fine it will be fine, let me guess, are you the one who believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction? 8882, given that I am doing a PhD in theoretical physics, I guess I qualify as an "expert" in this forum (obviously, I am far from it in the real academic world). That said, I can tell you that all you are saying is bullshit. And no, I won't even bother explaining to you why because it is already written in various blogs all over the internet. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
even in the unlikely event miniblackholes formed, its not like they would last for all that long before evaporating | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
http://www.exitmundi.nl/blackholes_lab.htm http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm | ||
8882
2717 Posts
On June 09 2008 03:23 oneCrash wrote: Their gravity-field is not stronger that that of any other object of the same mass, but if you come too close you cannot escape according to general relativity. EDIT: 8882, Statistically, you are more likely to die by getting out of bed than by staying in bed. Let's use a similar example: You get out of bed and get stuff done X .999999999999 = some stuff done You get out of bed and EXPLODE X .0000000000000000001 = DEATH^(INFINITYXRAWRBBQLOZLKBYE) Probability theory isn't even real math. The two things real mathematicians always make fun of: probability and statistics. Disregard them or all arguments become immediately inane. If we do all die the day the LHC starts up, it probably won't be from the LHC. Russia might decide its a good day to make sure their nukes still work, ya know, just in case. Yea, statistics arent real maths, that's why we use it every day to test things... are you insane? Basically you are saying that, if we can die while waking up, we should never take care of ourselves and perform risky actions all the time? Ding while waking up, is something I cant prevent. Dying from the hadron collider is something (that in theory) we could prevent, if we could for once agree on something. Are you one of the people, who do not use condoms, because they work only 99% of the time? On June 09 2008 03:27 Kroc. wrote: 8882, given that I am doing my PhD in theoretical physics with famous string theorists, I guess I qualify as an "expert" in this forum (obviously, I am far from it in the real academic world). That said, I can tell you that all you are saying is bullshit. And no, I won't even bother explaining to you why because it is already written in various blogs all over the internet. If you are such an expert, be the expert and explain it, instead of pointing to "the internet", because I could write that I am a certified pokemon trainer and also got a phd in the third world country where I live (probably I could buy any phd if I tried really hard) + I wont back up the things I write because it was explained over the blogs on the internet. Actually SpoR posted some blogs from the internet that back the things I wrote (but without sources). Could you elaborate why the fireball created wasnt a black hole? It shoudlnt be a problem with your phd (and you're so arrogant that you seem to know everything about everything). Also, can you scan your diploma and paste the picture here? If I have a small chance of dying that gives me a crappy, useless reward, I dont take. Maybe you do, but isnt that just stupid? And who let you decide for me? On June 09 2008 03:26 fusionsdf wrote: every time 8882 gets into an argument, I lose more and more respect for him Shouldnt you be crying over the hoardes of idiots who flooded the general forum? Manifesto7 even stopped reading it.. and I think I will do it too. Guy1: claims that statistics arent maths (wow! that was deep) Guy2: visits a DISCUSSION board, to boast about his phd (if it is even real) and does NOT DISCUSS THINGS, because he knows them better... Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. The general board is somehow become the new black hole that is slowly sucking infinite things.. edit: This is probably my last post in this thread, you guys know better. You are so smart, hopefully you are right and we wont die, the sad part is that I dont believe you, because you cant even give any proper arguments for the LHC. | ||
micronesia
United States24345 Posts
| ||
Groslouser
France337 Posts
And what you wrote has nothing to do with stats. its some random numbers written one after the other without any mathematical basis, thus your argument is not valid. An exemple: a dna test show that the suspect's dna match the biological samples found on a scene at 90%. In several case, a lawyer argued that if they matched at 90% then their was a 10% of chance that the suspect was not te good person, wich is false. | ||
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
| ||
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6631 Posts
| ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
Poll: Which do you see more fit to be entrusted with the future of mankind? (Vote): CERN Scientists (Vote): A hawaiian lawyer (Vote): SlayerS_`BoxeR` | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 09 2008 04:30 B1nary wrote: It'll be funny (and painful) if Hawkings was actually wrong. That would be like the biggest self-ownage ever ^^ Who the fuck is "Hawkings"? | ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking | ||
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6631 Posts
A mixture of Dawkins and Hawking? | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
fail | ||
micronesia
United States24345 Posts
Was your entire purpose of posting this to point out that the name was misspelled? Can you also explain what your problem with the picture is? Is it that the poster should have realized you already knew who Hawking was, or that the words were fail? | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:04 micronesia wrote: Was your entire purpose of posting this to point out that the name was misspelled? Yep Can you also explain what your problem with the picture is? Is it that the poster should have realized you already knew who Hawking was, or that the words were fail? Both | ||
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
no seriously, sucked..... in.... a black hole. You do know that black holes are things that are very heavy yes?(huge mass which is why nothing escapes the gravity field yadiyadiya,) And that the protons are like what? not so very heavy? :p PS: I calculated a bit and realized that earth would need to have a diameter of 8 mm in order to be a black hole. dunno why i did this:p | ||
micronesia
United States24345 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:12 DwmC_Foefen wrote: 8882, do you really believe that we're all going to be sucked into a black hole?? no seriously, sucked..... in.... a black hole. You do know that black holes are things that are very heavy yes?(huge mass which is why nothing escapes the gravity field yadiyadiya,) And that the protons are like what? not so very heavy? :p PS: I calculated a bit and realized that earth would need to have a diameter of 8 mm in order to be a black hole. dunno why i did this:p I think you are missing the point of why there is a fear of black holes forming. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
so am I with the limited amount of matter smashing together and the highly unlikely chance of a black hole forming, where is the danger? any black hole that forms should be tiny | ||
sith
United States2474 Posts
Now if it isn't made naturally like that, it must be "crushed" together by a force other than gravity. These would be really tiny, and would pretty much evaporate in a nanosecond due to Hawking Radiation. | ||
micronesia
United States24345 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:39 sith wrote: If you seriously think there is any chance of a black hole "gobbling up earth in a chain reaction" you should be shot. ESPECIALLY if you have not had any formal teaching in physics. I haven't either, but I've read enough to know that black holes usually form from a mass several times the size of our sun. This would result in a relatively tiny black hole. SEVERAL TIMES THE SIZE OF OUR SUN. Now if it isn't made naturally like that, it must be "crushed" together by a force other than gravity. These would be really tiny, and would pretty much evaporate in a nanosecond due to Hawking Radiation. People are starting to exaggerate again so I'd like to complain. You should be 'shot'? I'm sure that was an intentional overstatement, but still, nobody has a 100% firm grasp on black holes, so it's unfair to expect the average forum goer to be comfortable talking about what is generally accepted about black holes by the scientific community. Being mad that people are complaining without the formal training is all well and good, but when the issue is whether or not the topic will severely affect the lives of those without the formal training, it's understandable if they are still interested in participating. The idea that black holes 'usually form from a mass several times the size of our sun' automatically means a smaller one can't be formed in the laboratory? I hope you are right, but I don't think this is any kind of self-evident truth. Has it been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that tiny black holes will evaporate? There certainly is a theory behind it, but I'm not willing to wager on it right now. edit: I'm not saying your scientific beliefs are wrong, but just that you should consider being more polite to those with less knowledge than yourself. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
You assumed wrongly. I am not getting my PhD in my country, but in a "first-world" country and, actually, the professors I am working with are famous string theorists :s. And no, I am not going to scan my diploma and post it here, mainly because I am still working on getting it. Although, on a second thought, perhaps in this crazy world of ours in which you believe black holes will form at the LHC and destroy us all, I might be able to build a time machine and travel to the future! Will start working on that and if I succeed, I will post the scan, ok? I know what I said in my other post and on this one might come across as arrogant, but I wrote it in that way on purpose. I just wanted you to stop all the stupid things you are saying, but apparently you won't. Again, I will not take the time to explain everything that is already explained in detail in several blogs (google Motl, Asymptotia; those blogs are written by very good physicists). Finally, if you think that the reward we get from these kind of experiments is useless and crappy, you are beyond any shadow of doubt, very stupid. You are able to visit this website and post your bullshit thanks to CERN carrying out experiments like this decades ago | ||
micronesia
United States24345 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:48 Kroc. wrote: Finally, if you think that the reward we get from these kind of experiments is useless and crappy, you are beyond any shadow of doubt, very stupid. You are able to visit this website and post your bullshit thanks to CERN carrying out experiments like this decades ago This seems very similar to the type of statement I criticized in my previous post. You aren't wrong for feeling that this kind of research is important, but it isn't as obvious as you think. | ||
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
Watch out for these two crackpots (who have no idea what they are talking about) in future. I've been looking forward to seeing what happens at CERN for some time now. Roll on the Netherdrakes. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
They don't know what particles they will get.... but they DO know they won't make a duckbilled platypus, a tauren marine, a large KFC bucket, Keira Knightley or A BLACK HOLE. CERN scientists > your made-up bollocks I've been to CERN and the place is awesome, they do the sort of research that if anything will save the world. What you are doing is just fear-mongering at it's worst. It's like saying maybe we should all stand the fuck still, in case moving causes a chain reaction between the particles in our body and that of the atmosphere resulting in the end of the world. In other words... total bollocks. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:51 micronesia wrote: This seems very similar to the type of statement I criticized in my previous post. You aren't wrong for feeling that this kind of research is important, but it isn't as obvious as you think. True, it might not be obvious to everyone, so let me clarify that point. Every time one of these experiments is built, not only fundamental knowledge is pushed forward, but so is technology. Many parts of the experiments require new techniques to be developed, which results in sometimes in unexpected technological discoveries. Not to mention that the mere fact that a machine like the LHC can be constructed is stunning. Since I referred to the Internet being born at CERN, I should also mention that the people there are developing the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, which I have heard from some friends might be key to the future of data transmission (if anyone knows more about this, please let us know, because I am pretty bad with computers ) | ||
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
| ||
DhakhaR
United Kingdom721 Posts
on a serious note, scientists > lawyers. | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On June 09 2008 06:21 ilj.psa wrote: To me even a "small chance" of destroying the Earth. Its something we should take an second look at What if that chance was infinitesimally smaller than say... our Sun going nova? We can't stop and worry about every possible thing that might kill all life on Earth... | ||
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:56 Klive5ive wrote: This is total crap, there is no risk of making a black hole. They don't know what particles they will get.... but they DO know they won't make a duckbilled platypus, a tauren marine, a large KFC bucket, Keira Knightley or A BLACK HOLE. CERN scientists > your made-up bollocks I've been to CERN and the place is awesome, they do the sort of research that if anything will save the world. What you are doing is just fear-mongering at it's worst. It's like saying maybe we should all stand the fuck still, in case moving causes a chain reaction between the particles in our body and that of the atmosphere resulting in the end of the world. In other words... total bollocks. <3 u | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
So here's a really interesting TED talk regarding the cern collider presented by someone that works at the RHIC for those who are interested, the guy's pretty funny too. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/253 enjoy. | ||
T-P-S
United States204 Posts
This is just fear of the unknown. They're messing around with atoms and lots of energy... black hole, right? | ||
Solarian
United States100 Posts
| ||
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
| ||
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11530 Posts
| ||
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
There are many many people who believe in the wildest things like telekinesis and ever since the quantum theory was developed they use it to give their bullshit a 'scientific' background. They say, 'according to quantum theory, everything is possible; so maybe quantum effects in your brain could effect matter all over the world'. They just don't understand what it means that an event has a probability of 10^(-15) to happen in any given year. So, to anyone who argued in that direction: On June 09 2008 06:21 ilj.psa wrote: To me even a "small chance" of destroying the Earth. Its something we should take an second look at No, even that depends on the smallness of the chance because if it is small enough, it might not even be worth that second look. | ||
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
On June 09 2008 07:26 Asta wrote: It's actually a common problem when your average Jack encounters quantum theory (or many other statistical topics): people just can't comprehend the numbers if they aren't good at math. There are many many people who believe in the wildest things like telekinesis and ever since the quantum theory was developed they use it to give their bullshit a 'scientific' background. They say, 'according to quantum theory, everything is possible; so maybe quantum effects in your brain could effect matter all over the world'. They just don't understand what it means that an event has a probability of 10^(-15) to happen in any given year. So, to anyone who argued in that direction: No, even that depends on the smallness of the chance because if it is small enough, it might not even be worth that second look. miniscule propabilities can mess up actual measurements in a way that you cant calculate an expactation value. at the right place/time in an chaotic process a tunneling proton or whatever can make quite a mess with your experiment. ofc this is has nothing to do with the lhc :p | ||
HanN00b
Germany1441 Posts
| ||
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:41 EAGER-beaver wrote: All this speculation over black holes is really kooky. As the article and many people have already pointed out, the earth gets bombarded with cosmic radiation millions of times more powerful then the latest cern particle accelerator can provide. Ultimately I think this accelerator is just another huge money sink. Solar arrays that attempt to collect information about comsic rays (at a fraction of a cost) could provide answers that would push theoretical physics much further then cern could ever hope to, but only the Japanese are trying this direction. whatever you mean by solar array, you know that a detector like atlas weights about 7k tons? its not like you could buckle that on an 747 an fly circles in the higher atmosphere... | ||
sith
United States2474 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:44 micronesia wrote: People are starting to exaggerate again so I'd like to complain. You should be 'shot'? I'm sure that was an intentional overstatement, but still, nobody has a 100% firm grasp on black holes, so it's unfair to expect the average forum goer to be comfortable talking about what is generally accepted about black holes by the scientific community. Being mad that people are complaining without the formal training is all well and good, but when the issue is whether or not the topic will severely affect the lives of those without the formal training, it's understandable if they are still interested in participating. The idea that black holes 'usually form from a mass several times the size of our sun' automatically means a smaller one can't be formed in the laboratory? I hope you are right, but I don't think this is any kind of self-evident truth. Has it been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that tiny black holes will evaporate? There certainly is a theory behind it, but I'm not willing to wager on it right now. edit: I'm not saying your scientific beliefs are wrong, but just that you should consider being more polite to those with less knowledge than yourself. Yes, the statement "you should be shot" was a complete exaggeration, and I will concede that this is something everyone has an interest in. However, if you have no formal training, DO NOT ACT LIKE YOU DO. Do not delude yourself into thinking that because you read up about something on wikipedia and some blogs, that you have a complete grasp of the subject matter. I admit right now that I categorize myself among those without formal training and I do not entirely understand the forces at work here. Also, I didn't say that it can't be formed in a laboratory, for all I know this is entirely possible. I merely stated that it would have to be formed in a laboratory with unnatural forces (i.e. not gravity). And if it was, it would not have time to do anything in particular besides evaporate. Even if it was determined that there was a minute likelihood of the black hole destroying us all, what do you suggest? We cease all funding to projects like this? As the scientist originally said there's probably more of a chance a bunch of dragons pop into existence and eat us all (which he was not joking about, there is a probability somewhere that shows this is entirely capable of happening) I apologize for the tone in which I wrote, it's just that in my mind there is nothing worse than someone acting and speculating with authority on a subject they are completely ignorant about. | ||
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
1) create a black hole (it's not powerful enough) 2) have that black hole not instantly disapear (as woudl be expected from such a small black hole 3) make a black hole that would have any effect (it would still have a mass of only like, 1 kilogram... that's not to do anything. How much gravitational force do you think 1 kilogram would have?) The people saying it *could* be dangerous are basically saying "well if everything we know about physics is wrong, then maybe this will kill us all." That's true, but it would be equally true to say "if everything we know about physics is wrong, maybe starting my car will kill us all." | ||
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
i think it is 100000 times more likely that you will kill all humanity by dropping a toothpick in a particular way. just relax. | ||
ArC_man
United States2798 Posts
On June 12 2008 14:04 Luddite wrote: As someone who is actually working on high energy physics research, I find this whole "debate" over the LHC hilarious. The reason physicists haven't bothered to "justify" whhy the LHC is safe is because it would never occur to a physicist that it would be unsafe. There's literally nothing in physics that would suggest that the LHC could 1) create a black hole (it's not powerful enough) 2) have that black hole not instantly disapear (as woudl be expected from such a small black hole 3) make a black hole that would have any effect (it would still have a mass of only like, 1 kilogram... that's not to do anything. How much gravitational force do you think 1 kilogram would have?) The people saying it *could* be dangerous are basically saying "well if everything we know about physics is wrong, then maybe this will kill us all." That's true, but it would be equally true to say "if everything we know about physics is wrong, maybe starting my car will kill us all." Yup. From what I've heard from seminars and talks, if one of these "black holes" created could destroy the Earth, it would've happened already (since these things are formed naturally also). Just like how the fusion reaction in ITER won't create a bomb, it doesn't have enough energy. | ||
goldenkrnboi
United States3104 Posts
On June 09 2008 01:10 H_ wrote: That would be hilarious. "Flight security, what's in that bag?" "A black hole." "JESUS CHRIST" i rofled honestly though, i'm a little disturbed about this, but if the experiment is allowed to be performed, then here's to hoping it doesn't end the entire freakin world. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
That is why we're doing it: we don't know what will happen. If they knew what would happen, they wouldn't need to do the experiment. There's no getting around this fact. The physicists are saying, "Trust us, we're experts." but the only use they're putting their expertise to here is to find things they don't understand, so they can play with them like children playing with matches. There's no urgent need for high-energy physics research on Earth, the only home of the only known life in the universe. There is too little to gain, and too much to lose by rushing to do this research on Earth instead of in space, where it can be properly isolated, and the potential for damage limited to the test apparatus. It's not a "small chance" or a "very small chance" or "an insignificant chance" of disaster, it's an unknown chance, because they're doing something unprecedented for the very reason that they don't understand it. | ||
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
bush is probably going to go in looking for WMD tho at the lab. WMD there is... | ||
zuqbu
Germany797 Posts
Brian Cox: An inside tour of the world's biggest supercollider http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/253 It's not the first time mass media is creating a panic against the reasoning of science. They could be raging "Meteor coming!" or "Black Hole coming!" since every scientist will say, yes, it's just a matter of how long we'll have to wait as the probability is getting higher every day it does not happen. We might have to wait one million years but… ZOMG METEOR LET'S DUCK AND COVER | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
To the people who are afraid of black holes being formed by the LHC: incoming particles from space regularly collide with particles in our atmosphere at far higher energies than the collisions that will occur inside the LHC. If those upper atmosphere collisions haven't produced any Earth-destroying black holes in the history of the Earth, then why would the much less energetic collisions in the LHC produce any? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray Topic over. | ||
betaben
681 Posts
hey guys! bear in mind that the same physicists that say it's safe are the ones who brought you the concept of the black hole too. They know more about their hypothetical model that they created than your fear of the unknown will tell you about something you've made up in your head because you don't really know what they're talking about. do you think just because you're scared of things you don't understand allows you to know more about the model they created? hell, some physicists believe black holes don't actually form completely. Why do you believe them when they tell you scary things, but not when they tell you it'll be ok? I sometimes think people just like to live in fear. Please also bear in mind that the same physicists that say there is a small chance of the end of the world-whatever happening are the same ones that would say there is a small chance of your next fart ending the world. so if you think small chances - no matter how small - are not worth taking, I'm expecting you to never fart. or breathe. or do anything. in fact, don't even do that. | ||
True_Spike
Poland3397 Posts
| ||
Schnake
Germany2819 Posts
On June 08 2008 22:52 HypnoticPoo wrote: Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.” HAHA dragons. Exactly what I wanted to quote. ^^ The concerns are real for the public but scientists pretty much agree that there is no risk involved. So, the chance of anything bad happening at CERN, such as black holes is practically impossible. Black holes to appear: highly unlikely, even if, they would dissolve immediately Strange matter: exotic theory, no proof as of yet Magnetic monopoles: also theoretical, no evidence found yet (though scientists have been searching for it). Source:: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,544088,00.html (German) | ||
yn01_
Canada149 Posts
| ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 12 2008 19:42 yn01_ wrote: I was just wondering, if we were somehow able to create blackholes without any danger, what do we gain from it? Hmmm, can't really think of anything, except that if we were (ideally) able to create large enough black holes so that they don't evaporate quickly, perhaps we could study some of their properties, such as the radiation that they emit. Oh, and that would most likely give Hawking a Nobel Prize. | ||
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
On June 12 2008 19:42 yn01_ wrote: I was just wondering, if we were somehow able to create blackholes without any danger, what do we gain from it? Obviously, a Terran Mothership. | ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 12 2008 19:42 yn01_ wrote: I was just wondering, if we were somehow able to create blackholes without any danger, what do we gain from it? measuring the properties of the decay/production can tell you a lot about a quantum theory of gravity. This is very important because as yet, there is no really good theory to do that. It would lead the way to a successful (and testable) Grand Unified Theory. If you could be sure they are black holes... | ||
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
| ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
The LHR destroying the entire universe, lol... Yeah, you never know if some previously never observed principle will destroy the universe. But any activity could trigger that, in theory. | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32009 Posts
On June 12 2008 19:42 yn01_ wrote: I was just wondering, if we were somehow able to create blackholes without any danger, what do we gain from it? Street cred, money, bitches This thread reminds me of the intro from HL1, where you KNOW something bad is about to happen | ||
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
On June 12 2008 18:07 betaben wrote: to the scared people: hey guys! bear in mind that the same physicists that say it's safe are the ones who brought you the concept of the black hole too. They know more about their hypothetical model that they created than your fear of the unknown will tell you about something you've made up in your head because you don't really know what they're talking about. do you think just because you're scared of things you don't understand allows you to know more about the model they created? hell, some physicists believe black holes don't actually form completely. Why do you believe them when they tell you scary things, but not when they tell you it'll be ok? I sometimes think people just like to live in fear. Please also bear in mind that the same physicists that say there is a small chance of the end of the world-whatever happening are the same ones that would say there is a small chance of your next fart ending the world. so if you think small chances - no matter how small - are not worth taking, I'm expecting you to never fart. or breathe. or do anything. in fact, don't even do that. that. ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists? yeah, it involves you if the experiment would kill you. but leave the decision making to the politicians and scientists, they are there for that reason, aren't they? you put them there. and obviously they are a lot more competent at that than any of you are. you could draw a paralel to the politicians... they make decisions like these every day, and a lot more risky at that. take for an example the usa, bush etc. there's far more probability that he's the end of life on earth rather than LHC. yes, I am a physics senior, so what! | ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 12 2008 21:15 Kong John wrote: wouldnt even a very small balck hole tear the earth appart? so even if it just a size of a fist i could steal do some serious damage. theoretical black holes are predicted by Hawking to evaporate over time. small ones evaporate very fast. also, the event horizon of a classical black hole is proportional to the mass, so very small back holes would have a tiny sphere of influence, if they stayed around long enough to affect any nearby particles. particles outside the event horizon probably see a greatly reduced gravitational force anyway. But at that scale, scientists don't know how gravity would act given the quantum nature at small distances and the lack of a satisfactory quantum gravity theory. | ||
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On June 12 2008 18:07 betaben wrote: to the scared people: hey guys! bear in mind that the same physicists that say it's safe are the ones who brought you the concept of the black hole too. They know more about their hypothetical model that they created than your fear of the unknown will tell you about something you've made up in your head because you don't really know what they're talking about. do you think just because you're scared of things you don't understand allows you to know more about the model they created? hell, some physicists believe black holes don't actually form completely. Why do you believe them when they tell you scary things, but not when they tell you it'll be ok? I sometimes think people just like to live in fear. Please also bear in mind that the same physicists that say there is a small chance of the end of the world-whatever happening are the same ones that would say there is a small chance of your next fart ending the world. so if you think small chances - no matter how small - are not worth taking, I'm expecting you to never fart. or breathe. or do anything. in fact, don't even do that. Yeah, well put. Quoting Wikipedia article: The risk of a doomsday scenario was indicated by Sir Martin Rees, with respect to the RHIC, as being at least a 1 in 50,000,000 chance.[24] and by Professor Frank Close, with regards to (dangerous) strangelets, that "the chance of this happening is like you winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession; the problem is that people believe it is possible to win the lottery 3 weeks in succession." | ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 12 2008 21:36 quirinus wrote: that. ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists? yeah, it involves you if the experiment would kill you. but leave the decision making to the politicians and scientists, they are there for that reason, aren't they? you put them there. and obviously they are a lot more competent at that than any of you are. you could draw a paralel to the politicians... they make decisions like these every day, and a lot more risky at that. take for an example the usa, bush etc. there's far more probability that he's the end of life on earth rather than LHC. yes, I am a physics senior, so what! I'm a experimental particle physicist working at the precursor to the LHC, the Tevatron. Data that makes decisions about the LHC comes from the experiment I generate results from. I may work on the LHC in a year or so. Does that qualify me as a scientist? | ||
chiflutz
Romania1025 Posts
On June 12 2008 21:46 betaben wrote: I'm a experimental particle physicist working at the precursor to the LHC, the Tevatron. Data that makes decisions about the LHC comes from the experiment I generate results from. I may work on the LHC in a year or so. Does that qualify me as a scientist? /pwnt. | ||
Capulet
Canada686 Posts
| ||
garmule2
United States376 Posts
| ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
Owned? hahaha, no. If anything, quirinus was supporting what betaben said. I wonder how betaben communicates with people at Fermilab if he can't even distinguish that | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
Bub
United States3517 Posts
| ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
On June 12 2008 19:42 yn01_ wrote: I was just wondering, if we were somehow able to create blackholes without any danger, what do we gain from it? The ultimate trashcan. | ||
ocoini
648 Posts
Nuclear Physicist Walter Wagner expresses his legitimate concerns and lawsuit to delay the turning on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Earth may be in danger if the LHC proceeds without further investigation. Radio show | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 00:35 ocoini wrote: I don't know if this has been posted since I dident read all comments. Nuclear Physicist Walter Wagner expresses his legitimate concerns and lawsuit to delay the turning on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Earth may be in danger if the LHC proceeds without further investigation. Damn it! I had not heard Walter Wagner talk before, just read some of the bullshit he has written on the Internet. People like this are so INCREDIBLY ANNOYING! He has a minor in physics and yet he thinks he can argue with the world's best physicists. I found it funny before, but after listening to him and realizing how seriously he takes himself, I just despise him. Fucking loser. | ||
uNiGNoRe
Germany1115 Posts
On June 08 2008 23:15 jello_biafra wrote: I say they should just go for it and see what happens, whatever the results are it should be interesting. | ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 12 2008 23:49 Kroc. wrote: Owned? hahaha, no. If anything, quirinus was supporting what betaben said. I wonder how betaben communicates with people at Fermilab if he can't even distinguish that after quoting me "ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?" would seem to be directed in my direction even if he either wittingly or unwittingly supports me. Either way, my response was equally vague in it's intent, as it merely asks if I qualify, even thought the question is somewhat loaded. generally, a lot of communication in fermilab is performed with loaded questions... | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 12 2008 16:11 Bill307 wrote: Ugh, what an ugly thread. To the people who are afraid of black holes being formed by the LHC: incoming particles from space regularly collide with particles in our atmosphere at far higher energies than the collisions that will occur inside the LHC. If those upper atmosphere collisions haven't produced any Earth-destroying black holes in the history of the Earth, then why would the much less energetic collisions in the LHC produce any? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray Topic over. Fail. These cosmic ray particles have high energy because they are moving very quickly. A non-evaporating, electrically neutral black hole would only be affected by one force: gravity. It would absorb anything it touched, and not be much impeded by matter. One spawned by a cosmic ray hitting an Earth-stationary particle would start off with extremely high momentum, and therefore nearl-light speed. It would continue in whatever direction it was going, and even if that direction is straight through the Earth, it would be through in a flash. One spawned by colliding particle beams would likely start out with little momentum relative to the Earth. Affected only by gravity, it would fall to the Earth's matter-rich interior and loiter in a sort of subterranean orbit while it sucked up mass and grew. But this is only one possibility. The worry is that "normal" matter is unstable, and there is some kind of "infectious" (like strangelets) or "voracious" (like non-evaporating small black holes) matter that can convert it to its own type. Just because the physicists have imagined up some scare scenarios doesn't mean they've come up with them all. What is dark matter? Is there even such a thing? Nobody knows. This ignorance is likely due to a fundamental flaw in our laws of physics. Is it matter that once was like the matter on Earth, but which has been converted by low-probability cosmic ray events which allowed the collision products to loiter in a star or planet's interior? It could be. Could these low-probability cosmic-ray events become high-probability events in the new collider? Possibly. Since we are acting in ignorance, we can't estimate the risk. We can't say it's a small risk or a large risk. This is not a matter of "not understanding the big numbers." There is no way to assign numbers to the probability of disaster. When physicists claim to offer estimates, they are pulling them out of their asses. They might use elaborate mathematics to generate those numbers, but they are also using arbitrary assumptions to generate that mathematics. Any estimates here are no better than those made using the Drake Equation. This is not a matter of primitive fear and ignorance of physics. These experiments are meant to push beyond the boundaries of understood physics. That is the whole point of experimental science. This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 01:44 betaben wrote: after quoting me "ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?" would seem to be directed in my direction even if he either wittingly or unwittingly supports me. Either way, my response was equally vague in it's intent, as it merely asks if I qualify, even thought the question is somewhat loaded. generally, a lot of communication in fermilab is performed with loaded questions... Well, you are wrong. He quoted you and then said: "that. ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?" So, he supported what you said ("that') and asked to the people that believe in LHC black holes eating up the earth: "what makes you think you know better than scientists?" Is it clear now or should we keep going with this discussion between two colleagues? (although I don't consider myself a physicist yet ^^) | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Betaben, you're an experimentalist at the tevatron? I got a work related question, since I've been tuning my recent model after your data. + Show Spoiler [question for beta] + I see a lot of papers from Tevatron with 1.96TeV CoM energy. But I have found no data on total or elastic p-pbar cross sections. Seeing that everyone are trying to guess the total cross section at LHC from various extrapolations, it would be kinda useful. You got any preliminary results or anything? Also: what is your opinion on the two different measured total cross section at 1.8TeV? Which one is most reliable in your opinion? I hope I made myself clear. Cheers, and gl last year at Tevatron! And I'm partially funded by CERN. So ofc it's safe! The cosmic ray argument isn't really valid though, since those black hole could just travel right through earth, as it is a fix target situation. The LHC on the other hand could potentially create a black hole at rest which then would travel back on forth through the earth until its big enough to kill us all. Apart from the fat that most dont think that we will not create a black hole, and that it would decay immediately even if one was created, there is another argument. I dont remember the details but it was something about neutron stars creating similar conditions sometimes, and the fact that neutron stars do not collapse into black holes is what ultimately ENSURES us that no dragons will jump out of ATLAS. Exactly how was it supposed to destroy the entire universe? O_o | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 02:02 Funchucks wrote: This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction. Who made the observation and what theory suggests a possibility of true and total global destruction? I am asking you because I have heard and talked to top high energy theoretical physicists and they all agree that what you say is not true. There is no such thing as an observation or theory that suggests global destruction. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 02:11 Kroc. wrote: Who made the observation and what theory suggests a possibility of true and total global destruction? I am asking you because I have heard and talked to top high energy theoretical physicists and they all agree that what you say is not true. There is no such thing as an observation or theory that suggests global destruction. Observations suggest the existence of dark matter and black holes. Do you deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes? The idea that black holes evaporate is not yet supported by observation. It wasn't random guys on the street who came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Respectable physics researchers did that. That respectable physics researcher also pooh-pooh the notion does not mean it has no validity. It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 02:45 Funchucks wrote: Observations suggest the existence of dark matter and black holes. Do you deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes? The idea that black holes evaporate is not yet supported by observation. It wasn't random guys on the street who came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Respectable physics researchers did that. That respectable physics researcher also pooh-pooh the notion does not mean it has no validity. It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed. I do not deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes. If you and so many other people mention them is because those theories must have been invented by some physicist. I am not saying they are correct, but the theories must be there. Now, about Hawking radiation (which causes black holes to evaporate). True, to date there has been no observational evidence to support it. However, every respectable physicist knows that the calculation made by Hawking is quite robust, so much that if you think that it is not correct, you are basically saying that quantum field theory and/or general relativity (the two pillars of modern theoretical physics) are both rubbish. If you don't believe me, then study Hawking's original paper and redo the calculations. If you cannot do that, then you should shut up and let the people who really know about the subject give an opinion on the physics that will happen at the LHC. You say that "respectable physics researchers" came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Please, mention at least two of them. If you say Walter Wagner or someone who supports him, then you will have proven that you are indeed a layman in this topic. Want to know why? Because the top theoretical and experimental physicists in the world disagree with what Wagner and you say about the catastrophic consequences that the LHC will bring. And how do I know that they are "top" physicists? Simple, look up their numbers of citations, invitations to give seminars, conferences, talks at renowned places, Nobel Prizes, Dirac Medals, Fields Medals, etc. It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed. That is pretty damn stupid. Do you think that if they knew something catastrophic might very likely happen, they would even consider doing the experiment? What you call risk is as likely to happen as a flying cow taking a dump on your head. | ||
funkie
Venezuela9374 Posts
| ||
Biff The Understudy
France7653 Posts
There were a theory during the Manhattan project which was that the chain reaction provocated by the A-bomb would concerns also oxygen atoms, and therefore that the planet was gonna explode if the bomb was used. Obviously, it was bullshit. By the way, I would be quite surprised that we have the scientific level of creating a blackhole (starcraft 2 has not been released, we don't have yet the mothership) | ||
Groslouser
France337 Posts
| ||
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
i mean look at soccers | ||
ocoini
648 Posts
I vote for this guy! Lead us oh great wiseman! Into the light! | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 03:02 Kroc. wrote: Now, about Hawking radiation (which causes black holes to evaporate). True, to date there has been no observational evidence to support it. However, every respectable physicist knows that the calculation made by Hawking is quite robust, so much that if you think that it is not correct, you are basically saying that quantum field theory and/or general relativity (the two pillars of modern theoretical physics) are both rubbish. Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down. Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct. So we've got an object that causes the one theory to break down, and then we've got an interaction with an incompatible theory. In other words, black hole evaporation is mere conjecture, like all non-observed properties of black holes. Hawking's concept qualifies as an interesting idea, and nothing more. It suggests observations and experiments of interest to pursue, but has no other practical value. It is certainly not adequate for dismissing safety concerns. If you don't believe me, then study Hawking's original paper and redo the calculations. If you cannot do that, then you should shut up and let the people who really know about the subject give an opinion on the physics that will happen at the LHC. You say that "respectable physics researchers" came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Please, mention at least two of them. Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh? I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research. This idea is not novel. It certainly doesn't originate with Walter Wagner. People have talked about it every time a big new particle accelerator is proposed. They put a committee to work evaluating the LHC's risk. (committee's conclusion: blah blah blah, we don't know, blah blah blah, we're not worried) That is pretty damn stupid. Do you think that if they knew something catastrophic might very likely happen, they would even consider doing the experiment? What you call risk is as likely to happen as a flying cow taking a dump on your head. Nice strawman. You know damn well my position is not that the catastrophe is likely and the scientists know it, but that the probability is completely unknown and the scientists are ignorant of the risks that may exist. | ||
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
On June 13 2008 03:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: lol There were a theory during the Manhattan project which was that the chain reaction provocated by the A-bomb would concerns also oxygen atoms, and therefore that the planet was gonna explode if the bomb was used. Obviously, it was bullshit. I was going to mention how CERN was a step up from the atomic bomb. But you can't call something "bullshit" if there's a good enough theory behind the reasons for it happening. Sure, it didn't happen. It doesn't mean it wasn't plausible. I remember reading part of Carl Sagan's book about how everyone but one guy was celebrating after the bomb worked. And he asked him why he wasn't celebrating, and his response was "My God, what have we done?" (in essence). The atomic bomb was bad enough in itself, the fact that scientists a-okayed the test when it could have wiped out everything the planet was reprehensible. Even if it didn't destroy the world, it unleashed new evils. It's not really surprising scientists (aka, Linus Pauling, etc, etc) started lobbying against the stuff after waking up from the euphoria of using theory to make something "practical." | ||
Groslouser
France337 Posts
On June 13 2008 04:07 Funchucks wrote: Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down. Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct. Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh? I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research. OK, i don't know who you are, and what your formation is but if you have done any studies in science, you should know that when you reach an high level, working on a theory by re-doing the calculations helps to understand it. In fact one cannot understand something that huge without doing so. So it's not nessecarily a "disproof by homework assignment." but a common advise if you really want to understand what's up here, thus you should not be rude. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 04:07 Funchucks wrote: Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down. Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct. So we've got an object that causes the one theory to break down, and then we've got an interaction with an incompatible theory. In other words, black hole evaporation is mere conjecture, like all non-observed properties of black holes. Hawking's concept qualifies as an interesting idea, and nothing more. It suggests observations and experiments of interest to pursue, but has no other practical value. It is certainly not adequate for dismissing safety concerns. Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh? I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research. This idea is not novel. It certainly doesn't originate with Walter Wagner. People have talked about it every time a big new particle accelerator is proposed. They put a committee to work evaluating the LHC's risk. (committee's conclusion: blah blah blah, we don't know, blah blah blah, we're not worried) Nice strawman. You know damn well my position is not that the catastrophe is likely and the scientists know it, but that the probability is completely unknown and the scientists are ignorant of the risks that may exist. Hmmm, it is quite a test for me to reply to such stupid arguments from someone like you. Ok, let me try to do it, even though I know you probably won't understand anything - The singularity were the laws of physics, as we know them, break down is the curvature singularity in the center of the black hole. That doesn't mean that the laws of GR cannot be applied near the horizon. - QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period. Now, it is true that in order to study black hole to the full extent, we would need a theory of quantum gravity. However, the semiclassical approximation used by Hawking is extremely robust. Moreover, there are precedents that the approach works (e.g. before quantum electrodynamics was developed, the spontaneous creation of electron-positron pairs was treated in a semiclassical manner and gave the correct results). - I don't need to redo Hawking's calculation, I have already done it extensively. And yes, I think that if you want to talk properly about these kind of subjects, you should have something to back you up. In this case, how can you argue with scientists that understand all the theories that you talk about so lightly and without any true knowledge. - You cannot even tell me what "respectable physicists" support your point of view. I don't need to check who proposed first that the next accelerator would destroy the Earth. Every time they have been disproved by facts and by brighter, more accomplished physicists. - Finally, if you say that the probability of something like that happening is unknown to the experts, then you are even dumber than I thought. When Arkani-Hamed made the analogy with dragons coming out of the LHC, he was obviously being sarcastic and it was his polite way to tell people like you that what you belief in is just irrational. Let me ask you something in capitals, so that you do answer it: WHAT IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC TRAINING? And yes, you are entitled to have your opinion on the subject, but you are not doing yourself a favor if you enter this type of discussion with someone who is more trained and knowledgeable than yourself in the subject (SCIENCE IS OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE). | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 05:15 Kroc. wrote: - QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period. If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you. I am done talking with you. | ||
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
On June 13 2008 05:22 Funchucks wrote: If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you. I am done talking with you. fail | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 13 2008 05:22 Funchucks wrote: If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you. I am done talking with you. Wow, you just raised the bar for your stupidity. Well, I am done too. I think you can disproof anything you say on your own, you don't need my help | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
3 troll topics in the top 5 | ||
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
| ||
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
You seem to like the idea that this might be something dramatically dangerous and therefore ignore any reasonable argument to keep your idea alive. Sensationalism at it's best. Maybe you'd be better off looking for other things that you can tell people so they notice you... :/ Also you seem to have a personal grudge against physicists!? They "have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities"? Are you serious? That makes you sound like someone who is just jealous because he never had the ability to comprehend what they are doing. Actually, that you think that scientists aren't concerned with worldly responsibilities proves that you have no idea what physics or natural science in general is about. | ||
ritebkatya
United States22 Posts
On June 13 2008 05:22 Funchucks wrote: If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you. I am done talking with you. Funchucks: anyhoo, i'm also a doctoral candidate in physics. anyways, since you've been so certain about your assertions, let me just tell you that steven giddings (if you've heard of him) sits literally across the hall from me. recently he's been talking to my former advisor (lars bildsten) about accretion disks on neutron stars and white dwarves. they agree cosmic rays aren't good enough, due to the small scattering cross section of the stuff the earth is made of. so, they examined NS and WD due to the fact that nothing is getting through those fuckers without being affected. and basically, those particles are of the right energies and comparable to TeV scale. not only that, but if black holes formed with any sort of frequency due to those collisions (and didn't evaporate), we would not see any NS's, pulsars, WD's or pretty much half of the energy from astrophysical high energy phenomenon (since half the energy in any accretion process is released upon impact). not sure if they wrote a paper or not, but they certainly did the calculations. bildsten joked to giddings "congratulations, you've earned your PhD in astrophysics. there are several postdoctoral positions available..." (reference to there being no money in strings). pretty much the nail in the coffin. if the lawsuit in hawaii goes through, giddings will probably be called to testify. hope this answers your question. sometimes, you have to think a little further to get the answer you want. also, that comment i quoted of yours is pretty ridiculous. that had absolutely no useful content. science isn't about opposing the status quo. even if it happens to be the better description (an extremely rare occurrence, but usually of huge significance, which is why it's so publicized), that's not what science is about. if that's your perception, then i think we all know who's not the scientist. if you're at all unclear about the relevant fundamental principles, i'm sure there are a few of us that can enlighten you. | ||
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
What was one of them though was the chance of the atom smasher creating mini universe that would grow and quickly engulf our universe. It actually says in the article that its going to create a reaction much like the big bang so I guess that could be a possibility. Anyway Ill try to look for the documentery I watched on this. | ||
BaDayOri
Korea (South)469 Posts
why would you even want to risk it | ||
glassmazarin
Sweden158 Posts
On June 13 2008 05:22 Funchucks wrote: If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you. I am done talking with you. unfortunately for you, Kroc is right -.- the event horizon is not where the singularity is so GR hasnt broken down yet | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Also you seem to have a personal grudge against physicists!? They "have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities"? Are you serious? All of the really sane people figured out that pushing our fundamental understanding of physics forward as fast as possible wasn't such a good idea after the atomic bomb was invented. It's a small miracle that we survived the cold war, and we still live under the shadow of MAD. We don't need better physics to achieve immortality or colonize space, just better biology and engineering. The thing we are most likely to gain is an even cheaper and more devastating bomb. Destructive applications are easy. Constructive applications are hard. Give us some fucking time to work out the constructive applications and get to the point where we're spread out enough that the next generation of destruction won't kill us all in the test blast! Fundamental physics advanced at a breakneck pace up to about the time of the 2nd world war. Then it lost momentum and slowed to a crawl. What happened? They figured everything out? The problems got harder? No, the smart, sane people quit. Nobody with the capacity to grasp the moral responsibility physicists hold for atomic weapons would choose to work publicly on those problems anymore. Now we've got loonies like Hawking who believe in time travel, and we've got garbage like string theory. But we're still giving the fucking monkeys and idiot savants that are left enough money to poke hard at the things they don't understand. Yes, I have got something against the amoral bastards. | ||
Groslouser
France337 Posts
Lets pray someone elsewill be able to do so without bashing you, it will be hard since you are exactly the type of guy who talk about subjects you don't even get and try to judge other despite your lack of everything. | ||
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
I haven't read the whole article yet, but some people are speculating that this is in direct relation with the mayan calander 2012. The blackhole that the lhc collider can possibly create will actually instead open a worm whole and these interdimensial beings will appear that will enlighten us on our civilization. The article can be found here: http://williamhenry.net/art_dis-cerning.html Whether you think its nonsense or not, its still a interesting read if your into any type of science fiction. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 13 2008 06:11 ritebkatya wrote: Funchucks: anyhoo, i'm also a doctoral candidate in physics. anyways, since you've been so certain about your assertions, let me just tell you that steven giddings (if you've heard of him) sits literally across the hall from me. recently he's been talking to my former advisor (lars bildsten) about accretion disks on neutron stars and white dwarves. they agree cosmic rays aren't good enough, due to the small scattering cross section of the stuff the earth is made of. so, they examined NS and WD due to the fact that nothing is getting through those fuckers without being affected. and basically, those particles are of the right energies and comparable to TeV scale. not only that, but if black holes formed with any sort of frequency due to those collisions (and didn't evaporate), we would not see any NS's, pulsars, WD's or pretty much half of the energy from astrophysical high energy phenomenon (since half the energy in any accretion process is released upon impact). not sure if they wrote a paper or not, but they certainly did the calculations. bildsten joked to giddings "congratulations, you've earned your PhD in astrophysics. there are several postdoctoral positions available..." (reference to there being no money in strings). pretty much the nail in the coffin. if the lawsuit in hawaii goes through, giddings will probably be called to testify. hope this answers your question. sometimes, you have to think a little further to get the answer you want. also, that comment i quoted of yours is pretty ridiculous. that had absolutely no useful content. science isn't about opposing the status quo. even if it happens to be the better description (an extremely rare occurrence, but usually of huge significance, which is why it's so publicized), that's not what science is about. if that's your perception, then i think we all know who's not the scientist. if you're at all unclear about the relevant fundamental principles, i'm sure there are a few of us that can enlighten you. ok, the highlighted part is what I was refering to earlier, but didnt remember the details of. This reply kills this thread, any attempts at lawsuits, any serious fears and should be copied into the OP asap. Let's try to stay a bit more on topic and spend time on those that actually want to understand this very intersting topic! | ||
Dinosaur
Denmark112 Posts
| ||
ritebkatya
United States22 Posts
your statements are ridiculous. you don't back anything up, and they are gross over-generalizations that clearly come from someone unfamiliar with what you're talking about. you're just being offensive and it doesn't seem like you have anything to contribute. if you yourself were smart and sane, you would probably just stop talking yourself into a corner. incidentally, physics is actually progressing at a faster rate than you probably could believe. but mostly in areas that are not high-energy theory (strings, etc). this is because high-energy theory ran out of new experiments with which to test their theories, and experiment is crucial to the speed of progress of any field of physics. so hopefully the LHC will push that area forward. the smart and the sane are still around. lots of string theorists don't take string theory very seriously; they treat it as something to play with and examine. but they're all hoping that the techniques they use will be useful to whatever the LHC tells us. and one of those ideas could turn out to be the next relativity, so everyone's just hedging bets. | ||
ThE_OsToJiY
Canada1167 Posts
| ||
peetah
Sweden88 Posts
| ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 09:07 ritebkatya wrote: funchucks: your statements are ridiculous. you don't back anything up What is there to back up? My position is essentially philosophical. I am not arguing in favor of any particular doomsday scenario. I am arguing against the idea that all possible dangers can be accounted for when you push beyond the limits of what is understood. I am arguing that there is no urgent need to perform this experiment, and that at a later date it will be possible to perform it in the isolation of space. The risk of global destruction is unknown. Not small, not insignificant, simply unknown, utterly unquantifiable. In the future we may look back at this and see there was no risk at all. Or we may leave the universe devoid of the only life that ever existed. It doesn't seem likely (i.e. consistent with my understanding of physics, as opposed to "probable", which implies that there is some known risk) to me that this will destroy the world. If it did, I'd probably be in Switzerland cooking up bathtub explosives. I have also argued against specific bad arguments against a disaster scenario, and this should not be interpreted as arguments in favor of that scenario. I have insulted people for expressing principles of thought that strike me as diseased. I have stated a moral position on fundamental physics research. Nobody has even attempted to argue against my philosophical position. They only want to throw around weak credentials (here's a clue: if I'm willing to take a position like this in opposition to the highly reputable physicists leading the project, why would I be impressed with students' opinions?), ad hominem attacks, and echoes of the "we don't really know, but we're not worried" assumption-heavy safety evaluations I had already addressed. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
There is of course the posibility that we are completely wronga bout everything, and that LHC will destroy the earth. But that is not different from any other experiment done. So let me ask you this: Is LHC different from any other experiment? if you say no, and claim that all physics experiments should be avoided, then.... well. ok, that's your opinion. But I dont think this is your point. If it is, then there is not a lot more to say im afraid. If you say yes, LHC is more dangerous than other experiments, then you must motivate WHY you think it is more dangerous right? And to motivate that you would have to go into detail on the physics, and you will run into problems at once with your arguments. The reason for why it isnt more dangerous than previous experiments is a bit too complicated for most non-physiscists to really understand, but it is there. So the big difference between LHC and for example dropping a feather and a weight from the tower of pisa is this: 1) It is intuitively obvious for everyone that dropping things from the tower of pisa will not destroy the earth. At worst kill some poor guy passing by underneath. Assuming that what we know about physics is correct. ofc, a dragon can still come into existance triggered by the feather and the qweight... 2) It is obvious only for particle physiscists that LHC will not destroy the earth. The rest of the population will have to have faith in them (us) in this case... There is ofc still the dragon argument, but it is not more valid here than anywhere else. ok, omg I feed the troll. anyways, funchucks, I hope I adressed your arguments better than the quasi-flaming above... Then there is of course the argument on weather these are well spent money, which is a valid question, but that is not the issue in this thread I think. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 10:31 Cascade wrote: So the big difference between LHC and for example dropping a feather and a weight from the tower of pisa is this: 1) It is intuitively obvious for everyone that dropping things from the tower of pisa will not destroy the earth. At worst kill some poor guy passing by underneath. Assuming that what we know about physics is correct. ofc, a dragon can still come into existance triggered by the feather and the qweight... 2) It is obvious only for particle physiscists that LHC will not destroy the earth. The rest of the population will have to have faith in them (us) in this case... There is ofc still the dragon argument, but it is not more valid here than anywhere else. No, the big difference is that feathers and weights are dropped all of the time, while collisions at this energy level are only seen on or in Earth between cosmic rays and near-stationary particles. Furthermore, they can happen in rapid succession in a small area in the collider, whereas cosmic ray impacts are scattered and random. Additionally, they will doubtless be tuning and tweaking its operation in an attempt to achieve "interesting" improbable results, and setting up apparatus meant specifically to interact with produced exotic matter. Each time a more powerful particle accelerator is built, it creates physical interactions that are less and less like the ones that commonly happen on Earth, making the outcome less and less predictable. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On June 13 2008 09:05 Dinosaur wrote: meeeep! :D | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
As me and others have said above: yes, the cosmic ray argument in the earth atmosphere is flawed. And yes, there is a complete argument, namely the one with neutron stars by ritebkatya that i refered to. But no, if you have not done particle physics it may be hard to understand it. So your "worries" (from a philosophiocal viewpoint. ) are based on you not trusting the physiscists to have done the calculations correctly? If so I guess it cannot really be argued with. Your choice in the end if you trust them or not. I havent done the calculations myself, but I think I got a pretty good idea of how they would look, and I trust that people have done the details correctly, so I'm not even philosophically worried. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
And the detectors they have built up around the interaction points are still only made of protons, neutrons and electron, and will not interact with black holes any differently than anything else. Even the closest detectors are a few centimeters away from the interactions which is more than enough for a 14TeV black hole to evaporate anyways. And at that high energy it doesnt matter if the proton is part of a lead nucleus, or is a hydrogen nucleus in a water molecule. Ahh, I could go on forever, but I dont think this what you worry about... | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 13 2008 11:09 Cascade wrote: ok, so now you move away from philosophy and into physics right? As me and others have said above: yes, the cosmic ray argument in the earth atmosphere is flawed. And yes, there is a complete argument, namely the one with neutron stars by ritebkatya that i refered to. But no, if you have not done particle physics it may be hard to understand it. This is not "a complete argument". The same objection applies. This is a collision of a cosmic ray with a stationary particle, creating collision products with high momentum. I understand the argument just fine. They are bigger and more dense than the Earth, and thus more likely to interact even with fast-moving collision products. It is based on the assumptions that we understand the properties of the collision products (we don't, or the LHC experiments would be worthless) and that we understand the properties of neutron stars and white dwarfs (we think we do, but we haven't exactly flown up and poked them). For that matter, there is even the assumption that the principle of relativity is correct, and that there is no difference between a universe where the cosmic ray zips through the universe to crash into a heavenly body, and a universe where the cosmic ray sits still while the universe zips by until one of its heavenly bodies crashes into the cosmic ray. It is certainly fundamental and well-supported, but we haven't exactly accelerated an experimental apparatus to near-light speed to collide it with a stationary particle. I think a different standard of evidence applies between the cases when you accept an assumption for the sake of guiding future research, and when you accept an assumption for the sake of deciding whether something threatens to destroy the Earth. So your "worries" (from a philosophiocal viewpoint. ) are based on you not trusting the physiscists to have done the calculations correctly? If so I guess it cannot really be argued with. Your choice in the end if you trust them or not. I havent done the calculations myself, but I think I got a pretty good idea of how they would look, and I trust that people have done the details correctly, so I'm not even philosophically worried. Are you intending to take us around in circles? The reason they want to do these experiments is precisely that they do not know what the outcomes will be. You say they have done calculations to confirm the safety of the experiments. Meanwhile they plan to do the experiments in hopes of confirming the theory they based the calculations on. Do you see the problem with this reasoning? My objection is not that they might have done the calculations incorrectly, but that they might be doing the wrong calculations entirely. There is a huge difference between operating a theory consistently and being right. | ||
SexInTheStreets
United States18 Posts
1. open up even more questions about the creation of the universe 2. solve some very controversial questions that humanity has been trying to answer ever since it has been here on earth | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
And again, if you dont trust the calculations, or the physics the originate from, then ok, go ahead. Your call. If you are going to question special relativity, then you are in the "dragons" region, im sorry to say. Special relativity is actully the experimentally most accurately proven theory in physics, in the accelerators all over the world. I think that your argument is what i call dragons. So I agree with you in principle, in that we ofc cannot be 100% sure of anything. And neither of us have any real worries about the end of the world. So it seems like we agree basically... Anyways, I dont think we have more to say here. I think we have both presented our arguments more than anyone on TL is interested in. | ||
SpaDe
United States8 Posts
On June 08 2008 23:49 dinmsab wrote: CERN != Aperture science. I need to get me one of them portal gun thaaangs. | ||
ThE_OsToJiY
Canada1167 Posts
| ||
Smokin_Squirrel
Korea (South)674 Posts
| ||
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On June 13 2008 11:44 SexInTheStreets wrote: I think this new research will bring one of two things, either: 1. open up even more questions about the creation of the universe 2. solve some very controversial questions that humanity has been trying to answer ever since it has been here on earth Every answer opens 10 more questions, it will never stop | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdf It's 97 pages, but just reading the abstract is enough, and should be understandable to most. Let me also emphasis that these are not some random PhDs publishing, but well renowned guys. | ||
Chewits
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
| ||
Maenander
Germany4919 Posts
On June 12 2008 15:31 Funchucks wrote: Experimental high energy physics is about causing stuff to happen that doesn't happen naturally on Earth, and which we don't understand the physics of. That is why we're doing it: we don't know what will happen. If they knew what would happen, they wouldn't need to do the experiment. There's no getting around this fact. The physicists are saying, "Trust us, we're experts." but the only use they're putting their expertise to here is to find things they don't understand, so they can play with them like children playing with matches. There's no urgent need for high-energy physics research on Earth, the only home of the only known life in the universe. There is too little to gain, and too much to lose by rushing to do this research on Earth instead of in space, where it can be properly isolated, and the potential for damage limited to the test apparatus. It's not a "small chance" or a "very small chance" or "an insignificant chance" of disaster, it's an unknown chance, because they're doing something unprecedented for the very reason that they don't understand it. What we can do in large colliders has been done numerous times in the universe, and even around earth. We just didn´t notice. The chance is not unknown, it is insignificant, and just for the fact that we are here. | ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 24 2008 20:12 Chewits wrote: So when is the experiment going to take place? http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/HEPAP/reports/P5_Report 06022008.pdf page 86 gives a review of all the current high energy physics experiments and their running times. LHC will start taking non-cosmics in 2009 hopefully (but then again, the original date was 2005... physicists are not very good at being modest when it comes to the amount of time it will take to get things right.) | ||
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
http://www.lhcountdown.com/ | ||
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
On June 09 2008 01:10 H_ wrote: That would be hilarious. "Flight security, what's in that bag?" "A black hole." "JESUS CHRIST" ROFL, a whole [lolpun] new beginning to terrorism | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32009 Posts
We are safe. | ||
DeadVessel
United States6269 Posts
| ||
QuanticHawk
United States32009 Posts
ask around, you get a free hl2 gift with orange box, and there;s quite a few people who have it here. | ||
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On June 24 2008 18:10 Cascade wrote: Bumping this thread since Michelangelo Mangano, one of the big guys at CERN, published a paper on this with Giddings, dismissing risks using the white dwarf/neutron star argument above. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdf It's 97 pages, but just reading the abstract is enough, and should be understandable to most. Let me also emphasis that these are not some random PhDs publishing, but well renowned guys. typo in introduction "We argue here that charged black holes will loose enough energy to stop when traversing the Earth or the Sun, via standard electromagnetic processes." :D | ||
CapO
United States1615 Posts
| ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:44 CapO wrote: this shit really scares me.. WTF.. because you don't understand it | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
If the guys doing it understood it, it wouldn't be called an experiment. | ||
CapO
United States1615 Posts
so make me understand. is it perfectly safe? no way it's gonna blow up the earth? | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6631 Posts
| ||
ritebkatya
United States22 Posts
On June 13 2008 09:57 Funchucks wrote: What is there to back up? My position is essentially philosophical. I am not arguing in favor of any particular doomsday scenario. i did not disagree, since a lot of your arguments weren't not based on science. however, i feel like even philosophical people have to back something up before telling doctoral candidates that they are neither smart nor sane. i'm not saying that i'm necessarily either, but that seems like a broad generalizing statement from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. The risk of global destruction is unknown. Not small, not insignificant, simply unknown, utterly unquantifiable. not utterly unquantifiable. if you note my previous post, we pretty much wouldn't see any high-energy astrophysical phenomena. this has nothing to do with the specifics of what LHC does. it's simply high-energy particles hitting and interacting with a target. it's literally the same process, but at higher rates, energies, and with a wider variety of particles. so basically more than what we would see at the LHC. and the fact that there are high-energy objects with surfaces out there means we're probably okay, unless you believe god will step in and murder us all for turning on LHC. Nobody has even attempted to argue against my philosophical position. They only want to throw around weak credentials ad hominem attacks, and echoes of the "we don't really know, but we're not worried" assumption-heavy safety evaluations I had already addressed. true, but basically you're acting as the philosophical descendant of the pope in that argument vs. galileo. "maybe God would strike us all down for questioning His Plan. so don't ask those questions, and don't test them." but science isn't science without a sense of adventure and excitement at what's going to come next. also, philosophy is almost always poor ground to stand on in making a case against hard science. check out the whole of human history. incidentally, if you think a doctorate is a weak credential, then let me tell you something about doctoral candidates and post-docs: they do the majority of the calculations in the majority of physics papers. professors spend a lot of their time managing several different projects and writing grants. they can and do calculate stuff themselves. but often times they leave a lot of the grunt-work to the grunts. ask any non-professor physicist (even us students). you'll find out we do all our own calculations ourselves on our projects. ask any professor. he'll say he's got a few projects on his plate, maybe one or two his own, and five others as collaborations with students and post-docs. and i don't think i recall any of the physics students here said "we don't really know." i think that was actually pretty much just your statement. | ||
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On June 30 2008 04:16 CapO wrote: so make me understand. is it perfectly safe? no way it's gonna blow up the earth? no we're all fucked trust me, im a physicistititit | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 30 2008 05:06 ritebkatya wrote: basically you're acting as the philosophical descendant of the pope in that argument vs. galileo. The Large Hardon Collider is nothing more than a gloryhole with no spirit of cooperation. It is an abomination in the eyes of Thor, who will hammer this thread into the depths until it can never rise again. | ||
ggzerg.onFire1
United States26 Posts
| ||
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
The sign guy must have fucked up. | ||
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On June 30 2008 06:05 MiniRoman wrote: I assume it's in french. I might add that I dont speak french but I have the feeling that they tend to toss around the order of the words a bit. "European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN," The sign guy must have fucked up. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 30 2008 05:49 ggzerg.onFire1 wrote: The thing is that black holes decay. so even if they create a black whole it decays really fast. i heard about this with hawking black hole While everyone agrees that black holes indeed do decay very quickly (hawkings radiation), it has not yet been experimentally verified, and cannot be used in a "we are safe for sure" argument. Such an argument must be based entirely of empirical data, as the white dwarf/neutron star argument is. And almost for sure there wont be any black holes at all in CERN. Some exotic large-extra-dimensions theory has to be true for any black holes at all in LHC... | ||
man
United States272 Posts
On June 30 2008 06:05 MiniRoman wrote: "European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN," The sign guy must have fucked up. Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire | ||
Krzycho
Poland442 Posts
| ||
betaben
681 Posts
On June 30 2008 04:01 Funchucks wrote: If the guys doing it understood it, it wouldn't be called an experiment. I disagree with this view of the word 'experiment'. If you have a closed door and you don't know who is behind it, but you have a choice of your mum or your grandma, you call out 'is it mum or gran?' this is an experiment. it's not that they don't have any clue what is going on. they have narrowed it down to mum or grandma. but they don't know which. it is still an experiment to find out what is there, you don't need to misunderstand something to conduct an experiment. | ||
Kroc.
Peru95 Posts
On June 30 2008 07:31 betaben wrote: I disagree with this view of the word 'experiment'. If you have a closed door and you don't know who is behind it, but you have a choice of your mum or your grandma, you call out 'is it mum or gran?' this is an experiment. it's not that they don't have any clue what is going on. they have narrowed it down to mum or grandma. but they don't know which. it is still an experiment to find out what is there, you don't need to misunderstand something to conduct an experiment. betaben, don't waste your time trying to explain something to Funchucks. He has proven in this thread that he is unable to understand an argument given by people much more knowledgeable than him in the subject. So, I would suggest to just say condescending things to him.... PS: I love you too, Funchucks | ||
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
lvl22 human student lfg for CERN raid ;( In any case, good to know that a random lawyer in Hawaii with a minor in physics can try to save the world from the meddling of top theoreticians and scientists in Europe. | ||
[MAC]Darklight
United States30 Posts
| ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 30 2008 09:30 [MAC]Darklight wrote: I should mention that the forces at work in the star we orbit, our sun, are astronomically (pardon the pun) more potent than those the particles in the LHC will experience, and its been going strong for a few billion years now. Well, no, they are not. They are not even close as a matter of fact. They fusion in the sun is at energy scales of roughly 10's of MeV (the mass loss of 4 protons and 2 electrons turning into helium). LHC nominal energy is 14 TeV, that is about one million times as high energy. The energies in the sun are still very high compared to "normal" chemical reactions with visible light and normal electronic excitations, which are at scales of a few eV, being yet another factor one million lower than the typical energies in the sun. | ||
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
And I'm pretty sure that Hume never denied the utility of science, he only had issues with its claims to 'intrinsic' truth. | ||
Maenander
Germany4919 Posts
It would most likely just sink to the core of the earth and do nothing, in the unlikely case it wouldn´t be fast enough to escape earth. If such things were the stable, accreting and easily produced monsters you dream of at night, I think we would have noticed! If one thinks of the cosmic rays (having much higher energy than anything that could ever be produced in CERN) flying around our neighbourhood for billions of years (especially when the first stars formed and the universe was much denser), those mini black holes should be around and devastate everything we see. We do see nothing though. | ||
STiKxSx96
United States13 Posts
but the theory behind this is insane.. | ||
TehKris
Norway322 Posts
| ||
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On July 02 2008 07:46 TehKris wrote: There is 0% chance that a black hole will be made in that. This. Black Holes aren't created with an insane amount of colliding force, nor will they ever be. You might get an explosive chain reaction, but not a black hole. Either way, the earth is fine. Micro black holes aren't even that rare of an event. | ||
joewest
United States167 Posts
| ||
GeneralZap
United States172 Posts
In other words, the Big Bang is impossible, because it requires too much gravity and would form a black hole. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 24 2008 18:10 Cascade wrote: Bumping this thread since Michelangelo Mangano, one of the big guys at CERN, published a paper on this with Giddings, dismissing risks using the white dwarf/neutron star argument above. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdf It's 97 pages, but just reading the abstract is enough, and should be understandable to most. Let me also emphasis that these are not some random PhDs publishing, but well renowned guys. Bumping again since a guy I dont know (R. Plaga) just (10:th of august) submitted a paper claiming to have found a hole in Manganos argunents. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 The discussion continues... And guys, please: if you dont work in this field, you will not understand the details of this problem. I promise. I am a PhD in particle physics myself, and I still dont understand the details of this. I think the discussion here is great and it warms my heart to see this topic, but I sometimes wish that the 95% of you that are not proffesional particle physiscists would realise that you wont find a single great solution that solves it all.... Be humble guys, there are incredibly knowledgable persons (like Mangano, not me...) working on this. that said: OMG, were all gonna die!!! :o + Show Spoiler + | ||
Kaptein[konijn]
Netherlands110 Posts
| ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
SlickR12345
Macedonia408 Posts
Though I'm not sure if this is some competition thing and they are trying to stop these scientist from maybe coming up with new knowledge or if it has any merit. In either way this should be reviewed by European health and environmental commissions and other high governing bodies and not some court in Hawaii. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Really, this is a joke. | ||
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
| ||
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
WELL THEY STARTED it will be end of humanity as we know it either with a) awesome new energy source b) ... or we're all doomed Anyways back to topic, their first test ( the whole project is spinning protons rapidly around... like speed of light crazy; then colliding them to create energy ) Well the first test, the protons actually spun around at tested speeds, SUCCESS... now for part 2, ultimately the part everyones scared about It's really amazing engineering, the infrastructure they used to create this project | ||
betaben
681 Posts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/19/scilhc419.xml this is typical of particle physicists - there is no room for mistakes in their project managements. Overconfidence in the LHC is why there are still many physicists working in FNAL. Still, two more months to live. | ||
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
I mean really here's a few choices for your death: A: Get hit by a car B: Die of old age C: Get cancer and die D: Get swallowed by a black hole Dunno, choice D sounds pretty good to me. | ||
Chewits
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/19/scilhc319.xml "..He uses the following idea to put the punch packed by the machine into context: a spark from a sparkler can be hotter than the sun, but a bath of boiling water is much more dangerous. "The protons are the sparks, the whole beam is the bath." | ||
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
| ||
alpskomleko
Slovenia950 Posts
I think you mean cold fusion. | ||
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
I could be wrong :p | ||
LaLuSh
Sweden2356 Posts
I think we're at the point where the net gain is +-0 . Fusion power will probably be comercially viable in a few decades or so. The governments of this planet will most likely need to be presented with some sort of pressing incentive to speed the research along. Just think about what we already could have accomplished if we'd have spent all military budgets on science :/ | ||
Dyllyn
Singapore670 Posts
| ||
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On September 21 2008 01:07 GenericTerranPlayer wrote: don't you think it's ironic that stephen hawkings and his homies say everything's gonna be all right, but random people with no physics background are making lots of noise about the end of the universe as we know it.... Yes, and ironically, lots of people don't believe Stephen Hawkings either. PhD physicists... what do they know about physics? ;; | ||
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 21 2008 00:11 Spenguin wrote: What was that fabled energy source that was unlimited? But it's impossible to create. Zero point energy? | ||
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
On September 21 2008 01:28 MiniRoman wrote: So exactly how big is this thing anyways? MILES? 27 kilometers to be precise, its in europe, you do the math. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On September 21 2008 04:34 Kong John wrote: Yea it's about half the whole continent.27 kilometers to be precise, its in europe, you do the math. | ||
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On September 21 2008 04:34 Kong John wrote: Thought the world would go under... shouldnt have kicked my math teacher in the balls... 27 kilometers to be precise, its in europe, you do the math. 27km round, not 27km in diameter + Show Spoiler + if thats not what you meant already | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On September 21 2008 15:22 Grobyc wrote: he meant 27km in size27km round, not 27km in diameter + Show Spoiler + if thats not what you meant already + Show Spoiler + god are my jokes dumb today, that's it I'm gonna sleep | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html | ||
Retsukage
United States1002 Posts
On September 21 2008 16:12 Bill307 wrote: FYI: live webcam feeds from the LHC: http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html lol | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On September 21 2008 01:03 LaLuSh wrote: Just think about what we already could have accomplished if we'd have spent all military budgets on science :/ You have to understand that the money spent on military research is for all intents and purposes money spent on scientific research. The current computer and internet boom is traceable directly to military (and to a lesser degree, NASA) spending on semiconductor's early in their life cycle. While the military isn't necessarily 100% or even 10% scientific spending, the pressing need for scientific development is the best that civilization has come up with to advance scientific knowledge. | ||
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
| ||
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
| ||
DM20
Canada544 Posts
| ||
Dyllyn
Singapore670 Posts
On September 21 2008 01:21 Mortality wrote: Yes, and ironically, lots of people don't believe Stephen Hawkings either. PhD physicists... what do they know about physics? ;; you didn't read my post properly if you think that's a legitimate response. see: random people with no physics background, not phd physicists... -.- | ||
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
On September 21 2008 21:58 GenericTerranPlayer wrote: you didn't read my post properly if you think that's a legitimate response. see: random people with no physics background, not phd physicists... -.- but Hawking is a Phd physicits.. | ||
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 21 2008 19:49 Alizee- wrote: If the world spent money on science rather than military we'd have overpopulation out the ass I'd think. Kind of a twisted way of looking at it, but its true. Actually, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Overpopulation means there's not enough room to house and feed everyone and still maintain some arbitrarily specified standard of living without incurring other undesirable consequences (like, say, totally destroying the environment). Do you think science/technology could not offer answers on questions of food and living space? Do you think science/technology forces people to have more babies than they otherwise would? The second one is just astoundingly off base - haven't you noticed that third world fertility rates today greatly exceed those of the West? Your conclusion would only be true if both of these false notions were correct. Not that the original suggestion about no military budget made much sense either, but that's a different story. | ||
RoieTRS
United States2569 Posts
| ||
Insane Lane
United States397 Posts
TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE OUT OF A BOX OF SCRAPS!! | ||
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
On September 21 2008 15:53 VIB wrote: he meant 27km in size + Show Spoiler + god are my jokes dumb today, that's it I'm gonna sleep indeed, i meant my penis. its CIRCUMFERENCE is 27 km (17 miles or so), does it get more precise now? | ||
SonuvBob
Aiur21548 Posts
| ||
Folca
2235 Posts
On September 26 2008 12:10 SonuvBob wrote: This just in: The LHC is made by Blizzard. No dragons til 2009. OMFG WHERE ARE THE DRAGONS GANNA BE AT NO I WANT THE DRAGONNS ITS THE DRAGONNS MAN ITS THE DRAGONNNSs | ||
SonuvBob
Aiur21548 Posts
| ||
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
This bump, not so epic. | ||
| ||