/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12411445
>What if science discovers some new weapon that can blow up the whole planet,
already exists essentially
>and it's really easy to make one in your garage for example
incredibly unlikely
>and some lone nut could blow up the whole planet needing only very few resources
again unlikely
>should that discovery be published?? Would its publication become inevitable??
no it wouldn't be if anyone had sense

>>12411445
>Would its publication become inevitable??
If somebody who discovered such a weapon was crazy enough to publicize it they would just build it themselves and use it because that would take less effort.

>>12411445
Go to bed

As always in science, look up existing literature first

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Physicists

as a good scientist you would have to kys

>>12411445
allways thought it would be cool if humans break the universe itself by accident.

>oops, physics.exe has stopped working

fucking polniggers please stop posting on this board
sincerely, me

>>12411445
Resonant frequency.

>tfw it already exists and the CIA has the trigger

>>12411463
>already exists essentially
Which kind?

>>12411564
a big H bomb I guess

>>12411575
Doubt that is capable of blowing the entire planet
And even if the planet got blown away won't the pieces clump together again after some time?

>>12411581
>won't the pieces clump together again after some time?
yes... with the uranium of the core floating around your house and irradiating everybody. Plus it would take millions of years for the planet to become compact again I guess

>>12411581
>Doubt that is capable of blowing the entire planet
During the cold war the USSR had 10 times the amount of atomic bombs needed to blow up the whole planet

>>12411445
Nick Bostrom studies this kind of thing. You might like his book, Superintelligence, that goes into a lot of detail of different scenarios for how advanced AI could potentially wipe us out if not implemented properly.

>>12411600
He's s philosophy larper, just read some sci fi instead, more entertaining and just as accurate

I would think it would be biological rather than explosive.

Such as engineering a virus that is more easily transmitted than covid, has a 90day incubation period before symptoms (but you are still contagious) and a very high lethality rate

it would infect a billion people before anyone even knew it existed

>>12411445
>create an airborne prion capable of afflicting mass reproduction on sweat glands on skin
>world promptly comes to an end as you just cast the biological equivalent of replicators
Baste

>>12411635
You forgot:
>body grows accustomed
>prions lose effect

>>12411638
It takes an unsanitary amount of time for a prion disease to come to a halt. Even then, look up Project T.I.D.E and tell me it's not the most diabolical thing you have ever seen.

>>12411589
that's what we call "figurative speech"
when they said "blow up the planet", they meant we had enough to directly wipe out all major cities and release enough fallout to cause mass extinction event
not that we could literally blow up the planet

>>12411623
He has degrees in AI, computational neuroscience and physics.

>>12411445
Then we're completely fucked beyond any hope of survival. Either we're all dead a few years after the discovery, or governments will crack down so hard that freedom will be gone and we'll all wish we were dead. Which some terrorist asshole in some shithole country will do in a decade or two.

>>12411445
>>12411445
It will happen just like that in a random person garage with Artificial General Intelligence when the technology becomes well known and accessible, purposely with bad intentions or unpurposely with bad programming

>>12411630
You are correct. We can already engineer shit at home. Soon as we have a relatively tabletop/uncontrolled DNA generator people can make whatever the fuck they want in their garage. Panresistant pneumonic plague eat your heart out

>>12411581
>won't the pieces clump together again after some time?
That still counts as blowing up a planet.

>>12411445
You mean like nuclear fusion set by chemical explosives or a laser so you make a small bomb that triggers a bigger bomb? While theoretically possible its still unlikely due to society

>>12411589
There were not even enough nukes to destroy every human settlement. There are over 20 000 towns in USA alone, 3 towns spread apart for every russian nuke

>>12411445
then you can catch me in my garage for a couple days.

>>12411554
Well, I’m relieved to know the good guys have the trigger

This is the Great Filter.
Something will be discovered in the next 100 years that ends life on Earth. Being intelligent enough to discover it is what will end us.

>>12411445

It's pretty obvious stuff in that direction will happen. It will 10-20-30-100 years when any 14yr old with enough motivation can build a biological virus at their desk and unleash it. Same kids who do school shooting will do the "fuck the world with my virus". The only thing that might stop it is if we've some how invented defenses for random man made viruses but I'm not holding my breath for that.

>>12414218

You don't need to target every human settlement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

>>12411445
I promise that i won't kill everyone but these mind games have got to stop.

>>12414302
I thought this was a science board. What a crock of shit

>>12414302
Ridiculous speculation. Carl Sagan said the oil fires from Kuwait would cause a nuclear winter and all they did was blacken the sky around the kuwait area and the rains washed it no problem.

>>12411445
imagine actually being worried about this

>>12411445
That's not how thermodynamics works. Pretty sure you would need a lot of energy to destroy something as big as the Earth, and hence a lot of resources.

Also, assuming it were possible to do what you say, this one is on God. That would be a terrible design flaw.

>>12411539
If I remember correctly, this book was obligatory in high school, but we did not had enough time to actually learn about it. It sounds pretty interesting unlike most of the obligatory readings, gonna give it a try. Thanks anon.

>>12411545
Mankind's final achievement will be the successful creation of a black hole.

Why does everyone fixate on explosions? Reality is always the most mundane option. In this case, self-replicating 'gray goo' type overrun or biological agent is far more likely to wipe us all out than some big boom boom. They're also far more likely to be deployed by a small group or individual actor.

Vacuum decay: the ultimate catastrophe

There are two problems with living in a metastable universe. One is that if you create a high enough energy event, you can, in theory, push a tiny region of the universe from the false vacuum into the true vacuum, creating a bubble of true vacuum that will then expand in all directions at the speed of light. Such a bubble would be lethal.

>>12415575
Existential threat Edit
If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, the effects may vary from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on potential difference between true and false vacuum. Some false vacuum decay scenarios are compatible with survival of structures like galaxies and stars[4][5] or even life[6] while others involve the full destruction of baryonic matter[7] or even immediate gravitational collapse of the universe

Basically, this would SUCK ;)

>>12411445
Wasn't Bohr who pretty much told an audience how to make their own nuclear bomb?

>>12411623
>nooooooo you can't think about anything just calculate aaaaaaahhhhhhh