[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 12 KB, 270x267, exploding_stars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203369 No.3203369 [Reply] [Original]

Is anyone else worried about the causality of a creation of a black hole by CERN, large enough to do significant damage to the LHC?

>> No.3203385
File: 38 KB, 468x519, 20090309.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203385

Not me. It seems that higher energy collision are occuring in the high atmosphere all the time.

>> No.3203403

>>3203385
yes, but they are already creating miniture black holes at the LHC, they are sead to go to full power by 2014 (only at 1/2 power right now) so the creation of black holes by then could escalate in strength

>> No.3203422
File: 77 KB, 585x347, deargodnoooooooo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203422

I live near the A point.
I hope the little mountain between the CERN and my house has enough mass to absorb this shitty blackhole.

>> No.3203432

>>3203422
Well with the power output by a black hole caused by such a low amount of energy (even with the LHC at full strength) would only at worst case do enough damage to cause destruction around a 10 foot area. So you would be fine, the problem is how much damage would it cause to the LHC

>> No.3203433

summer bringing you the classic hits such as

>causality of a creation

>they are already creating miniture black holes at the LHC

> the creation of black holes by then could escalate in strength

and not forgetting

>sead

>> No.3203440

>>3203403
Your argument from ignorance is heartwarming.

Give me a number, if you can: What would the schwarzschild radius of a black hole need to be in order to post a threat, and how much mass does that require?

>> No.3203443

>>3203433
I'm a bloody HS drop out, I'm trying to learn and talk about a subject that interest me, no one is putting in any valuble imput on this subject

>> No.3203445

>>3203432
>>3203403

if we're going to play the game of pulling numbers and facts out of you're ass you should have sead so.

>> No.3203449

>>3203440
>post a threat

Surprised you didn't say "post a thread".

>> No.3203457

>>3203440
That who speaks constantly about the idiots with a small condescending air, doesn't he belongs also a little part of the family?

>cant remember, so quoted from my gran-ma

>> No.3203466

>>3203449
When black holes start posting threads, we're fucked.

>> No.3203475

>>3203466
>blackhole creates an board-inappropriate thread on /v/ which gets deleted
>destroys portion of France in rage
>no one gives a shit

>> No.3203476
File: 55 KB, 757x459, ho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203476

>>3203466
You mean:
we are sucked?

>> No.3203480

you mean causing the timeline to branch out and for us to not notice anything?
nope, not worried at all.

>> No.3203482
File: 1.97 MB, 312x254, 1298484014098.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203482

Oh hi guys.

>> No.3203488

>>3203369
I've heard that LHC's engineer have learnt there knowledge in the same school than Tepco's engineers.

>> No.3203490

no

the circumstances under which micro(!) black holes would form are the same that are needed for Hawking radiation to occur, so either there are no micro black holes created or they are created but die the instant after their birth.

>> No.3203494

ITT:

> implying micro black holes have the same properties as black holes which are FUCKING HUGE objects in the FUCKING SKY far away

>> No.3203502

>>3203440
i don't know the scale for gravitational pull in relation to the size of a singularity. but i do know that the schwarzschild radius of an object is insanely small in relation to its size. that being said, it would take vast quantities of matter to create a black hole that could cause significant damage. the particles simply do not have enough mass to create a black hole that could cause harm. not op btw. just an anon voicing his own possibly wrong opinion

>> No.3203501

>>3203488

Those were actual engineers? I thought they just used some brick layers.

>> No.3203504

>>3203494

I'm sure I'll be called a troll/dumbass for this, but why don't they?

>> No.3203507

>>3203504
Because they are tiny. Is a pebble the same thing as a planet?

>> No.3203509
File: 58 KB, 620x620, Sakae-Muto---vice-president-de-tepco.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3203509

>>3203488
>>3203501

>> No.3203516

>>3203507
Implying there couldn't the mass of a planet in a tiny blackhole.

>> No.3203518

>>3203502
Yeah, you've pretty much got it. Except that for a black hole, the schwarzschild radius pretty much *is* the size of it.

>> No.3203522

>>3203516
The Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is about 9.0 mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

>> No.3203524

>>3203504

The correct question should be: Why would they?

There's no reason for why those objects should have the same properties.

>> No.3203530

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=event+horizon+of+earth+mass
input mass of particles in LHC, calculate the radius. Compare to earth's mass. Not that big, actually.

>> No.3203535

>>3203530
Well, the proper thing to put in is the center-of-mass energy of the beams. But even then, the conclusion holds. Black hole would be too fucking tiny to trap ANYTHING, and with Hawking radiation it immediately evaporates.

>> No.3203540

>>3203516
Implying CERN is shoving the entire earth into its particle accelerator.

>> No.3203581

>>3203524

Yeah but we're talking about black holes here, absorbing whatever gets in their way. I'm gonna pretend to know shit about quantum physics, but it doesn't seem unreasonable when you only know the basic stuff.

Why do they evaporate again?

>> No.3203591

>>3203581
>Why do they evaporate again?
Hawking radiation. Shit's complicated. Do you know about virtual particles and pair creation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

>> No.3203594

>>3203581

> we're talking about black holes here, absorbing whatever gets in their way
> absorbing whatever gets in their way

That is YOUR assumption. Not what any sscientist said.

>> No.3203608

>>3203518
i thought the schwarzschild radius was the size an object needed to be compressed to to start causing irreversable gravitational collapse. thought that implied that it would get smaller.

>> No.3203610

>>3203594

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm just saying that since it's the general assumption you shouldn't be surprised when people overreact when you say the thing's gonna create black holes. If Sagan was still alive he'd know how to make everyone chill the fuck out.

>>3203591
Thanks, and no I don't know a thing about it, yet.