have we made any of these in the large hadron collider yet?

File: 1.15 MB, 2560x2048, Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:13:59 2011 No.3344882 [Reply] [Original]

have we made any of these in the large hadron collider yet?

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Wed Jul 6 19:14:59 2011 No.3344886 evidently not we are all still alive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:15:59 2011 No.3344891 >>3344886 i mean small ones

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:16:59 2011 No.3344895 ALL THE FUCKING TIME..BIG ONES.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:16:59 2011 No.3344893 >>3344891 Godamn you're stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:16:59 2011 No.3344896 >>3344891 I lol'd. Then I got sad, because you are serious..

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:17:59 2011 No.3344898 >>3344893 why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:17:59 2011 No.3344899 >>3344893 >>3344896 eh?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:17:59 2011 No.3344902 wait, aren't like Planck length-sized one's created every, all the time

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:18:59 2011 No.3344906 >>3344902 No.

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Wed Jul 6 19:18:59 2011 No.3344907 well black holes are very very very dense, and their superstrong gravity sucks everything nearby into it. it would end up engulfing the entire world and killing us all if there was one here on earth.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:18:59 2011 No.3344908

>>3344896
>>3344893

you guys are fucking retarded summerfags. One of the main reasons we built the god damn collider is to make these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Now stop being fucking retards and don't answer if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:19:59 2011 No.3344913 >>3344907 wrong. lrn2swarzchildradius

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:20:59 2011 No.3344915 >>3344906 Prove they're not!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:23:59 2011 No.3344935 Nobody knows? I thought you guys would be up on this kind of stuff.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:24:42 2011 No.3344941

>>3344896
>>3344893
there were articles explaining that they would be very small and most probably unharmful in a lot of newspapers though.

I fail to see why mentioning them being small makes him "oh god so stupid".

He could be, I woulden't jump to this conclusion though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:25:59 2011 No.3344946 >>3344907 Stick to zoology mate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:29:59 2011 No.3344966 >>3344907 not a small one

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:33:59 2011 No.3344983

>hurr durr lets test theoretical physics
>create black holes
>if hawking radiation is true : probably never ever detect them
>if hawking radiation is false : the entire earth and the entire human race is instantly eradicated by gravitational collapse
>there is absolutely no proof for hawking radiation except some esoteric mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:35:59 2011 No.3344990 >>3344908 ah glad to some one knows as much as me on here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:37:59 2011 No.3344999 >>3344983 http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25805 >tl:dr you're a faggot

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:40:59 2011 No.3345007

>>3344999
> In particular, they that the fluorescent light is well characterised and that it differs in various significant ways from the emissions they see. Therefore, they must be seeing Hawking radiation, they conclude.
>implying thats significant evidence to risk the destruction of earth for literally no tangible benefit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:41:59 2011 No.3345008 >>3345007 >implying you're a particle physicist and your opinion matters in the slightest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:42:59 2011 No.3345016 >>3345008 >implying scientists considered the ramifications >implying it shouldn't have been considered as an act of terrorism to every nation on earth

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:43:59 2011 No.3345019 At the very least, I'm glad the Large Hardon Collider hasn't done anything particularly unexpected just yet. Otherwise we'd be well and truly boned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:43:59 2011 No.3345021 inb4 dumb /sci/ faggots think the LHC or particle/theoretical physics actually helps anyone or contributes to useful knowledge whatsoever and isn't just an esoteric masterbatory practice for asocial scientists and physicists

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:45:59 2011 No.3345026 File: 198 KB, 552x414, fry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3345016

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:45:59 2011 No.3345027 jpegs? yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:46:59 2011 No.3345031 >>3345021 shut up luddite

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:46:59 2011 No.3345033 >>3345007 o ffs death is natural, it is a very importain part of life. quit worrying about somthing you can not stop from happing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:47:59 2011 No.3345038 >>3345031 name one possible benefit mankind gets from the LHC or particle accelerators in general

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:47:59 2011 No.3345035 File: 52 KB, 627x620, 1309350750815.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3345016

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:51:59 2011 No.3345047 >>3345038 free energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:51:59 2011 No.3345048 >>3345038 I'll let stephen hawking answer that for you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2710348/Stephen-Hawking-Large-Hadron-Collider-vital-for-humanity.htm l

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:52:59 2011 No.3345050 >>3345047 doubtful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:53:59 2011 No.3345052 Lets do this shit right. http://youtu.be/zn7-fVtT16k

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:55:59 2011 No.3345059
File: 69 KB, 273x240, 1220025623278.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3345048
He doesn't answer anything, except to say that it's important to study simply for sake of science. Sounds a lot like my old 7th grade science teacher, big fucking whoop. So... did you read the article, dumbshit?

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:56:59 2011 No.3345062

>>3345050

really, they can create energy damn near on par with the big bang, with just two particles that you didn't even knew existed until you found this thread.

Simply put find a way to catch that energy on impact, and we have now created Free energy. Which would push humanity so far tech wise in such a short amount of time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:58:59 2011 No.3345066 >>3345062 DERP, I don't know where you get your info

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:59:59 2011 No.3345067 >>3345062 I'm a physics grad student and what is this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:59:59 2011 No.3345069 >>3345062 >implying the big bang was a result of free energy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:00:59 2011 No.3345073 >>3345062 Oh dear, how can you be so misguided?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:01:59 2011 No.3345075 >>3345059 Did early physicists know the mechanisms behind chemistry when they were first discovering the atom? We don't know what the future will bring. We won't know how to apply the knowledge we gain until we gain it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:02:59 2011 No.3345081

>>3345069

Free energy used loosely

Machine A takes up 1X amount of energy (A) to create 5X of Energy (A).

This in tern is free energy.

like the troll light + solar panels + mirrors = free energy, but less bullshit and more reality.

Pretty much you are getting more energy then you are expending.

Not free. but "free"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:03:59 2011 No.3345084 >>3345081 and this has to do with the big bang how?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:03:59 2011 No.3345086 >>3345081 Can't tell if dumb as a rock or maximum overtroll.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:05:59 2011 No.3345092 ITT: Full Retard Everywhere >not realizing that a black hole made in the LHC would only last for about 10^-23 seconds before it would dissapear >not realizing that a black hole made in the LHC wouldnt even be big enough to consume an electron

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:05:59 2011 No.3345094

>>3345084

smash particles together, creates massive amount of energy expenditure for short burst. collected said energy *who fucking knows how*, The energy spent to smash the particles together is less then the amount collected from the aftermath.

Its more of a scifi things, but just like things of the past. you never know if it could work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:07:59 2011 No.3345100 No, I don't think so, but It'll be cool when they finally do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:08:59 2011 No.3345104 >>3345094 like a fission reactor. 1) we've had those for a very very long time 2) that's not free energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:08:59 2011 No.3345102 >>3345094 >The energy spent to smash the particles together is less then the amount collected from the aftermath. No. You fail science forever. > you never know if it could work Speak for yourself. Arguments from ignorance are not impressive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:09:59 2011 No.3345105 >>3345094 thats like saying "drop a rock on a trampoline, and catch it when it is above its starting point. repeat" AKA, bullshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:09:59 2011 No.3345106 >>3345102 He could be talking about using a particle collider for fusion. But that's giving him too much credit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:10:59 2011 No.3345107 >>3345092 thank you. When I started this thread I assumed that people would know this. Too bad this board is full of summer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:10:59 2011 No.3345109 >>3345094 I wonder, maybe, if you've ever seen: <span class="math">E^{2}=m^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}[/spoiler] or its more well-known form: <span class="math">E=mc^{2}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:11:59 2011 No.3345112 >>3345102 and yet 20 years ago 1TB was never thought of. and yet here it is for almost the price of a gallon of gas. Those who speak That things only thought of and not possible in there age lack Ideas and foresight to see the future.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:11:59 2011 No.3345113 We don't need free energy. We just need better energy management and more investment into the development of clean energy production.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:12:59 2011 No.3345118 >>3345112 Confirmed for troll. Good day, sir.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:12:59 2011 No.3345116 >>3345092 not realizing if the LHC did create one. it would mean there is more then one dimension/univers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:12:59 2011 No.3345115 >>3345107 I was highly disappointed that nobody knew this.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:15:59 2011 No.3345130
File: 122 KB, 640x426, concentrated-solar-power.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3345113

clean energy is funny shit.

You know to set up the earths populace to run on 20% solar energy by 2050 would cost the worlds *key word there* governments 250 billion dollars a year, starting back in 2005, each year until 2050.

So yea "clean energy" isn't worth the costs, and never will be.

*pick doesn't even put out enough energy to run a small town, and it costs 1.5 Billion to operate a year*

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:19:59 2011 No.3345142

>>3345130
>So yea "clean energy" isn't worth the costs, and never will be.
That's remarkably short-sighted. It's all a question of demand, and the easiest way to supply. I also question your numbers - I doubt they're a good-faith estimate given the progress of the technology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:23:59 2011 No.3345159 >>3345130 Yeah well i've never really understood the concept of money. I'd just rather we took our energy from renewable resources that are available to everyone and that don't incite wars.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:27:59 2011 No.3345177 >>3345142 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan 420 Billion just for the US alone. and that's only 60%ish power. Other parts of the world will have higher costs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:29:59 2011 No.3345183 So can anyone answer OP's question? Have we seen these yet?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:30:59 2011 No.3345190 >>3345177 >420 Billion just for the US alone. and that's only 60%ish power. That's actually not very much money for the US.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:33:59 2011 No.3345208

>>3345190

Really. considering Gas is going up, Majority of Mericans refuse to purchase "friendly" cars, most of the middle states would rather subside then Do so by law. More and more people going into debt, Several idiotic national laws being put in place to tax them even harder in even more retarded ways.

I don't think the US will have much of a leg to stand on by 2020.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:34:59 2011 No.3345213 >>3345208 blah blah blah blah $420 billion over nearly 40 years is not a big deal for the US. You know what the budget looks like, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:36:59 2011 No.3345216 >>3345213 you mean the same budget that almost shutdown military pay last quarter? The us is running out of money, and paper to print the fake shit they have left.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:38:59 2011 No.3345222

>>3345216
blah blah blah more shallow fatalism with nothing behind it

I hope it makes you happy, because it won't make a single bit of difference. The point remains that you clearly are painting as impossible things that would only be a small fraction of the current budget.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:40:59 2011 No.3345232 File: 74 KB, 997x750, 1309577437151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3345222 nothing behind it? I've posted several things behind what I've stated. and all you have posted is blah blah blah. Way to troll summer fag.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:52:59 2011 No.3345269

>>3345232
Keep on trollin'. Fact remains that your fatalist bullshit is not supported by actual evidence, despite how much the media loves to keep your attention by saying the sky is falling.

>Gas is going up, Majority of Mericans refuse to purchase "friendly" cars, most of the middle states would rather subside then Do so by law. More and more people going into debt, Several idiotic national laws being put in place to tax them even harder in even more retarded ways.
LOL, and just THAT is going to make the US implode in a decade? No. Those aren't even the main problems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:55:59 2011 No.3345281 File: 20 KB, 280x289, thread direction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3345269 >>3345232 >>3345222 >>3345216 >>3345213 >>3345208 >>3345190 >>3345177 >>3345159 >>3345142 >>3345130

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:56:59 2011 No.3345288 >>3345281 OP turned out to be pants-on-head retarded and deserved it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 21:00:59 2011 No.3345304 >>3345288 how so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 21:01:59 2011 No.3345313 A photoshopped, inaccurate artists interpretation of what a black hole would look like? No, that's not what the LHC does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 21:02:59 2011 No.3345316 >>3345313 your contribution to this thread is greatly appreciated. Frankly, you've been about as helpful as anyone else has been.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math