SpudFiles

BC Pneumatics wrote:Starman, there is one thing I wanted to comment on. Black holes do not gobble up photons simply because they are very, very massive, but because they are so damn small compared to that mass. Black holes are actually the smallest thing we know of, relative to mass. IE, the most dense things around.

Yes yes of course, density counts as mass.

I don't count myself a black hole expert by any stretch of the imagination. I assume the vast majority of us here aren't either therefore I kept my discussion fairly pedestrian.

i dont wanna die because some "scientist" wanted to make a black hole. honestly i think its stupid, why would you want to make one anyway? i have heard of this before, but i thought it was just a thought, i didnt think they actually built it. now i am only a sophomore in high school, but it seems like a waste to me.

i pray it does absolutely nothing when they flick the power switch and is a waste of 4.4 billion dollars.

Honestly, I think you're not reading into the science behind this before you post. As I said before, but in slightly different terms, you couldn't make a black hole that was dangerous to this planet unless you compressed the entire sun into a space far smaller than the periods on this page.

You have more to worry about in regards to being killed by a meteorite strike than by a particle collider. They're not taking any risk of destroying the world, and you can be damn sure they wouldn't have sunk 4 billion $ on this thing if there was that risk. Oddly enough, respected physicists actually understand these things better than our sensationalist media does

And why would a scientist want to make a black hole? For the same reason that Hillary climbed Everest, you post on this forum, and I take whatever risks I do in pursuit of a big boom and high velocity - because he can.

FFS, this was an article in The Sun

When they were first testing atomic bombs there were serious concerns that it might set the atmosphere on fire and end life on earth. However, as we all know, that didn't happen, and atomic bombs turned out to be perfectly safe. Well, mostly.

spuzi14 wrote:Not sure. They actually are looking for the Higgs Boson which apparently would make everything we know about physics come full circle.

Apparently this could even lead to anti-matter and a whole pantload of other crazy stuff. I still kind of think it is not worth risking the planet and life as we know it, but I am just some kid in their eyes.

than again no-one has stopped the atom bomb XD

i dont wanna die because some "scientist" wanted to make a black hole. honestly i think its stupid, why would you want to make one anyway? i have heard of this before, but i thought it was just a thought, i didnt think they actually built it. now i am only a sophomore in high school, but it seems like a waste to me.

i pray it does absolutely nothing when they flick the power switch and is a waste of 4.4 billion dollars.

The infinitesimal risk of any ill effects from the LHC is a small price to pay for better understanding the nature of reality

popomon wrote:than again no-one has stopped the atom bomb XD

Thank goodness for that!

I knew this sounded familiar.

There was an identical thread but about the LHC here before: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

Don't worry about it. Any black holes produced will be so titchy it would be gazillions of years before they got hold of enough mass to be a bother.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:FFS, this was an article in The Sun

No shit. People, the sun is like "Weekly World News" in the UK.

nobody knows this but i will tell you guys. ever since i was little i always wanted to not die a slow death. i mean im not saying i want to die. buti just thought that if i had to die i wold like to be sucked up in a black hole because it is an instantaneous death 8)

Edit: what the F&#k did i just type

Little morbid there Sandman

Mind you I know how I'd like to go. Under a general anaesthetic, maybe an overdose. If you've ever had one you'd know why. Just a little tingling and out like a lightbulb.

I have a different question - how many of the people involved in spreading this sensationalist crap have actually looked at the information about the machine, proven that there is an even vaguely tangible risk of the LHC destroying the world and - this is the critical bit - have the qualifications that they can back up their doubts?

Answer: Zero, because if there were any such provable risk, the eggheads and boffins wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

And as JSR says, this was printed in The Sun (and for some reason, their website crashes Firefox ) - you've just got to look at the page to realise the stupidity behind it... the recommendations for how to spend your final days? Laughable! Come on, be sensible!

There are only two uses I have ever found for The Sun:
1) The large tabloid style portrait photos are good source photos for drawing from, most of my "realistic" drawings are based on tabloid pictures.
2) Lining guinea pig cages
Which I hasten to add is the reason we had the papers in the first place - we used to get old copies from neighbours for this reason. I tended to root through them for appropriate photos to draw from when it was my turn to change out their hutch.

Ragnarok wrote: The large tabloid style portrait photos are good source photos for drawing from. I tended to root through them for appropriate photos to draw from when it was my turn to change out their hutch.

Any excuse to save page 3 from the guinea pig cage

Hotwired wrote:Any excuse to save page 3 from the guinea pig cage

Actually, oddly, page 3 was usually missing by the time it reached our house...

By the way, this site is worth a read: http://askanexpert.web.cern.ch/AskAnExp ... es-en.html

Rag- I think people are afraid we are going to kill ourselves for the ultimate reason of playing with what we don't understand. If we are sciencing (yup, I use it as a verb) in uncharted territory, finding a person fully 'competent' to evaluate it's risks isn't possible. Of course, they have rounded up everyone that comes close knowing what they are talking about, and again, they all called it safe. At least safe enough to proceed.

I also must say that as much of a quack as Rossler looks like, he is certainly more qualified to talk about this than any of us are. Of course I cannot attack the fact that most scientists do not agree with him on the fundamentals that make up his anti LHC argument, since very few people agree with most of the science that proves revolutionary. I can however say that at least the odds look to be in our favor. To be correct, Rossler would have to disprove theories brought to us by both Einstein and Hawking.

Personally I would say the number of people that have the qualifications to back up their doomsday predictions is closer to .84 than 0.



Edit: I am personally wary of any site that uses the term "100% sure" when talking about "Quantum" anything! Seriously though, good link.