Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the LHC Won't Destroy the World

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the that'll-ruin-your-day dept.

Earth 508

An anonymous reader writes "Most people are aware of the recent articles contending that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN might destroy the world. While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion. The gist of the argument is this: Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays. If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays. Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902513)

First particle?

Famous "last particle" (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902753)

"We have an unintended event horizon."

Re:Famous "last particle" (5, Funny)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903219)

Although the parent is rated 'funny' currently, I can only imagine a new, really big lake in Switzerland soon, Lake Hadron.

Re:Famous "last particle" (0, Offtopic)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903295)

if that happens I am so pushing for one of these to be built in Washington DC or Los Angeles I am not sure which coast is dirtier.

Re:First (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902873)

Well, if it's a singularity, it's the first, the one and only :o)

Damnit! (1, Offtopic)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902527)

Guess I now have to get back to my TPS report.

Re:Damnit! (1, Offtopic)

codepunk (167897) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902623)

You should have finished it on Saturday, didn't you read the memo!

Re:Damnit! (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902785)

Did you get the new memo about the cover sheets?

Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902535)

A beowolf cluster of these!

Fools! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902541)

Don't they see that there used to be MORE neutron stars?

Re:Fools! (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902797)

Well, I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'm well aware my argument is flawed before I begin...
 
...however, supposing as the "black hole doomsday theory" does that Hawking radiation does not exist, how can they tell that what they are looking at is a neutron star, and not a black hole with the eaten mass of a neutron star?

Re:Fools! (2, Informative)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902947)

neutron stars emit radio waves at regular intervals.

black holes emit nothing.

Re:Fools! (3, Insightful)

Wooky_linuxer (685371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903087)

What about a neutron star with a black hole INSIDE IT! hah! I got you now!

Re:Fools! (5, Insightful)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903191)

I'd be more worried that the astrophysicists haven't accounted for 96% of the energy and mass of the universe in their current model.
I see billions of golf ball size black holes crossing the galaxy, playing Pac-Man "the milky way edition".

Broken link (0, Offtopic)

ledow (319597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902555)

Link is broke. Someone didn't check their HTML.

A Little Optomistic (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902559)

According the the Farnsworth Theorem, which has been accepted by the scientific community, the LHC is almost certain to destroy the world. There are consequences to creating a black hole, you know.

Dr Farnsworth suggests that you collect your most prized possessions and carry them down to the lowest basement you can find. This way you will at lest be among the last survivors on our doomed planet.

Hang on a minute (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902597)

Even if they did manage to destroy the world, we'd all die so quickly there wouldn't be time to dish out any blame.

I can imagine the last words in the lab just before we all disappear into a singularity:

"Oops"

Re:Hang on a minute (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902645)

Or "I'm hungry" or "This coffee is awful".

Re:Hang on a minute (4, Funny)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903185)

Or 'Hey, watch this'

*cue redneck throwing a firecracker into the path of the particle stream*

Cheers.

Re:Hang on a minute (2)

gotem (678274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903247)

No, Scientific Discovery goes Boink!

Re:Hang on a minute (5, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902711)

I can imagine the last words in the lab just before we all disappear into a singularity:

"Oops"

I agree. The world will end not with an alien invasion, not with a famine and not with a multi-national nucler war.

No, the world will end with a scientist uttering "Oh, sweet!"

Re:Hang on a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903035)

No, the world will end with a scientist uttering "Oh, sweet!"
The scientist's colleague looked at the display and agreed, "Dude, that is KILLER!"

Re:Hang on a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903103)

Almost.

It will be at the University of Alabama, and the last words will be 'Check this out'.

Re:Hang on a minute (3, Funny)

MightyDrunken (1171335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903257)

No, the world will end with a scientist uttering "Oh, sweet!"
So the end of the world will be caused by the invention of aspartame? Darn it the tin foil hat did nothing.

Re:Hang on a minute (5, Insightful)

Kookus (653170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903161)

Actually, we'd all die relatively slowly and quickly, depending on if you're looking at people falling in after or before you.

If he's wrong? (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902599)

While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion.
A risky claim to make. If he's wrong it will totally ruin his reputation ;-)

Re:If he's wrong? (5, Funny)

heldlik (754106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902989)

Well the good thing about the critics of this LHC project, is that we won't be hearing any "I TOLD YOU SO!"

This article doesn't take everything into account (5, Funny)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902607)

This article doesn't take into account accidental resonance cascades that open up portals to bizarre alien.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (4, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902671)

We will just sent sg1 in to take care of the aliens and then we just blame it on the homer simpson type people working there.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902689)

Well yea, that only results in the enslavement of the human race, not actually the end of the world.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902799)

If it was called the Black Mesa Hadron Collider, I may worry about that.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (5, Funny)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902843)

Now, now, if you follow standard insertion procedure, everything will be fine. ... Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (3, Funny)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902987)

I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade, let alone create one.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903139)

Slashdot doesn't need to hear all this, they're highly trained professionals. We've assured the administrator that *nothing will go wrong*.

Are you trying to escape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902911)

Things have changed since you last left the building. What's going on outside will make you wish you were back in here. I have an infinite capacity for knowledge, and even I'm not sure what's going on outside.

Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (4, Interesting)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902615)

Wasn't the actual "danger" in question the creation of stable negative strangelets (which would gobble up regular matter through electrostatic attraction, not through gravity like a black hole) ?

But still, if there was such a thing, cosmic rays would have created one "naturally" by now.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (5, Insightful)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902779)

I've seen both 'theories' touted in the press. I don't think that most people realise that the LHC, impressive as it is, is generating particle energies way lower than we observe ocasionally naturally.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (5, Funny)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902901)

The LHC is "mostly harmless." After all, it's only bashing Large Hadrons together. Now, the Ginormous Hadron Collider (GHC) is another matter all together. It's been giving me the stink-eye for weeks now. I wouldn't turn my back on it for a minute.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (1, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903017)

It's been giving me the stink-eye for weeks now.
It wasn't giving you the stink eye, that's just the way its face looks.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902941)

Wasn't the actual "danger" in question the creation of stable negative strangelets (which would gobble up regular matter through electrostatic attraction, not through gravity like a black hole) ?

Yes, but this can be counteracted via the usage of normalets, which are generated by anybody who doesn't read slashdot.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903029)

Yeah? Well, as long as there are no bizarrolets, then no parallel universes will be created in which there is Superman with an upside-down S who talks like retarded caveman.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ? (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903099)

AKA Babies?

Logic (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902619)

Logic is a feeble reed, friend. "Logic" proved that airplanes can't fly and that H-bombs won't work and that stones don't fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow. R. A. Heinlein Glory Road

Re:Logic (1)

Doddman (953998) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902981)

actually, there's logical explanations to why airplanes fly, there's logical explanations to why H-bombs DO work.

Re:Logic (2, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903123)

Logic can never be better than the assumptions it works with. Garbage in => garbage out.

Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow
No, logic nothing to say about that - it only concerns the way in which we manipulate logical statements. What you are talking about is empiricism - the idea that because something has always happened before, it will happen again next time; this is a useful notion in many sciences, but there is no logical reason why it should be valid.

Re:Logic (2, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903291)

You do realize OP is quoting from a book, right?

I knew, logically, that everything that had happened since I read that silly ad had been impossible. So I chucked logic.

Logic is a feeble reed, friend. "Logic" proved that airplanes can't fly and that H-bombs won't work and that stones don't fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow.
Glory Road [wikiquote.org] by Robert A. Heinlein [wikipedia.org]

Re:Logic (1)

notwrong (620413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903341)

No, logic nothing to say about that - it only concerns the way in which we manipulate logical statements. What you are talking about is empiricism - the idea that because something has always happened before, it will happen again next time; this is a useful notion in many sciences, but there is no logical reason why it should be valid.
I think that's inductivism [wikipedia.org] , rather than empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge comes from experience and observation. Inductivism (at least the naive form expressed by the GP) is logically unsound. It can be a useful way of finding new hypotheses (as you allude to) but it's not just that there's no reason it should be valid - there are plenty of plausible situations where it fails, and it's generally agreed upon to be invalid.

Been there, done that. (2, Insightful)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902643)

I wouldn't worry really. If it does destroy the world (which this is saying it won't, because if it could, it would have already happened naturally), then too bad. There isn't anything we can do, and such is life. C'est la vie.

Oh yeah, and I really have been there, there was an open day a couple of months back, the thing is less then about 15 cm in most places (then you have the various vacuum thingys, etc.). Which is rather big, actually, considering the size of the particles...

But but but... (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902667)

"Science is the work of the devil!"

I believe the saying goes, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. "Safe" doesn't sell National Geographic, let alone Wired.

It's about speed though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902691)

I thought the argument was that cosmic rays causing these effects are moving spectacularly quickly - resulting in whatever micro-black holes hurtling through the earth and off into deep space. If the LHC produces such things, a statistically significant number of them would be almost stationary with respect to the earth and would fall through the center of the planet, oscillating back and forth through the core, gradually settling down at the very center.

I still don't think this is a problem (micro black holes ought to evaporate very quickly - per Hawkins, and in any case, they'd take a very long time to get big enough to be a problem). But the cosmic-ray argument is weak.

"cosmic rays" argument is bogus (4, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902705)

Let me be quite clear that I don't think the LHC is likely to destroy the Earth.

However, the argument that what the LHC does is equivalent to collisions of cosmic rays with the atmosphere is bogus. The LHC's collisions between two particle streams with equal and opposite momentum could create things that are more or less at rest with respect to the Earth; a cosmic ray hitting the atmosphere carries momentum that will cause any resultant particles to move away from us very quickly.

Re:"cosmic rays" argument is bogus (3, Interesting)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902869)

I think it's pretty unlikely that two particles are going to hit each other 100% square on and all that energy will somehow cancel out and the result will just dead stop and drop to the floor. The particles in the LHC are going to be colliding with so much energy that the results are most certainly going to be moving at a very high rate of speed, high enough that something like the Earth's gravity will hardly be noticeable to it.

Re:"cosmic rays" argument is bogus (3, Informative)

vondo (303621) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902885)

Hence the argument concerning neutron stars which would stop such a particle.

When news makers will understand? (5, Insightful)

Framboise (521772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902723)

Interestingly Enrico Fermi did use the same argument while setting on the first nuclear reactor during the Manhattan project around 1940 (that some cosmic rays are anyway much more energetic and bombarding the Earth since ages). And later fission and fusion bomb makers did use the same argument while playing with increasingly powerful toys. Ditto particle physicists for each new and more powerful accelerator. Isn't it time that journalists and other dumb news makers understand?

Duh, John Titor already said that.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902739)

and he couldn't have worked him time machine if the planet blew up now could he?

Re:Duh, John Titor already said that.. (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902943)

John Titor was from a different future than the one we're heading towards.

Huh? (0, Flamebait)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902751)

Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays.

In theory.

If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays.

In theory.

Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale.

See above two "in theories".

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902993)

"In theory", posting to Slashdot is safe.

"In theory" you can't accidentally summon the elder gods by not limiting your .signature to 120 characters.

"In theory" posting more than twice within a ten minute limit won't create an imbalance of left-handed and right-handed electrons within the local ethernet causing anything up to and including total protonic reversal. (I bet you'd be kicking yourself for not buying cables with signal directional markings [slashdot.org] which could have prevented this problem.)

So, yes, "in theory" the world is safe from being destroyed by you. Today.

And "in theory" that makes me feel better.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903023)

Yes, in theory. Just as the sun will rise tomorrow "in theory." And if I repeatedly shoot someone in the head, they will die, "in theory." And reality exists, "in theory."

Provability only exists in mathematics. For everything else, from decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, to designs of scientific experiments, we humans must use mental models that rely upon fundamental assumptions about how the universe operates (e.g. that past experiences allow us to make meaningful predictions). In other words, every action we take must be informed by some sort of "theory." The question then becomes "how robust is this model/theory?", "how much can I trust the predictions?", "what is the range of the possible outcomes?", "what are the consequences of errors in the assumptions/model/theory?", and so on.

If you have a specific problem with one of the assumptions, logic, modeling, mathematics, data acquisition, or analysis, then point it out in detail. But saying, "that's just a theory" is not useful. Everything we do is based on theories.

After all, the opposite is also a theory: Not turning on the LHC won't cause the destruction of the Earth... in theory.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903121)

If you have a specific problem with one of the assumptions, logic, modeling, mathematics, data acquisition, or analysis, then point it out in detail. But saying, "that's just a theory" is not useful. Everything we do is based on theories.

Experiments are conducted based on our lack of confidence in those theories. Either this theory is trustworthy enough to make the whole experiment pointless, or it's not trustworthy and experiments are justified. You can't have it both ways, and anyone who attempts to defend the safety of an experiment with only the theories being tested as evidence is an idiot. There's uncertainty, and thus there's an experiment, and we don't really know what will happen. Period. Get over it already. One way or another, you're still going to die.

Re:Huh? (1)

FreakboyJones (893119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903299)

In this case it is largely empirical fact. There are cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere every day that are 10^21 electron volts, as compared to 10^12 for the particles in the LHC. From these incredibly high energy collisions there are huge cascades of particles as the cosmic ray interacts with the atmosphere. These are *seen* not theorized. In these cascades the energy gets split among all the particles affected and the particles they decay into. In this "shower" are a large number of interactions just like those that occur at the LHC. This is fact not theory. The basic point of article is that given this known fact, and the assumption that these black holes *are* made in such interactions, what do we expect the danger to be given the fact that certain astronomical objects are not obviously adversely affected by this process.

The main theoretical uncertainties come in is in the energy scale at which these black holes are created in such collisions, but the authors argue that we can place a conservative bound on the effect simply by comparison with these more dense objects.

Re:Huh? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903039)

Also, black holes are still a "theory". Hell, YOU existing is just a "theory". As far as I am concerned, this is all a dream created by a machine that I am hooked into, by a race of robots, so that they can learn what it is to be more human

Do I have this Right? (1)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902763)

Do I have this right? It sounds like he's saying that a created black hole could not possibly harm the Earth on the basis that such black holes exist naturally and if they were dangerous there would be less stars in the sky now than we see.

In other words, if its not dangerous enough to wipe out a noticeable percentage of stars (the strong ones) then its not dangerous enough to mess up earth?

Because I can think of plenty of things that exist naturally in space that, while not dangerous enough to destroy a star, would certainly give our fragile climate and tidal system a bad day if it actually landed.

Re:Do I have this Right? (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903195)

Black holes are unsafe for anything. A little black hole can eat a star (when it's done eating it won't be quite as little) If a black hole is large enough to eat the earth, it's large enough to eat a star.

> In other words, if its not dangerous enough to wipe out a noticeable percentage of stars (the strong ones) then its not dangerous enough to mess up earth?

With this particular instance of 'it': Indeed. And what do you mean with 'the strong ones'?

> Because I can think of plenty of things that exist naturally in space that, while not dangerous enough to destroy a star, would certainly give our fragile climate and tidal system a bad day if it actually landed.

Black holes are not among those things.

Re:Do I have this Right? (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903253)

I believe what he's saying is that IF the LHC can create these black holes, such black holes are already created naturally by cosmic rays.

At some point in these natural holes' lifetimes, they would encounter a neutron star. Neutron star would be consumed by black hole as fat kid consumes cake.

Due to the fact that the universe is full of neutron stars that are way too old to not have eventually been eaten by said theoretical, chance black hole encounters, he posits that it is not possible for such black holes to exist. Or, if they do exist, they are not capable of consuming neutron stars, let alone planets like Earth.

To sum it up, either the black holes won't be created by the LHC, or they simply won't do anything if they are. Similarly, either fat kids do not exist, or, the cake is a lie.

Ha. (2, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902775)

The world will not end when I flip this switch.

I shall prove this, by ...
What in the world could that be?!
*points over there*
*flips switch*

*BSD is Dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902781)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

It shouldn't be a problem. (1)

GeorgeFitch3 (988277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902809)

As long as some guy in a suit doesn't whisper 'prepare for unforeseen consequences' in one of the scientists ears, we'll be OK.

But isn't this... (-1, Troll)

Illbay (700081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902827)

...exactly what the radical environmentalists have been hoping for? A universe rid of human beings, so that all the other planets can breathe easier, knowing they won't be exploited for profit now? Is the Collider funded by George Soros, by any chance?

Stopped black hole? (3, Interesting)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902853)

What does it mean that a black hole is "stopped"?

Re:Stopped black hole? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902949)

If the black hole has "stopped" it has noticed your presence. At this point, your JuJanta 2000 Peril-Sensitive sunglasses will suddenly go completely black, fully preparing you for the event horizon experience.

JuJanta also recommends its products for the Event Horizon experience, which properly speaking should never be experienced by anyone whatsoever.

Re:Stopped black hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902961)

The mountain will stop coming to Mohammed. Mohammed will automatically be going to the mountain.

Re:Stopped black hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902969)

It means you need to change the toner cartridge again.

Re:Stopped black hole? (2, Informative)

jockeys (753885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903071)

in all seriousness, to "stop" a black hole is to prevent it from any meaningful interstellar travel by attracting it to a large (say, solar) mass. if the black hole and the large mass move towards eachother and collide, they will (theoretically) eventually be entirely black hole, as the black hole will slowly compress all the large mass into itself, breaking the Chandrasekar limit and increasing it's own local gravity.

astrophysics buffs, please correct this if I'm wrong, I'm only an amateur.

Re:Stopped black hole? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903173)

Means it needs some Drain-o to get it going again.

mundicide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902861)

oblig mundicde link: http://qntm.org/?destroy [qntm.org]

Large man'kind' Collider already destroying planet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902881)

better days ahead. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

My question (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902883)

So when does it come online? Just in case something happens, I need the day off to do what I always wanted to do: Spend it with a beautiful woman in bed--who am I kidding? I'm posting on slashdot. I'll be playing GTA IV. :P

Why is this happening in Geneva? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902891)

Don't they know that it's AMERICAN scientists who develop doomesday machines, not some French-speaking, chocolate-drinking cockoo-clock maker....

Re:Why is this happening in Geneva? (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903251)

Actually they speak German too. In fact most of them speak German; French is the largest of the minority languages, iirc.

This discussion has already been held (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23902921)

See http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33019 for an ontopic discussion.

General consensus amongst the informed is that the swartzchild radius micro black holes (MBHs) is small, the lifetime of MBHs is also small (assuming Hawking radiation or something like it is valid), most of the earth is mostly empty space at the nuclear level , and so the probability of a series of events resulting in an MBH destroying the earth in less than order od millions of years is absolutely negligible, whether the MBH came from the LHC or space.

Re:This discussion has already been held (2, Informative)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902995)

There's a big difference between people mouthing off in a "forum" and a carefully researched, scientific journal article. TFA is the latter (there are two actually) and weighs in at 88 pages! Further, they begin by rejecting the points in your post (which are assumptions that most reasonable people would begin with), to see what would happen, because the original claim by the folks in Hawaii did just that. Now hopefully some nutcase won't make us reject the assumption that dragons are not involved...

Re:This discussion has already been held (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903243)

Fair enough, I stand rebuked and am now reading the PDF.

But I was referring to the (often inane) slashdot discussion, not criticizing The Fine Article.

(I wonder if the planned VLHC at 200 TeV will present more of a concern?)

So I had it wrong (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902925)

Huh. Shows what I know, I just thought it couldn't create a world-destroying black hole because there just plain and simply wasn't enough mass and energy within the planet to do so, let alone in one (relatively to the planet) tiny building in Switzerland.

I see my lack of fear was not well-grounded. :-)

What a way to go (2, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902945)

So each being equally small in probability the two ways the LHC will get us is either by

1. Black Holes (like the article says)

or

2. Instantaneous conversion of all stuff on earth into exotic matter.

Personally #2 sounds more fun.

Re:What a way to go (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903207)

2. Instantaneous conversion of all stuff on earth into exotic matter.

*Stocks up on toilet paper and launches it in a return orbiter* I'll be rich, rich I tell you!

Re:What a way to go (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903309)

So each being equally small in probability the two ways the LHC will get us is either by

1. Black Holes (like the article says)

or

2. Instantaneous conversion of all stuff on earth into exotic matter.

Personally #2 sounds more fun.

You're mixing exotic and erotic again ...

The true danger? (1)

Boetsj (1247700) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903003)

Accidentally creating lazorkitties! [photobucket.com]

Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions (5, Informative)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903047)

See also the Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions [arxiv.org] which also appeared today, and is a more non-technical summary of the safety review.

the big mistake of '08 (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903141)

What if this is just the Technocore telling us "sure, it'll be fine". Next thing you know, bam, Old Earth is sucked into a black hole (or, as it turns out, not), and we have to farcast over to Tau Ceti Center.

I'm afraid to ask... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903153)

Does that mean that we may already have a few of these things in the Earth or Sun, but don't have to really worry about that for the next 100 million years?

Can't we get EPA to do something about those guys about polluting Earth and releasing long lasting emissions/pollution? I mean come on if those folks that complain about long lasting nuclear waste get wind of that I can see endless protesting.

It's one thing if you tell me that this stuff will likely disappear less than a second of being created. It really worries me that you are telling me that you might create something that may last millions of years. I mean come on would they be able to even find/move the thing if they created one? I think we need to develop space travel so we can send all these potentially dangerous tests out to Pluto.

is this guy related to... (1)

loony (37622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903209)

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899?

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Peter.

Or so the theory goes ... (0)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903221)

``If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays. Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale.''

Or so the theory goes, anyway. The truth is, we don't know what will happen. If we did, there would be no need to actually perform the experiment.

Non-black hole events? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903259)

I guess I have two questions.

1] Do they have a handle on other exotic events that aren't black holes? Such as, perhaps, something mundane like a nuclear style reaction? Is it more probable than a black hole forming?

2] Will the nature of their experiments change over time, and will those changes receive as adequate of an evaluation as their initial mode of operation?

can you spell wasteoftime... (0, Offtopic)

Mr_Nitro (1174707) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903289)

Ppl should really stop this crazy insane waste of time and resources into this kind of argumentations. We have much more important stuff to care about, we are turning the world into a police state and none seems to care. They just care about 'man made black hole' just the idea is a nosense, did they ever realized we have never seen this type of object in any less than thousands(1600 if confirmed) light-years distance? we have no clue about these objects functioning in reality, not to mention the idea that might be existing tiny scale version of black hole, that's just a totally unproven theory. What a waste... take a look about things that matters plz.. my2cnts

1 dimension down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903319)

Ok, that's one dimension down, 11 or more explanations of what might happen to go!

Bury them all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903325)

Saying "it'd happen eventually" isn't just cause to make it happen now. I'm all for experimentation, but when the spectrum of results include 'death' or 'cake' I'm not really wanting to find out the possible reality. (or lack of reality..).

Lets bury all of the scientists in coffins and report to their families "it had to happen eventually.." and see how they like it!

WHO'S WITH ME?!

Why Is It (5, Interesting)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903329)

Why is it that physicists on and in favor of this project (and those that are following this story) are even remotely surprised by the "Create a black hole, and destroy the world" rhetoric?

We've heard all the sensational "Black holes are the ultimate destructive force" commentary from Astronomers for decades seen all the cool Black hole animations, etceteras, ad nausium.

In my opinion, all the sensationalism surrounding the Black holes to start with was a ploy for funding. Now that same story line shows it's dark side, and people seemed surprised at the outcry and at overly dramatic fear of the LHC.

I'm not saying that sensationalizing science is a bad thing per se, just that people shouldn't be surprised when it bites them on the ass.

Those examples he mentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903331)

the difference is, they're FAR AWAY from us.

Spagettification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23903357)

I heard once that the process of "spagettification" (excuse the spelling...), whereby when you approach an event horizon your body is effectively ripped apart due to the differences in gravitational force at the extremes of the body, occurs at about the same time as it takes pain in the feet to be registered in the head.

Just an interesting thought

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?