Slashdot Mirror


Investigating Artificial Black Holes

Robber Baron writes "I remember years ago watching a cartoon in which an inventor had managed to create 'portable holes.' Now along those lines, according to this story in the Christian Science Monitor, scientists are on the threshhold of developing the 'do-it-yourself black hole' (Well, no, it's not quite do-it yourself as you need a pretty large collider to pull it off.) They're hoping to use the new Large Hadron Collider at the European Center for Nuclear Research to create many tiny black holes and observe the Hawking Effect as they dissipate. Keep your shotgun handy though, as they are more than likely going to open up a portal into another dimension and all sorts of nasties are going to come pouring out."

713 comments

  1. we're all gonna die! by sweeney37 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep your shotgun handy though, as they are more than likely going to open up a portal into another dimension and all sorts of nasties are going to come pouring out.

    dear lord, haven't we learned our lesson from Doom, Stargate and Half-Life ?!

    science, it's done nothing but cause trouble.

    Mike

    1. Re:we're all gonna die! by Albert+Pussyjuice · · Score: 1, Funny
      Listen, it's our duty to open up the portal to Hell, we believe that the imps have weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, those Battlefield 1942 guys have been receiving safe harbor from the residents of hell. That being said, we must wage war!

      ANd if we're going to start learning "lessons" from video games and/or popular movies, well, we're in a heap of trouble that not even a double-barrelled shotgun can solve.

      --
      DID YOUR MOM SERVE YOU AN EXTRA HELPING OF DUMB TONIGHT?
    2. Re:we're all gonna die! by pVoid · · Score: 1

      Or "Event Horizon" (the movie) for that matter...

      </shivers>

    3. Re:we're all gonna die! by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, like slashdotters aren't paranoid enough.

      That reminds me, where's my tinfoil hat?

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    4. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to nitpick, in Stargate everything happened when they went through the gate. As long as nobody walks into the artificial black hole, I think we'll be fine. :)

    5. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Obscure Reference Meter spiked as you posted that

    6. Re:we're all gonna die! by Dopefish128 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new transdimensional alien overlords.

      --
      "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Take over the world."
    7. Re:we're all gonna die! by EverDense · · Score: 5, Funny

      dear lord, haven't we learned our lesson from Doom, Stargate and Half-Life ?!

      Yes, we have!

      Press the console key and type "+GOD MODE".

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    8. Re:we're all gonna die! by raider_red · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else watching Sci-fi tonight? They're rerunning the SG-1 episode where they open a gate to a planet that is falling into a black-hole. Needless to say, mayhem ensues. I think we need to make the guys who've proposed it watch that episode about 50 times.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    9. Re:we're all gonna die! by Art+Tatum · · Score: 5, Funny
      Press the console key and type "+GOD MODE"

      No, no, no. It's "iddqd". Followed by "idkfa". And there is no console! You must be one of those young whipper snappers we've been hearing about lately. :-)

    10. Re:we're all gonna die! by orangesquid · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, we'll just post the hole to slashdot, and it'll get slashdotted out of existence, like normal.

      Wait... the goatse hole didn't quite get slashdotted.. but then again, that wasn't a front page story. Any Slashematicians who can ponder this delicate rump-roast of a question?

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    11. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why, after all... what's so obscure about a major hollywood motion picture starring laurence fishbourne and sam neil?

    12. Re:we're all gonna die! by zangdesign · · Score: 3, Funny

      FINALLY! I can go home now!

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    13. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sam Neil is AWESOME! It also seems that I was the only one at my college to have picked up on the Montana thing.

      The Hunt For Red October as Sam Neil's character dies:
      "I would like to have seen Montana."

      Jurassic Park as the guy in Venezuela is talking to the lawyer:
      "Grant? You'll never get him out of Montana!"

    14. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all us geeks that have been practising for just such an occasion since our early childhood will show them what we're made of. *cocks shotgun* Bring 'em on.

    15. Re:we're all gonna die! by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      You missed the episode that was on 40 minutes ago, they accidentally dialed into a planet that was being consumed by a blackhole and then they couldn't shut down the gate, time dialation, sucking etc ensued.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    16. Re:we're all gonna die! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Yes. We are all gonna [sic] die. Don't rub it in.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    17. Re:we're all gonna die! by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Congrats, you got a goatse reference that was nearly on-topic and had a total of 2 allusions to the famous anus.

      Enjoy it while it lasts, goatse references that work are few and far between. Just like the man's cheeks.

    18. Re:we're all gonna die! by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Singularities make me nervous

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    19. Re:we're all gonna die! by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      Sorry for sounding like a moron, but I've been wondering what [sic] means. I tried google but that wasn't helpful.

      --
      what sig?
    20. Re:we're all gonna die! by Phattypants · · Score: 0

      EGADS! Who would ever want to slashdot goatse??? Certain black holes yes and ceratin black holes NONONONONONONONONO!!!!

    21. Re:we're all gonna die! by falzer · · Score: 1

      "Sic" means thusly, or so, etc. For example, a printing in the opinion section might have an odd or (not necessarily) misspelled word along with [sic] to indicated that that's the actual word the editor copied, and not a mistake.

      I'm pretty sure it doesn't stand for "spelling incorrect", although I've seen people use it that way when chatting online.

    22. Re:we're all gonna die! by jnana · · Score: 1, Funny
      'Sic' is used to show that what came before it is meant as it is. For example, if I were quoting a letter that our great President had written, and I wanted to make clear that Dubya is the one who is illiterate, not I, the person quoting the letter, then I might quote the letter as follows:

      "Deer Momy, I luv u. Lov Dubuya [sic]."

      The sic makes it clear that the original letter is riddled with spelling mistakes, and they are not errors introduced by the person quoting the letter. Basically, you can use sic anytime you would like to say "what I just wrote is as it should be, I didn't make a mistake."

    23. Re:we're all gonna die! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      Keep your shotgun handy though, as they are more than likely going to open up a portal into another dimension and all sorts of nasties are going to come pouring out.

      Call Buckaroo Banzai!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    24. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elegy For *BSD


      I am a *BSD user
      and I try hard to be brave
      That is a tall order
      *BSD's foot is in the grave.

      I tap at my toy keyboard
      and whistle a happy tune
      but keeping happy's so hard,
      *BSD died so soon.

      Each day I wake and softly sob
      Nightfall finds me crying
      Not only am I a zit faced slob
      but *BSD is dying.

    25. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon it's a choice between:
      a) The goatse hole is the result of a thorough slashdotting.
      b) The goatse hole is big enough to accomodate a thorough slashdotting.

    26. Re:we're all gonna die! by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      Actually makes me think of Andromeda [www.andromedatv.com] and the Magog Point Singularity Weapons, You have the singularity now learn to point and shoot the thing

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    27. Re:we're all gonna die! by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      [sic] originally had it's roots in the printing world. It was indeed used to signify that there was a spelling error that was not the editor's fault or the fault of the writer. Generally it was used when quoting another written source of information such as a telegram or an AP wire story that was spelled incorrectly to begin with. Later, when editors began printing reader letters, etc. the trend continued.

      These days, it's degenerated into a blanket term that's used for various reasons.

    28. Re:we're all gonna die! by torpor · · Score: 1

      Great, thanks, one more reason to become a vegetarian.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    29. Re:we're all gonna die! by Chakde+Phate! · · Score: 1

      Quidquid Latine dixit gravis videtur...

    30. Re:we're all gonna die! by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the experiments will coincide with the release of Half-Life 2. Hmmmmm.....Coincidence, I think not.

    31. Re:we're all gonna die! by 17028 · · Score: 1

      Note: sucking is usually not something associated with SG1.

    32. Re:we're all gonna die! by Erwin-42 · · Score: 1
      Galactic Civilizations, a 4X space game in the style of MOO / Civilization has a technology named "Near Omnipotence" whose description reads:

      With access to what scientists are referring to as the 'the console' we just need to enter the correct code and we will enter a new state of being that is technically referred to as 'God Mode'

      Later on, if your civilization is evil enough (i.e. when exploring space you've forced your colonists to work in Death Mines to extract metal that adds +5% hit points to your battleships or have wiped out native civilizations on new planets) you can research "Galactic Domination Philosophy" whose description simply reads: Our troubles with the Justice Department will finally be over.

    33. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    34. Re:we're all gonna die! by Orne · · Score: 1

      idspispopd -- named for that 'smash' hit Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Piles of Putrid Debris, demo here

    35. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Portable holes really do come in handy when you're being chased by Blue Meanies, though.

    36. Re:we're all gonna die! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Seriously! Maybe if we had a foe that all of mankind could fight together, we'd spend less time fighting each other...

      What this planet needs is a good old fashion "Independence day" alien invasion so that all of humanity can figure out that we're in this together...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    37. Re:we're all gonna die! by codexus · · Score: 1

      The LHC being only a few kilometers away from where I live, I guess I'll be one the first to get to play Half-Life 2. I'm so lucky ;)

      --
      True warriors use the Klingon Google
    38. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I, for one, welcome our new transdimensional alien overlords.

      Bush: Oh FFS... another renegade state. Do they have oil?

    39. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Warning: Simpsons Reference - Homer in Space) This is strangely parallel to Kent Brockman's speech to the "Giant Ant Conquerers", explaining his value in rounding up slaves to work in the sugar mines... you don't work in media, do you?

    40. Re:we're all gonna die! by luzrek · · Score: 1
      Not that I doubt the reporter for CSM tried to understand the explaination given to him by the scientists, but Black Holes are a prediction of General Relativity which is only applicable to very large masses and very large distances. At the very small scale at which the LHC operates, General Relativity, and therefore black holes, would not play a part. What the LHC will do, however, is produce matter with a similar energy density to a black hole, not black holes.

      The reason why creating matter that dense is useful is so that they can observe interactions between particles which are ussually confined.

      --

      Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

    41. Re:we're all gonna die! by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Waitaminute, that's no fun - what you really want is "IDKFA". :-D

    42. Re:we're all gonna die! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "......that's a BIG twinkie...."

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    43. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is being discussed is actual black holes, not "matter with a similar energy density to a black hole". It's true that black holes are predicted by GR, which doesn't apply to small scales, but we're talking about a theoretical prediction involving quantum gravity, which does.

    44. Re:we're all gonna die! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      sweeney37 wrote:

      > dear lord, haven't we learned our lesson from Doom,
      > Stargate and Half-Life ?!

      And "Godzilla x Megagiras" (in 2000). Some anti-G Japanese government types have their scientist develop the Dimension Tide, a fusion powered cannon that creates a micro black hole, in an attempt to send Godzilla elsewhere. The first test on a building creates enough of a space/time hole that a dragonfly extinct for 35 million years gets through, the Meganura. Its egg sac hatches in Tokyo, flooding part of it, with the nymphs, the Meganuron (same bugs as in "Rodan") eating people to survive to adult (Meganura) form. Godzilla battles the Meganura and their queen, Megagiras, while dodging the Dimension Tide cannon (now firing from Earth orbit and while plunging into the atmosphere), giving the ever-annoying Chief Tsujimori "the tail", and carrying on his personal crusade against dirty energy sources (such as the illegal secret fusion reactor hidden in Tokyo by government types).

      > science, it's done nothing but cause trouble.

      Irresponsible science does do nothing but cause trouble. Godzilla has been trying to tell humanity that since 1954, but no one seems to listen. The god of Bravo (the first hydrogen bomb test that gave birth to Godzilla in 1954), Chernobyl and Tokai isn't known for his patience or his tolerance of human stupidity, especially where the atom is concerned.

      Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
      Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
      "Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000

    45. Re:we're all gonna die! by sharkey · · Score: 1

      "Everything was fine, until the power was turned off by Dickless here."

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    46. Re:we're all gonna die! by jafuser · · Score: 1

      I think Einstein had a quote that stated this hypothesis.

      I agree with the idea...

      It is human nature to group up against a common enemy.

      This is part of the reason I think if we did have conclusive evidence of other intellignet life out there it could affect some fundamental behaviors in our worldwide society.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    47. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmm, this gives me an idea on how to avoid spelling flames.

      puts [sic] in his .signature

    48. Re:we're all gonna die! by Funkitup · · Score: 1

      Well...

      Is it fair that a bunch of scientists who don't actually really know what they're doing, they think they know, but they don't really, are going to potentially start a big bang and destroy the whole universe? OR open up a portal for the anti christ etc.

      I do feel that the human race should really make that decision. Just as it should make the decision whether we should be going to Mars or not.

      Just my tuppence. Any expert physicists out there going to tell me how stoopid i am??

    49. Re:we're all gonna die! by jnana · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is one of my favorite Latin phrases..

    50. Re:we're all gonna die! by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Lord knows they couldn't do any WORSE than the Shrub and his cronies! ;-)

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    51. Re:we're all gonna die! by cramped+bowels · · Score: 1

      40 minutes ! Talk about time dilation ... air date: February 7, 2000

    52. Re:we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they run four eps every monday night on sci-fi

  2. Christian Science Monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is that? Doesn't sound like a unbiased news source to me.

    1. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by NoData · · Score: 5, Informative

      Despite it's name, and the fact that it is, indeed, owned by Christian Scientists, the Christian Science Monitor is actually considered a reputable paper (scroll down for CSM), with high-quality journalism. It has a more centrist or even liberal bent, not Christian right.

    2. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by skywire · · Score: 3, Informative

      The name of the Christian Science Monitor might lead those unfamiliar with it to think that it is a Christian news publication focused on science. Actually, it is a news organization associated withis a small religious group known as "Christian Science" (offically "The Church of Christ, Scientist"), which has very little in common with Christianity.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    3. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by NoData · · Score: 1

      a small religious group known as "Christian Science" (offically "The Church of Christ, Scientist"), which has very little in common with Christianity.

      Or, for that matter, very little do with "science" either. Thanks for the clarification. In my post, when I said, "Christian Scientists," I meant members of this sect, not, you know, Christian scientists.

    4. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      They have a good rep but do they have a horoscope column?

      --
      Nate
    5. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember - many universities, where much scientific research happens, were originally founded to train christian ministers. Science and christianity mix well in most areas, it's just that the few places where they clash are very loud.

    6. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by zabieru · · Score: 1

      Actually they run two papers... The Sentinel, which is religious and a bit weird at times... Haven't read it much. And the Monitor, which is reputable and in fact one of the better national papers in the US. Hell, for all I know it's international.

    7. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by Vej · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for the auto-degredation of Christian people doing scientific research as not solid.

      However, I don't believe they are the Christians you are seeking. If you do as much research on their journalism skills, you'll find that they are not the same conservative's that you might call Christians.

    8. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      'tis the unfortnate result of charlatans (a small sect of christians, to be sure) that are promoting 'creation science' and it's ilk.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    9. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by buckinm · · Score: 1

      Name an unbiased news source.

      --
      This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
    10. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it is a news organization associated withis a small religious group known as "Christian Science" (offically "The Church of Christ, Scientist"), which has very little in common with Christianity.

      Well, right up to that last part. Christian Scientists are Christians; after all, they believe in the resurrection of Jesus. That ultimately is what sets "Christians" apart from "non-Christians." They also consider the Bible to be canonical, they simply have in addition a book - almost a commentary - called Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures that defines how their doctrine relates to the Bible.

      If the Christian Scientists had been around in the 4th or 5th centuries, they might have been considered heretics by the Orthodox Christians and Catholics. But they would be considered Christians by all except the tiny minority of evangelicals who deny that even Catholics are "Christians" because they do not share their doctrinal views.

    11. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by NoData · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the auto-degredation of Christian people doing scientific research as not solid.

      You either jest or misunderstand. Read this post.

    12. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the Cristian Science Monitor reports that Military Intelligence was observed in a McDonald's Restaurant.

    13. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by Vej · · Score: 1

      Aye, it came out more harsh than I had meant.

      What I meant is the name is auto-judged...which I, myself, do. However, I don't make the mistake of confusing the two groups as some might...but I mean there's no such "Christian scientists" general group to confuse it with.

      It's just a term mix-up that annoys me they put that name to something that looks like I might support them as a Christian.

      My apologies man.

    14. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by olman · · Score: 1

      Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the group that believes all illnesses are a punishment from God and the only effective treatment is to pray and repent..? The dogma says reject antibiotics, vaccines and so forth?

      Either it or that's different christian scientists.

    15. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's them - I think you're off a little bit on the doctrine but that's the gist. And yes, they are still Christians.

    16. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by Xel · · Score: 1

      Youre halfway there. They believe that the afterlife is true existence, and earth is more like a temorary state, or purgatory. Therefore all illness is imagined and can be overcome through praying, which is seen by Christian Scientists much like meditation. In a nutshell.

      --
      "Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
    17. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by olman · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the templar heresy, then. Not a problem with that line of thought. However, I got a plenty of problem with anyone who says to reject modern (or any kind) of medical treatment for ideological reasons. Pope included.

  3. Is this dangerous? by Sanity · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I always thought that if a black hole existed on Earth there would be a risk that it would start to pull in the matter around it, exponentially increasing its own mass and eventually sucking in the entire planet.

    I assume this won't happen, but can anyone explain why?

    1. Re:Is this dangerous? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just very short'n'simple - even such a massive accelator and/or collidator doesn't gain so much energy as most of the cosmic radiation rays. So - everything you can simulate there happens every day on the whole planet (but because you can't predict when and where you are unable to study it)

    2. Re:Is this dangerous? by lnoble · · Score: 1

      I had the same thought. It is my assumtion that most of what we know about black holes is based on generally accepted theory, and whatever imaging we have of them in their natural environment.

      Not having real close hand observation however of their behavior and make-up, seems to me to be a little bit risky. Why don't we wait until we know what all the effects of this will be, before destroying the planet.

      Would also be a good idea not to let Bush get his hands on this tech either. He's trying to bring back tactical nukes now, this will just put too many ideas into his tiny little brain.

    3. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A very small (Planck-scale) black hole evaporates too quickly for that to happen.

    4. Re:Is this dangerous? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Top of my head, possibly wrong answer; Blackholes slowly evaporate over time, due to the Hawking Effect. As a hole loses mass, the effect goes faster. The amount of mass used in these experiments will result in a hole that evaporates in a tiny fraction of a second. In that short a span, there is not enough time to pull in enough mass to stop the evaporation.

      I still would not like to know the exact time of this experiment :-).

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    5. Re:Is this dangerous? by pVoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, a black hole is just a critical amount of mass inside a critical diameter.

      It's like taking an apple, or if you want, the biggest freighter on earth, and compressing it to a microscopic size...

      The biggest freighter on earth isn't heavy enough to attract stuff around it... so the black hole it forms won't be either.

      Now that being said, I don't know how they intend to "stabilize" the black holes... because as you noticed, anything that touches it *will* be sucked into it, so what comes to my mind is a black hole the size of an atom free falling all the way to the core of the earth, and starting to consume everything that touches it until it eats up everything...

      And then we die. End of story.

    6. Re:Is this dangerous? by ipour · · Score: 1

      Sure. We're all going to roast from global warming first!

    7. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Informative
      I assume this won't happen, but can anyone explain why?

      Yes. Read the article before posting, that's how. <rolleyes>


      Because they are creating black holes smaller than the size of a proton, that lasts a fraction of a second. Since it's created in a vacuum, it dissipates before it has time to suck anything nearby in.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    8. Re:Is this dangerous? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      You should read "Hyperion" by Dan Simmons. Or "The Hole Man", a short story by Larry Niven.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    9. Re:Is this dangerous? by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reference to the Hawkings Effect is the key. Steve H. has a well accepted theory that black holes leak. The smaller they are the faster they leak. (It's basically a quantum effect, if the black hole is low enough mass the singularity is close enough to the event horizon to let some matter tunnel out and escape. The event horizon shrinks further until the black hole evaporates.) If all goes right the holes we could create with our limited technology couldn't last long enough to cause any problems. This of course is all just theory, if he's wrong there will be hell to pay.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    10. Re:Is this dangerous? by Photar · · Score: 1

      Read the article. Or just skip to the last two paragraphs.

      --
      He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
    11. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If our theories are wrong, then we can't know what all the effects of this will be, unless we do the experiment.

    12. Re:Is this dangerous? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But lets say a miny blackhole was formed on the edge of the accelerator. With more mass it would not evaporate quickly enough. Eventually within seconds would suck up the earth itself. By now it will be too big to evaporate because of the increase in mass.

      The hawking effect is only theory is in fact if your wrong we all perish. Sounds too risky for me.

    13. Re:Is this dangerous? by sexecutioner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I think so.

      While blackholes do indeed "consume" matter, they also radiate energy (which via Einstein's E=mc^2 is the same stuff).

      To understand Hawking radiation, image looking very closely at the event horizon of the blackhole. Everything on one side is doomed to be sucked in, while on the other, there is a chance it can escape.

      Due to the massive gravitational field particles are being torn apart and there is a lot of energy floating around. This high energy region causes particle/anti-particle pairs to be created (a story for another day) and if one ends up on the wrong side then the other can escape and radiate energy away from the blackhole.

      So there you go. The idea is that if the mini blackhole is made right, the little beastie will radiate away all its energy and disappear, rather than consume the entire world.

    14. Re:Is this dangerous? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Everything in science is only theory, especially in regard to black holes.

    15. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking describes this in his black holes lecture. The object is too small to start the self perpetuating gorging of matter. It would consume *some* matter, but quickly thereafter would dissipate from all the mass/energy loss.

    16. Re:Is this dangerous? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      "If all goes right the holes we could create with our limited technology couldn't last long enough to cause any problems. This of course is all just theory, if he's wrong there will be hell to pay"

      Yes, If all goes right.....

      This is freaking me out.

    17. Re:Is this dangerous? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Matter is mostly empty space, so much so, that every time you touch something, there is a small amount of overlap before the electromagnetic repulsion of the electron shells is enough to stop it. If they are dealing with what I think they are (no I haven't RTFA yet), these are probably micro black holes that are subatomic in size.

      Even though the mass has colapsed, the black hole still has the mass of its creation (from the hadron collision). Think of it this way, if the sun suddenly collapsed in on itself and became a black hole (It doesn't have enough mass to do it itself, but lets just say.), the earth and all the other planets would still orbit it. They would not spontainiously be drawn to it more, for the sun, despite its change of state, still has the same mass.

      Taking these two points, the gravity effect on the surrounding matter is not enough to draw it into the black hole because gravity has very little effect on the subatomic level. So, the black hole would have to practically wander into other particles in order to gain mass. Except matter is mostly empty space, so that it is unlikely. Even if it does gain mass by colliding with another subatomic particle, the chances of it not disapainting before it smacks into another are very slim. I am not exact on the theories, but I think the probability is a technicality kind of like the one where it is technically possible to run through a wall without disturbing the wall (it is how diodes work).

      You may have a point if it does not dissapate, but even then, it is not as bad as you think.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    18. Re:Is this dangerous? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      This is hadron collision, right? Hadrons are protons and neutrons, right? Use protons (which are positively charged) and hold it in a magnetic bottle. Unless for some reason collapsed matter looses its electromagnetic properties, it should work.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    19. Re:Is this dangerous? by deathcow · · Score: 1

      Simple - the black holes are being made from nanoscopic amounts of matter. You can expect as much gravity from these black holes as you can from the original matter they are using.

      There is a much higher risk of being sucked into a empty soda can.

    20. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This of course is all just theory, if he's wrong there will be hell to pay.

      In theory, communism works. In theory.

    21. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "Earth" by David Brin.

    22. Re:Is this dangerous? by GMontag · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, you have it backwards.

      If they make a black hole at the surface of the earth all the gravity runs out and we can fly.

    23. Re:Is this dangerous? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      the earth orbit would be shifted though becasue a black hole the mass of the sun would cause a much sharper curvature of space...but what you say is exactly why there is a critical mass that must be reached other wise the black hole could not draw mass close enough to eat it up.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    24. Re:Is this dangerous? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your damn right,
      This is freaking me out about as much as the "Falling to Earth's Core in a Big Blob of Iron" story.

      Scientists continue to play god and come up with wilder and wilder schemes where we are the test subjects :(

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    25. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because they are creating black holes smaller than the size of a proton, that lasts a fraction of a second. Since it's created in a vacuum, it dissipates before it has time to suck anything nearby in."

      Umm, I thought space was a vacuum?

    26. Re:Is this dangerous? by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I understand correctly, they plan to make some of those proton-sized toroidal black holes. They should only exist for a few billionths of a second before their gravity is no longer enough to maintain a Schwarzschild Radius and they simply become very massive subatomic particles.

      The temporal shear should only extend a few angstroms from the SR, so we don't really have to worry about it tearing stuff to pieces. Its gravity should only be a few nanometers per second squared any more than a few meters away from its surface, and that's barely detectable, so no worries there.

      We could actually learn quite a bit about space-time by observing these black holes.

      I have always wondered what happens beneath the Schwarzschild Radius. Since time dilation approaches infinity as you approach the Radius, wouldn't time be at a standstill inside the black hole? Therefore, material would accumulate at the surface and never move any further in because time stops for anything inside. You would get an infinitely thin layer of very high density right at the SR. Of course, since the more matter a black hole consumes, the more massive it becomes, the further its SR is from its center, so you wouldn't ever get a shell, you would find something more like a fog.

      If anyone knows that any of the above is wrong, then please reply and correct me. It just seems to be what would happen based on what I know of physics and relativity.

    27. Re:Is this dangerous? by jerryasher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry about it. If there's a problem, I am sure a tax cut will fix it.

    28. Re:Is this dangerous? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      If it became big enough, the black hole would start falling through to the center of the earth. It would not, however, swallow the earth, because it wouldn't ever gain enough mass to do so, even after eating a very tiny tunnel straight through from one side of the planet to the other, after which it would ossilate back and forth through that tunnel. Or... it would if not for the various other gravitational forces that change direction (mainly the moon) ever so slightly knocking it off course, making it dig a new tunnel every trip through. I'm still now sure if it would ever get big enough to start to make a serious change in any short length of time.

    29. Re:Is this dangerous? by WhiteChocolate42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reference to the Hawkings Effect is the key. Steve H. has a well accepted theory that black holes leak. The smaller they are the faster they leak. (It's basically a quantum effect, if the black hole is low enough mass the singularity is close enough to the event horizon to let some matter tunnel out and escape. The event horizon shrinks further until the black hole evaporates.) If all goes right the holes we could create with our limited technology couldn't last long enough to cause any problems. This of course is all just theory, if he's wrong there will be hell to pay.

      First off, IANAQP (I am not a quantum physicist), but, that said, some corrections are in order... first of all black holes do not release matter as they dissipate, they release radiation (according to Dr. Hawking at least). Secondly, if he's wrong there won't be hell to pay, because the same theories that explain what black holes do are the theories that will allow this experiment to occur; in other words, we won't be able to create the black holes if the theories are wrong.

      Here's an question- since we put matter into the black hole and get out only radiation as it dissipates (or so the theory goes) could we theoretically create black-hole-driven power plants where we feed matter into black holes and harness the energy as it escapes? Or is the radiation created as the black hole collapses unusable as a source of energy? I suppose it would also depend on the amount of energy used to create the holes. And from a P.R. standpoint, the fact that many people (in the U.S. at least) are still scared of nuclear plants, and apparently even many slashdot readers think that tiny black holes function like ultra-powerful vacuum cleaners, could mean a little trouble getting the local black-hole power plant approved.

      By the way, I highly recommend Dr. Hawking's book The Universe In A Nutshell. You can get it here. It's a lot easier to swallow than his previous book, and gets into many of the more interesting theories in science today without involving too much math. Topics covered include black holes, time travel, wormholes, etc.

    30. Re:Is this dangerous? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry guys, those scientists have thought of every contingency!

      If the black hole does escape and falls to the center of the earth, we just use the Nuke-and-Big-Chunk-o-Iron technique (as detailed here)
      to crack the earth's crust and send a probe down to scoop it up!

      No worries mate, she'll be right!

    31. Re:Is this dangerous? by wfrp01 · · Score: 1

      I'm don't believe it's entirely correct to speak of matter tunneling out. IIRC, the basic idea is that black holes dissapate energy when they move around, spin, and so forth. Give a black hole a charge by feeding it electrons, for example, and then start jostling it around and it will produce electromagnetic radiation. E=MC**2 and so the mass dissipates. How this might work for a black hole w/ no charge I don't know. Gravity waves? IANAP.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    32. Re:Is this dangerous? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Or "The Hole Man", a short story by Larry Niven.

      That's the one where they discovered a small black hole in an abandoned complex on Mars, right?

    33. Re:Is this dangerous? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      In this case the black holes are sub atomic size so even one got loose it could only eat a few atoms before it blew up (very small explosion)

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    34. Re:Is this dangerous? by sexecutioner · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but tunneling is a purely quantum phenomenon and we currently have no solid theory about quantum gravity. The blackhole "leaks" radiation from its event horizon due to pair creation. Here Have Fun!

    35. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why don't we wait until we know what all the effects of this will be, before destroying the planet.

      Huh? I would much prefer to forego destroying the planet altogether.

    36. Re:Is this dangerous? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 1

      This was the plot of David Brin's "Earth" - in the future, we create micro-black holes that will "dissolve" on their own unless we keep them going with our "gravity" technology. With a supply of protons being turned into total energy (like an anti-matter reaction, but you don't have all the messiness of storing a lot of anti-matter), you have a fairly harmless energy source that doesn't use oil.

      It is an interesting idea. The biggest trick is how to a) make a black hole that small, and b) how to keep it from vanishing via Hawking's theory. But check out Earth - I thought it was one of this more interesting books.

    37. Re:Is this dangerous? by lazlo · · Score: 4, Informative
      the earth orbit would be shifted though becasue a black hole the mass of the sun would cause a much sharper curvature of space.

      Not quite. The curvature of space would be almost exactly the same at the orbit of the earth. If the Sun were to become a black hole, the curvature of space (or the gravitational forces at any point in space) would be the same for any point not inside the current surface of the sun.

      To explain this a bit, first imagine a spherical cow with uniform density, floating in empty space. As you aproach the cow, the gravitational attraction towards it is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance to the center of gravity of the cow. The density of the cow doesn't matter. An infinitely dense point-mass cow would cause the same attraction. Now, continue on your path, and you puncture the outside of the cow. At this point, it's easier to figure out the gravitational force as the sum of two force vectors. One force vector is for the sphere of matter "below" you, which is the sphere of matter with its center at the center of gravity of the cow and its radius being your distance from it. That one's easy to figure out, it's just some fraction of the mass of the cow, times your mass, devided by the square of the radius. The harder part to figure out is the force vector of the spherical shell "above" you. this involves some mathematics that I can't recall right now, but trust me, the answer ends up being zero. So, if you graph out the gravitational attraction from infinity to the center of the spherical cow, it will start as an increasing parabolic curve and continue that way until you hit the surface, at which point it will begin to decrease at a cubic rate that ends up equal to zero at the center of the cow. Now, if you collapse the cow into a black hole, the exact same equations hold true, the only difference is that the surface of the cow is now so much closer to the center, that the parabolically increasing rate has much more distance over which to increase.

      I hope that made sense. It's late, and I'm going to bed now....

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    38. Re:Is this dangerous? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I assume this [sucking in the entire planet] won't happen, but can anyone explain why?

      Because the scientists, engineers, and the people who manage them would never make such an awful mistake. I mean, come on! These are the people who build unsinkable ocean liners... no wait... safe hydrogen dirig... no wait... space travel safe enough for school teach... no wait... ummm... We'll get back to you on this one. I hope.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    39. Re:Is this dangerous? by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Makes me think about the articles here on /. with discussions of ETs and the theory that if life was common throughout the galaxy/universe we would have made contact with aliens by now, just based on numbers and whatnot. Maybe every civilization that was smart enough to be able to develop space travel also was "smart" enough to experimemt with artificial black holes and then it goes out of control and sucks the planet into a "real" black hole. That would be an evolutionary dead-end on a cosmic scale. Yes I read the article and I know the scientists say it won't happen. Just a random thought.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    40. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're sending up the sample right now..."

      "We're showing an anomaly on the spectrograph."

      "It's probably nothing. Yes, everything is well within parameters."

      *Bzzt!*

      "Oh my God! Noooo!"

    41. Re:Is this dangerous? by csguy314 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't really true. IANA physicist but I know black holes suck everything that reaches their event horizon because that is their Schwarzschild radius.
      The Schwarzschild radius is the distance from the center of something out to where nothing can escape it's gravitational pull. Everything that has mass should also have a Swarzschild radius. For all things, except black holes, that Schwarzschild radius is deep within the physical volume of space that the object occupies. Even for massive stars, the Schwarzschild radius may be only a few kilometers, putting it deep within the core of the star.
      But if you take that same amount of mass and compress the volume of space it occupies down to an atomic scale, then you would have a black hole. So the world's most massive freighter would attract things because of it's gravitational pull, however even it's Schwarzschild radius would be pretty small.

      --
      This is left as an exercise for the reader.
    42. Re:Is this dangerous? by axxackall · · Score: 1
      The cosmic radiation rays exist not only around the Earth but all over the Universe. And if you right the they create many tiny black holes everywhere they exist. How would you call many tiny black objects? Dark fog! Eurica! I'v just found where the dark matter is hidden - it's a dark fog and it's everywhere!

      And you know what? Now I feel much safier. If the dark fog didn't suck me before - why should it after?

      Seriously, I am thinking that evaporation period is so long only for big black holes, which are ex-stars. The dark fog must evaporate much faster, keeping in the balance the rate of new born and just evaporated black holelets. Otherwhise we would have noticed the dark fog already.

      --

      Less is more !
    43. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matter does not come to a halt at the event horizon. It's true that an outside observer sees the matter moving more and more slowly as it reaches the horizon, and never actually sees the matter pass through the horizon. But from the infalling matter's perspective, it does pass through the horizon, and reaches the singularity in finite time according to its own clock.

    44. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking radiation can include matter if the temperature is high enough for pair production.

      You could theoretically feed a black hole some matter and get E=mc^2 worth of energy back out as Hawking radiation. Unfortunately, it is radiated back at such a low rate as to be useless -- unless you've got a very small (and accordingly short-lived) black hole.

    45. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Real matter that's falling inside of the black hole doesn't tunnel out, but you can think of Hawking radiation as a vacuum tunneling process. This is a quantum effect; it doesn't have to do with classical acceleration radiation (electromagnetic / gravitational waves).

    46. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about it. If there's a problem, I am sure a tax cut will fix it.

      Well, to be fair, it has more chance of fixing the problem than your solution. Which, of course, is to do nothing more than complain about the tax cut.

    47. Re:Is this dangerous? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      Steve H. has a well accepted theory that black holes leak.

      Penicillin will clear that right up.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    48. Re:Is this dangerous? by Surye · · Score: 1

      Right, but the point is, there is /no/ matter close to be sucked up. The vacuum is just a comment that the distance from the black hole and the matter is so great, it takes gravity too long to get it, rather then having air(matter) right there. Now in space, the masses are so huge, it can suck things up and it won't evaporate. Gravity cares not of vacuums.

    49. Re:Is this dangerous? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
      First off, IANAQP (I am not a quantum physicist), but, that said, some corrections are in order... first of all black holes do not release matter as they dissipate, they release radiation (according to Dr. Hawking at least).

      Radiation - matter - energy - it's all the same thing. Matter is just lumpy energy. Look at it as radiation that would have non-zero rest mass, or look at it as the mass of the black hole is going down and so going somewhere. Beyond that it's just an exercise in relativity if you want to call what comes out of the event horizon matter or energy.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    50. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You noted correctly that it would appear to an external observer infalling material would take an infinite amount of time to cross the Schwarzschild Radius. However in the materials frame their is no coordinate singularity at the Schwarzschild Radius. That is the material happily crosses the event horizon and is then crushed out of all existance, it's just that we never see that due to the infinite red shift at the Schwarzschild Radius.

      In practice the intensity of light (as measured by an external observer) emitted by material crossing the Schwarzschild Radius would drop off very rapidly. If it didn't then black holes wouldn't be black.

    51. Re:Is this dangerous? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but tunneling is a purely quantum phenomenon and we currently have no solid theory about quantum gravity. The blackhole "leaks" radiation from its event horizon due to pair creation.

      Pair creation is simply a different way to look at tunneling. It doesn't matter if you call it pair creation or tunneling; they are the same thing with the same results just taken from two views that differ acording to relativity of the same event. If worshiping at the church of pair creation makes it easier for someone to believe, fine. The results are the same. This is quantum dynamics, and there are a lot stranger things in quantum dynamics than tunneling or pair creation (like wave/particle duality). You can't apply an understanding of the macro world to the quanta world to just dismiss tunneling.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    52. Re:Is this dangerous? by mburns · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time only stands still as seen from afar. Matter close to and within the black hole continues to experience the advancement of time until it hits the singularity.

      As for your notion of a shell, see Susskind's article, Sci. Am. April 1997 p. 52.

      You have duplicated part of his argument. Your fog notion is incorrect; the shell, as seen from afar, moves out with more mass accumulated. Susskind then notes that the shell does not appear at all to an observer following matter into the horizon, but that the shell, when approached slowly and not in free fall, becomes apparently very hot. This is a paradox so severe that he calls it "black hole complementarity".

      But, complementarity, proper, is not a paradox but a deep mathematical property of physics. Wave-particle duality is more like this problem. And, Susskind's reasoning is partially suspect because his picture does not uphold the equivalence principle (that the rules of physics are locally the same everywhere in spite of various speeds, accelerations, and gravitational fields). Using equivalence, the slowly lowered observer would see the shell sunk farther into the black hole than a farther observer would see, and the two would disagree on the corrected temperature and time of existence of the shell. The two observers would accuse each other of being subject to an illusion.

      --
      Mike Burns "Nothing unphysical can be a physical cause."

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    53. Re:Is this dangerous? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      The black hole a) lasts for only a fraction of a second, and b) because of the limited Schwarzchild radius will actually expel radiation faster than it could suck in matter, even if you dropped it into a matter rich environment. If a black hole is constructed that's smaller than a certain size, it is completely incapable of surviving long enough to grow to the point where it could accrue matter faster than it expends energy.

      But if this doesn't make any sense to you, just look around you: the only black holes in existence are very, very big ones - all the small ones evaporated shortly after the Big Bang. Furthermore, if black holes like this *can* be created in the lab, then they're also, at times, created in nature. And yet, if they were the mass-sucking demons of science fiction lore, you'd need *only one natural creation in all of Earth history* to destroy the planet.

      The fact that you're posting this question to Slashdot proves that you're perfectly safe. Unlike David Brin's science fantasy novel 'Earth', we're in no danger of destroying the planet in this fashion.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    54. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im just a high school grad... but wouldn't the even horizon of this black hole be so small that it would be quite hard for anything to pass this threshold to be even sucked in?

    55. Re:Is this dangerous? by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      I know, I need to learn to watch what I say.

    56. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a black hole of this mass would have a ridiculously small absorption cross-section, and would be highly unlikely to absorb anything.

    57. Re:Is this dangerous? by sexecutioner · · Score: 1

      You can't apply an understanding of the macro world to the quanta world to just dismiss tunneling. Dude, I wasn't. Gravity does not work with quantum mechanics, period. Thats all I was saying. The gravitational potential "seen" by the particles on the even horizon is something that they can indeed tunnel through (just like other, electromagnetic for example, potentials) but the math doesn't work. So that's why it was really funky when Hawking realised that you could come at it from another angle, that's pair production, when the virtual particle falls in, it's like the real one coming out. I know quantum mechanics, it's gnarly stuff, and I wasn't dismissing tunneling at all.

    58. Re:Is this dangerous? by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      Well, I should have said that I was talking about this from the perspective of a 'stationary' observer relative to the center of the black hole.

      OK, so I was wrong about the fog. I didn't really think that that was at all likely, but it seemed the logical extension of the shell idea as I was typing. I was assuming that time relative to a stationary observer stops inside the SR. That must have been my mistake. Was I more or less right about the rest?

      I really need to find a copy of that article. I had no idea that someone had already written about it. I knew that there was no way that I was the first to think of that, but I thought that it was probably wrong because I had never read anything about it. What could cause the shell to move outwards? This is all terribly fascinating to me.

      I wonder what it would look like from the point of view of someone falling in. Assuming that he wasn't torn to pieces by the gravitational and temporal differentials, that is. If the shell seems to sink back, I wonder if that means that the perceived SR sinks, too. If so, then you would never cross it from your perspective, only from someone else's.

      I'm probably wrong about all of that, too. :-)

    59. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Hawking's original calculation wasn't based on either virtual pair production, or tunneling.

    60. Re:Is this dangerous? by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      Blackholes slowly evaporate over time, due to the Hawking Effect. As a hole loses mass, the effect goes faster. The amount of mass used in these experiments will result in a hole that evaporates in a tiny fraction of a second. In that short a span, there is not enough time to pull in enough mass to stop the evaporation.

      Couldn't we just prop the sucker open? I got a toothpick.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    61. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a black hole doesnt have to be massive, just has to have its' shwatzshield(?) radius larger than its' own radius.
      The shwartzshield(?) radius is the distance from the center where the escape velocity reaches the speed of light.
      i think

    62. Re:Is this dangerous? by The+Grey+Mouser · · Score: 1


      Now that being said, I don't know how they intend to "stabilize" the black holes... because as you noticed, anything that touches it *will* be sucked into it, so what comes to my mind is a black hole the size of an atom free falling all the way to the core of the earth, and starting to consume everything that touches it until it eats up everything...


      It can be stabilised by placing the hole in a magnetic containment field, which is all a particle collider really is anyhow. Black holes do have charge, and so can be held indefinitely. At typical containment velocities, any failure in the field would simply result in the black hole being ejected into deep space---the interaction radius of these objects is quite small indeed, and no one would likely notice the event, unless you got lucky in detecting a pion decay cascade or something as it passed through the atmosphere. Not sure if there would be enough energy to make that happen, though.

      Cheers,

      Mouser

    63. Re:Is this dangerous? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      [i]Here's an question- since we put matter into the black hole and get out only radiation as it dissipates (or so the theory goes) could we theoretically create black-hole-driven power plants where we feed matter into black holes and harness the energy as it escapes?[/i] It would work, in principle - I believe the Romulans use it instead of more conventional dilithium-based antimatter reactors - but it would be a very, very dangerous system. First of all you have to find a way of keeping hold of a black hole. OK, that can be done, you just give it an electric charge and then constrain it electromagnetically. Should these fields fail you have a serious problem. Second, you have to keep feeding the black hole matter at the same rate you want Hawking energy out of it, to keep it in equilibrium. If you ease off on the input, the hole will decay away a little and the energy output will increase; if you put too much in the hole grows and the output decreases, so in principle you can tune your black hole reactor to get as much or as little power as you like. But it's still horribly dangerous. A _safe_ reactor would be one which quietly shut down if you stopped fuelling it. What happens to your ship if you completely stop feeding this hole, for even a fraction of a second?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    64. Re:Is this dangerous? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Sure, if the Romulans use it, it must be possible!

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    65. Re:Is this dangerous? by Colin+Walsh · · Score: 2, Informative
      The reference to the Hawkings Effect is the key. Steve H. has a well accepted theory that black holes leak. The smaller they are the faster they leak. (It's basically a quantum effect, if the black hole is low enough mass the singularity is close enough to the event horizon to let some matter tunnel out and escape. The event horizon shrinks further until the black hole evaporates.) If all goes right the holes we could create with our limited technology couldn't last long enough to cause any problems. This of course is all just theory, if he's wrong there will be hell to pay.


      I'm sorry, this isn't exactly correct. What happens is, due to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, empty space isn't exactly empty and we get these quantum fluctuations where so-called virtual particle pairs (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in and out of existence all the time.

      Unfortunately for these particles, if they come into being in the vicinity of a black hole's event horizon, there is a small possiblity that one or both will get sucked in. Hawking radiation occurs when one particle (the one with negative energy*) gets sucked in and the other escapes. In order to conserve energy (energy is ALWAYS conserved over long time scales, this is why we can't have perpetual motion machines :/ ) the black hole ends up losing mass and the particle that escaped, to an outside observer, looks like radiation that the black hole is emitting. This being Hawking Radiation.

      I could go on and on about this, but there is an excellent, and a little more detailed, explanation of this in A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

      As for these crazy physicists creating quantum scale black holes. This could be an excellent opportunity to understand gravity at the quantum level.

      *- Negative energy particles can exist, again due to the uncertainty principle, and are in fact necessary as the total energy of the particle pair has to equal zero.

      -Colin
    66. Re:Is this dangerous? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. The energy released increases slightly because the hole's radius is dropping, but it also decreases because there's less mass in the hole to radiate. So shutting off the feed causes the hole to dissipate as per the Hawking Effect.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    67. Re:Is this dangerous? by dissy · · Score: 1

      > Yes, If all goes right.....
      >
      > This is freaking me out.

      Well if all goes right, the above goodness happens.
      If any one thing went wrong, the hole wont form so nothing happens :)

      I dont know why you would be any more or less freaked out by this news.
      These black holes popup and disapear all the time almost everywhere that radiation from space can hit. Since they are subatomic and only exist for a billionth of a second or so, they dont react much at all with matter, which is why we want to make them. If you are looking at one spot, and create the hole vs waiting the one in (infinate -1 heh) odds of it happening naturally, you will actually have a billionth of a second to observe it.
      Right now even if we could detect one in a billionth of a second, it would be gone before we can 'look' at it. (That and we cant detect one in a billionth of a second, atleast not with anything a government has made public ;) )

      So if you want to be freaked out about this, its been happening since before you existed and will until pretty close to the end of the universe existing.

      Also, even fully attomic sized blackholes (that do effect matter) are not anymore harmful than say a Star or planet as long as its not moving relitive to you.

      I mean, our sun is a giant ball of mass that sucks things into it from its gravity, and its hot too, so I would imagine it would suck to be pulled into the sun. But that happens all the time for small rocks and stuff in space. And even thou those things mostly burn up, what matter does survive is 'pulled in' to the sun and raises its mass. As blackhole theory goes, we also think matter will heat up and burn before entering a blackhole as well, and if that is true, there is literally no difference than our sun as far as things being sucked into it.
      If our sun was replaced with a blackhole, none of this would change at all.
      We of course would die with no radation from the sun (or the planets electrical bill would literally skyrocket) but nothing else would change.

      Also note that we sorta need the gravity of the sun to stay here in orbit and live (Speaking as a resedent on the planet earth)

      In addition, just like the planets in our solar system orbit the gravity of our star, the solar systems in our galaxy currently orbit a blackhole and we wouldnt be here (We = the milky way solarsystem) if that blackhole Wasnt there.

      gravity != automagically bad

      Instead of being freaked by a natual occurance, as well as us causing that natural thing to happen unnaturally, I would actually suggest learning about the subject (or atleast in laymans terms, its really very fasinating without all the math) ;)

      Unfortunatly the media of the 60's turned the word 'black hole' into all sorts of things it isnt, and the people of course believe what is on TV :)

      I admit its hard to find good reading material on the subject that isnt atleast sprinkled with complex math, but I would suggest some of the books by Stephen Hawking (His writting style appealed to me personally) and the like.
      I would imagine adding that to your shopping cart at amazon would bring up suggestions too which would be fairly valid.

    68. Re:Is this dangerous? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Make sure the damned thing has an electric charge. Use electromagnetic repulsion to keep it bottled up. IANAP, but I seem to remember that this question is old hat.

    69. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Secondly, if he's wrong there won't be hell to pay, because the same theories that explain what black holes do are the theories that will allow this experiment to occur; in other words, we won't be able to create the black holes if the theories are wrong."
      The idea of wrong theories in science is odd. There are wrong theories and theories that haven't been proven wrong yet.
      presumably there are theories about black holes that allow the creation of black holes in a manner similar to Hawkins theory but have different nasty consequences.
      These theories are not currently accepted as Hawkins is simpler but it just takes one negative result of Hawkins theory in favour of these to alter this.
      Unfortunetly there will not be anyone here to alter the theory however.
      Martin Rees recently suggested these sorts of experiments pose a risk, he may have been trying to get his name in the paper to promote his book but still he should be listened to.
      I agree that we shouldn't go all chicken licken on this though. Every new technology people think will end the world, but that brings me back to the their theory only having to be right once problem....

    70. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is no intention to "stabilize" a black hole, for the simple reason that the LHC isn't a black hole factory.

      The fact is that there are some _extremely_ speculative theories which attempt to explain the weakness of gravity by invoking "large" (up to mm scale) extra dimensions in which only gravity propagates. One side-effect of these theories is that gravity becomes comparable in strength to the other forces at much lower energies than in conventional theories - low enough that you could produce mini black holes at the LHC. If you can, then they will decay spectacularly in a picosecond or less (i.e. still inside the vacuum pipe of the accelerator).

      But remember, these are highly speculative theories, requiring fairly contrived sets/sizes/properties of these extra dimensions to fit the existing data (you need 2 dimensions in which the universe is a bit less than a mm across, both of which propagate gravity but nothing else). I wouldn't bet heavily on them being true, and there is a reasonable chance that they will be disproved by more conventional gravity experiements before the LHC switches on.

      For those of us working on the LHC, this idea is a piece of attention-getting fun, but definately a long shot, and not at all the reason we are building the thing.

      As for safety, as someone has already said, cosmic ray interactions regularly contain more energy than this, so if this process could produce a stable black hole which would swallow the Earth we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

    71. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Universe In A Nutshell"?

      That would make a formidable black hole...

    72. Re:Is this dangerous? by dwheeler · · Score: 1
      I think this is an incredibly bad idea.

      There are theories that suggest that these black holes won't last long. There also theories that certain kinds of radiation are already creating these black holes around the Earth today.

      But remember: The difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than it is in theory.

      I think any experiment which, if wrong, may exterminate the human race is a bad plan. Even if this one is fine, I would recommend that as a good rule to live by.

      If they really think cosmic rays already create these, would it be possible to set up an observation system? Or, how about performing this experiment on a spaceship going AWAY from us?

      I haven't noticed any spare Earths to live on. Perhaps they're available in the parallel universes suggeste by some interpretations of quantum mechanics; I ask that the experimenters first provide us a way OFF the spaceship before they risk eliminating it entirely....!

      --
      - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
    73. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservation of mass-energy still applies. You would get some energy out, but this would be due to the effect of the mass dropping through a gravitational potential, and being converted into energy. In other words, the same amount of energy you'd get if you took a rock and dropped it off your roof, plus the rest energy of the mass itself.

      This would be a neat way to harness the energy, but there's three problems. First, a usable black hole would probably be rather transient, so you'd have to have a bunch of energy to constantly make them. Second, you'd need to have a source of mass. Not exactly a huge problem, but still, the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is going to be constant (as far as we know). Third, the laws of thermodynamics still apply (even with quantum effects thrown in). The energy you get out is, on average, more disorganized. So you're actually going to get less usable energy out than you put in (in other words, if you dump in a liter of water, you won't be able to reconstitute a liter of water without putting in more energy).

      For a practical application, none of these theoretical limitations would really matter. What could be more practical than shoveling garbage in to get energy out? However, the impractical part is keeping this black hole reactor together.

      Incidentally, I think a black hole can technically have an electromagnetic charge, which you could use to confine it if you injected enough of it. I don't know about magnetic fields, but I think they might have those, too.

    74. Re:Is this dangerous? by BlueJay465 · · Score: 1


      I am soooo gonna kick your ass at the next con I see you at, trekkie-boy!

      And steal your lunch money too!
      </offtopic>

      <ontopic>
      Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't feeding a black hole be inversely exponential it increasing the size? or would it be exponential?
      </ontopic>

    75. Re:Is this dangerous? by biawak · · Score: 1

      That did make sense but you have one fact wrong. You considered a spherical cow with uniform density. Because it has uniform density, inside the cow the force dies off linearly and not at a cubic rate.

    76. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they really think cosmic rays already create these, would it be possible to set up an observation system?


      Not very easily.


      Or, how about performing this experiment on a spaceship going AWAY from us?


      Yeah, you cram the LHC into a spaceship.
    77. Re:Is this dangerous? by msouth · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, matter is just lumpy energy. Here's a brick, will you please produce enough power for [insert huge populatino] [insert huge time period]?

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    78. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only question is can we get good steaks from said spherical cow?

    79. Re:Is this dangerous? by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      > Sounds too risky for me.

      Al Gore, is that you?

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    80. Re:Is this dangerous? by lazlo · · Score: 1

      I believe it is cubic. The mass of the sphere "below" you, given density D and radius R is (4 D R^3)/3. Oh, yeah, the force is then equal to your mass times ((4 D R^3)/3)/R^2, which simplifies to 4DR/3, which would be linear, just like you said. Ooops. My bad. Thanks for catching that. :)

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    81. Re:Is this dangerous? by mburns · · Score: 1

      You are not mistaken about time apparently stopping at the event horizon (or SR). It's just that even a gentle mostly unaccelerated approach allows the clock at the SR to advance from the perpective of the approach. The event horizon (not the SR) seems to recede into the black hole by an amount determined by the acceleration or speed of the approach.

      Tidal conditions at the SR (Schwarzschild Radius) can be very mild for a large black hole, which made me wonder about Susskind's argument that it will seem extremely hot to a gently approaching probe. He was using field and string theory, which is not naturally fully compatible with general relativity, but must be manually adjusted for compliance. No unified theory is in view yet from string theory alone in spite of the claims being made.

      It seems to me that observers can agree on the location of the SR, but not that of the event horizon. And, none of this critique modifies Susskind's identification of a severe and very revealing paradox.

      --
      Mike Burns "Contradiction resolution is the (underlying) stuff of the (classical) universe."

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    82. Re:Is this dangerous? by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      Argh. It's been years since I did anything black hole related. I keep forgetting that the Schwarzschild Radius and the event horizon are NOT the same thing. They are related, but not the same.

      As the size of the black hole aproaches infinity, its event horizon becomes more and more flat from a constant distance, such that large black holes would apear to have very little surface curvature, similar to how a planet's surface seems flat. Therefore, there shouldn't be much more force pulling on one part of an object than there is pulling on another, right? Since gravity is fairly uniform, so is the distortion of time.

      I would imagine that from the perspective of a free-falling observer, it would appear to be very hot, indeed. As the matter falls towards the center of the black hole, its volume decreases and its mass remains constant. Therefore, heat has to go up. Of course, with a large black hole, the matter isn't compressed very much by the time it falls beneath a stationary observer's percieved event horizon. Therefore, the 'surface' of the hole wouldn't be hot, but the contents further down would be, but from the stationary observer's point of view, there aren't contents further down. You only see that as you descend. Of course, I'm coming to these conclusions mostly with classical physical thought, and it has a nasty tendancy to return infinities when black holes are involved.

      Here's a question, if as you approach the black hole, the event horizon recedes, then could you in theory escape from beneath the percieved event horizon of a stationary observer? Is the event horizon's position a function of acceleration, velocity, or distance? If distance, then it should be possible to escape, but if it's related to acceleration or velocity, then as you accelerate away, I would imagine that it would rise up and swallow you.

      Of course, all of that would take an infinite amount of time from the perspective of the observer, but it's kind of fun to figure out what would happen.

    83. Re:Is this dangerous? by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

      " the fact that many people (in the U.S. at least) are still scared of nuclear plants, and apparently even many slashdot readers think that tiny black holes function like ultra-powerful vacuum cleaners, could mean a little trouble getting the local black-hole power plant approved."

      Yeah, I'm sure the thought of a black-hole powered plant is much more comforting.

    84. Re:Is this dangerous? by mburns · · Score: 1

      I am glad that the non-identity of the Schwarzschild Radius with the event horizon is already known. (Did Susskind forget?)

      Yes, near the event horizon (as distantly perceived), the tidal and time distortions are locally very mild for a large black hole. But, the time distortion seen from a distance is always severe. And, the tidal stretching experienced by the falling observer is perceived by the distant observer as extreme flattening instead (according to Susskind).

      To an observer falling through the SR, the event horizon farther in is dimmed by red shift, and may not seem so hot. The distant observer will see the falling observer merge with the material at the event horizon located at the SR.

      No, you may not escape - ever - from the perceived event horizon of any other observer. That would creat an unresolvable contradiction for that observer. Even if distant observers chase you into the SR, you will be at the singularity before they catch distinct sight of you. Special non-Newtonian forces prevent distant observers from perceiving an increased distance between you and the singularity (in the simple case). And, the infinite red shift on outbound information is not symmetric with the finite blue shift on inbound information.

      --
      Mike Burns

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    85. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing to note is that, due to the nature of Hawking radiation, it is related directly to the surface area of the event horizon. Smaller black holes = less Hawking radiation. Using the heating effect of matter passing near the event horizon might be effective though. Also, it would act as the world's best garbage dump...

    86. Re:Is this dangerous? by jbayes · · Score: 1

      I assume this won't happen, but can anyone explain why?

      Gosh, I thought the guy who wrote the article did a pretty good job of explaining it.

      How'd this question make Score 5?

      --

      "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

    87. Re:Is this dangerous? by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems that if you were inside someone else's perceived event horizon and started to accelerate away from the black hole, *your* perceived event horizon would expand to engulf you. Does this sound right?

    88. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for safety, as someone has already said, cosmic ray interactions regularly contain more energy than this, so if this process could produce a stable black hole which would swallow the Earth we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

      Maybe that is the structure detected inside the Earth's core -- the event horizon. At least a black hole would explain the puzzle over the source of the Earth's inner heat.

    89. Re:Is this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Earth is merely warming back to the level it was 1,000 years ago. If we really warm up too much, the ensuing Ice Age will chill us down just fine.

    90. Re:Is this dangerous? by nametaken · · Score: 1


      Sounds like a weapon concept.

      Defense contractors: send checks payable to [name masked]

    91. Re:Is this dangerous? by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      Lazlo wrote:

      "To explain this a bit, first imagine a spherical cow with uniform density, floating in empty space..."

      Ohhhh, so THAT's how they make those malted milk candy balls... 'Whoppers,' yeah. That's them...

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    92. Re:Is this dangerous? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I always thought that if a black hole existed on Earth there would be a risk that it would start to pull in the matter around it, exponentially increasing its own mass and eventually sucking in the entire planet.

      I don't know if that is the case, but it sure would make for a cool-looking Star Trek weapon to see black-holes being fired at a city and have buildings vortexing into it. Now THAT is what TV sci fi should be all about iMO. Cool visual + cool concept.

    93. Re:Is this dangerous? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Right. You shut off the feed and the entire mass of the black hole is converted to energy at a rapidly increasing rate. Nobody's certain what happens when things get very small, but the best bet is apparently 'kaboom'.

      A quick google <a href=http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english /advance/core4.htm?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0528>reveals</ a> that the luminosity of a black hole is given by (approximately)

      3.568E32
      L = -------- watts
      M^2

      and that its life expectancy when not fed is

      M^3
      t = ---------- years
      1.194E16

      Now, what are we powering with this? 1.21 gigawatts (jigawatts?) for a timetravelling DeLorean, or 12.75 billion gigawatts (per second?) for the warp core of the Enterprise, which is presumably comparable in output to what the Romulans use.

      So, for a DeLorean the black hole will mass 5.43E11 kilos, or fifty million tons or so. Personally, I'd go with a Mr Fusion. Should the mass beam fail, no problem... it'll be a long, long time before the hole blows up. Keeping hold of a hole that heavy would be difficult, though.

      For the Enterprise the hole will mass 1.67E8 kilos... much more convenient to carry around, no wonder the Romulans found it so useful. Should it go unfed, it will convert that mass into energy in about forty million years.

      OK, then, nobody's going to have black holes blowing up on them, unless they're running extremely low-mass holes for very, very high energy outputs. I concede that part. But I can't help but feel that this risk is even worse; a black hole detonation is a bad thing to be near, but at least it's over quickly. Leaving unseen spheres of annihilation to drift around the space lanes is a bloody hazard to shipping!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. What if by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off?
    Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?

    1. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If theory is wrong and they don't evaporate quickly, then theory is probably also wrong and they won't form in the first place.

    2. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off?

      Sue Hawking, duh.

    3. Re:What if by grungy · · Score: 1
      What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off?

      In that case I say we petition Caimbridge to revoke his Lucasian Professor of Mathematics chair!

      (er, seriously, this does seem like a scary experiment.)

    4. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >> What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off? Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?

      Seriously, dude, you worry too much.

    5. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off? Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?

      Any life forms that are stupid enough to try to create black holes on their own planet deserve what they get.

    6. Re:What if by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the black hole would revoke the chair anyway, along with everything else :)

    7. Re:What if by atomicdragon · · Score: 1

      Even if the theory is wrong, Earth has been bombarded by cosmic rays at much higher energies than we will ever produce. I've heard that there are protons with the momentum of 100 mph baseballs. These would produce much larger things when they hit Earth, and it would seem we haven't turned into a black hole yet. There were even theories that the Tungusta explosion in Siberia in 1908 was caused by a small black hole hitting Earth (they were pretty sure it was a comet chunk the last I heard).

      FYI: If the Earth were a black hole, it would have a diameter of a third of an inch.

    8. Re:What if by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      This post (modded insightful) should actually be modded "wrong", but they took that selection away. It is impossible for a black hole of such small mass to "eat us all". Black holes "eat" things because gravity pulls them in. However, the gravity of an object is a property of its mass, not density. A black hole composed of two electrons has no more gravity than the two electrons did individually, which is of course, not enough to eat anything.

    9. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      until it collides with another electron, of course, and eats that electron. then it has the mass of three electrons, etc, etc.

    10. Re:What if by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Any life forms that are stupid enough to try to create black holes on their own planet deserve what they get." Should the world hold a democratic vote to whether or not we want to participate in the ultimate Darwin Award entry? I mean, FUCK... I can just imagine all the aliens laughing there asses off.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:What if by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I've pretty much been convinced that it is safe. I just hope that they are careful :)

    12. Re:What if by geeber · · Score: 1

      Sue Hawking? I didn't realize that was his wife's name!

    13. Re:What if by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Should the world hold a democratic vote to whether or not we want to participate in the ultimate Darwin Award entry?

      Only if we insist that the voters have some basic, provable form of intelligence - like the ability to pass a Physics 101 course.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:What if by gfody · · Score: 0

      wouldn't a small blackhole just be a small piece of dark matter? I dont think you can call it a black hole until its own gravity becomes strong enough so that light cannot escape it.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    15. Re:What if by atomicdragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      The definition of a black hole is something with enough gravity and small enough that light cannot escape. When they refer to the "radius" of a black hole, they mean the radius of the event horizon, which is the point of no return where light cannot escape. The only difference between a big black hole and a small one is that the big ones (excluding the supermassive ones...) have a mass several times the sun and a radius of a few kilometers. These small ones have a radius many times smaller than an atom, if light were able to get within that radius it would still not escape.

    16. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, we'll just blast it out of existance with an anti-matter gun - problem solved! :)

    17. Re:What if by dissy · · Score: 1

      > What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off?
      > Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?

      If hawking was wrong, how are we going to create the backhole in the first place?

    18. Re:What if by user+flynn · · Score: 1

      until it collides with another electron, of course, and eats that electron. then it has the mass of three electrons, etc, etc.
      The electromagnetic repulsion between the electron and the black hole would prevent the electron from ever getting close enough to the black hole to be absorbed. Unless the hole is of neutral alignment... then size matters.

      --
      In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
    19. Re:What if by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off? Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?

      A black hole small enough to evaporate that quickly would be almost unfathomably tiny. Its interaction cross-section with normal matter would thus be extremely low - they'd behave like very heavy particles that don't interact with anything (think "giant neutrino" only less reactive).

      There is very strong theoretical evidence for Hawking evaporation occurring, however. Among other things, it's what makes black holes mesh with thermodynamics. It's also a direct consequence of virtual particles, which are indirectly observed through things like the Casimir effect. If it *didn't* occur, something very fundamental would be wrong.

      I don't see how the LHC would be able to make micro-black-holes, though. I'd thought you'd need a Planck-energy accelerator for that, which is just a wee bit larger.

    20. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that scenario sucks...

    21. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't a small blackhole just be a small piece of dark matter?


      Technically, dark matter is anything that doesn't radiate light that we can see from astronomical distances. So you are dark matter.


      I dont think you can call it a black hole until its own gravity becomes strong enough so that light cannot escape it


      Yes, and that's the case being discussed here.
    22. Re:What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is that if you have extra dimensions whose size corresponds to accelerator energies, the effective Planck scale will be lowered (since the strength of gravity depends mostly on only the three ordinary dimensions).

    23. Re:What if by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      If a mini-black hole that eats us all can be formed in a particle accelerator, it can also be formed by a high-energy cosmic ray (some cosmic rays have vastly more energy than can be produced by any particle accelerator, either existing or on the drawing board). So you can relax -- if such things were possible, we would have been swallowed up long ago.

  5. Doom IV? by ViXX0r · · Score: 1

    Keep your shotgun handy though, as they are more than likely going to open up a portal into another dimension and all sorts of nasties are going to come pouring out.

    Is this the precursor to the next latest-greatest ID FPS hit?

    --
    University - a box of academia nuts.
  6. Gordon, by Phosphor3k · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are late. They were expecting you in the test chamber ten minutes ago. Suit up and proceed there immediately.

    1. Re:Gordon, by Eros · · Score: 1, Troll

      This sounds familiar, would you mind spelling out what it is in reference to?

      Thanks

    2. Re:Gordon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half Life. I don't know if your post was serious or not, but there it is anyway =)

      ~Berj

    3. Re:Gordon, by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Half-life.

      Or, in reference to the mass of current players, no-life

    4. Re:Gordon, by bhsx · · Score: 1

      Bah! Now you've done it. Now I gotta cfdisk and create a partition that wont choke the w2k installer. Then I gotta go hunting for my w2k backup disk (from work, of course), and install it on this thing. Then I gotta do even more hunting for my HL disks (heh, well actually i just looked over to my left and there it was, very strange). You've just created at least an hour of pain and misery 'til I can successfully watch the openning sequence and step off that subway car, only to try to find some damned way to kick that security guard in the nuts before he opens the door. Damn you!
      Yes, I know, I know, it works in wine, that'd take even longer than installing w2k most likely. But maybe tomorrow I'll use the GetWineX scripts, which are really nice. But damned if you didn't leave me with an empty feeling that must be immediately remedied. Thanks a lot you fargin icehole ;)
      BTW, if you're about to google for GetWineX dont bother... http://ting.homeunix.org/cvs_wine/GetWineX.html
      t here ya go!

      --
      put the what in the where?
    5. Re:Gordon, by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

      "The Union Aerospace Corporation, an arm of the powerful conglomerate on Earth, has been performing secret experiments in their Large Hadron Collider. Tapping into the very fabric of the universe itself... and beyond. UAC scientists have made discoveries that will forever change human existence.

      Then something went terribly wrong..."

  7. It was Wile E Coyote by Enraged_jawa · · Score: 5, Informative

    I remember years ago watching a cartoon in which an inventor had managed to create 'portable holes.

    That was Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner, first introduced in the 1952 cartoon "Beep Beep".

    I think the Acme corporation has the patent on them, along with Jet powered Roller Skates, Coyote-sized Slingshots, Dehydrated Boulders, Do-It-Yourself Tornadoes, spring-loaded Boxing Gloves, dropping Anvils from Tightropes, Jet-propelled Pogo sticks and Unicycles, and Fake Railroad Crossings.

    1. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think the Acme corporation has the patent on them, along with Jet powered Roller Skates ...

      DAMN!!!

    2. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Shishio · · Score: 1

      Good call on the quick Acme identification.

      I seem to remember something about portable holes in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" too, but it's been so long since I last saw it.

      --
      Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
    3. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by teks0r · · Score: 1

      He may also have been referring to an episode of Spider-Man (the newer cartoon version) which featured a scientist researching black holes and the like. He also gained the ability to move the holes around at will and even named himself "The Spot."

    4. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by antiquark · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing that always stuck me about Wile E Coyote's plans is that occasionally he would have a brilliant plan, but something would go wrong, the rope would come loose, or the buckle would break.

      Then he's move onto the next plan.

      I'd be yelling at the TV, "Try it again! It's a good bloody plan!"

      The other amusing thing about this is I keep seeing the same situation in real life. Someone would try one thing, it would go wrong, and they'd decide it was obviously a bad idea, whereas thats not necessarily the case.

    5. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Really, what else would you expect from A Company Making Everything ??

    6. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by GMontag · · Score: 3, Funny

      Umm, isn't a definitioon of insanity doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

      On a completely different note, years ago when I discovered the Warner Brother's store in Fair Lakes Shopping Center (around Chantilly, VA) I went in and tried to order anvils and dynamite. They didn't have any :(

    7. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by dVs-- · · Score: 1

      You have to be in the program .. no ?

    8. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Wayfare · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it was not Wile E Coyote. Good try though. It was actually a cartoon released in theatres in 1955 called "The Hole Idea" where Calvin Q. Calculus invents a portable hole that comes in liquid form (easy to squirt onto wall) that gets stolen by a criminal Link . I remember watching it a while back. At the end his nagging wife drops down to hell through the last hole, IIRC.

    9. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Enraged_jawa · · Score: 1

      Actually, no we are both wrong, the Acme Portable hole (tunnel) was from the 1949 cartoon, "Fast and Furry-ous" where Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner were first introduced on the screen. TULTW Wile E Coyote's Bio It sounds like Sid Markus (Hole Idea) borrowed the idea from Chuck Jones (RR/coyote) while both were at Warner Brothers. Either way, they were both really funny guys that entertained millions for decades.

    10. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      blame it on grade inflation. nobody is ever taught how to fail gracefully. lord. I can't believe I just brought grade inflation into a conversation about Wile E. Coyote. Of course, I just spent four hours watching a videotape (what's that? oh, yeh, the plastic mechanical thingie) about ethics in the legal profession...

    11. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by toddhunter · · Score: 5, Funny

      The thing that always struck me is how come he was always starving if he could afford to buy jet-powered rocket skates?

    12. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, isn't a definitioon of insanity doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

      No, that would be the definition of Computer Science.

    13. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, isn't a definitioon of insanity doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

      I've heard this damn quote from Ben Franklin far too many times. No, that is not the definition of insanity. No, insane is not a medical term. And yes, plenty of people out there can be considered insane without repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

      So never, ever, ever use that god damn quote again.

      Thank you.

    14. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the token Earthquake Pills

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    15. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Don't forget my favorite, the famous "Sproing Boots"!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he only eats fresh roadrunner, and they don't sell fresh roadrunner at Amazon.com.

    17. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by jonathanhowell · · Score: 1

      The thing that always stuck me about Wile E Coyote's plans is that occasionally he would have a brilliant plan, but something would go wrong, the rope would come loose, or the buckle would break.

      I'd blame that on ACME Corp, mostly. I never noticed any users errors.

      They DID get it right in "Yellow Submarine" however.

      "I've got a hole in my pocket." - J. Lennon

      - Jonathan

    18. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Thomas Edison who said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work."

      -m.e.

    19. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a completely different note, years ago when I discovered the Warner Brother's store in Fair Lakes Shopping Center (around Chantilly, VA) I went in and tried to order anvils and dynamite. They didn't have any :(

      You know, my life as a geek would have been much easier if it weren't for geeks like you.

    20. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Don't forget my favorite, the famous "Sproing Boots"!

      Not only not forgotten, but avaliable to buy - You -have- to see the videos on the photo gallery page :)

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    21. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The thing that always struck me is how come he was always starving if he could afford to buy jet-powered rocket skates?

      Beta's are deeply discounted.

    22. Re:It was Wile E Coyote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, plenty of people out there can be considered insane without repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

      In the same manner that you managed the feat in one post?

  8. Portable Holes by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just don't put your portable hole inside a bag of holding.

    1. Re:Portable Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it??

    2. Re:Portable Holes by loucura! · · Score: 2, Informative

      A portable hole and a bag of holding are two magical items that perform the same task... which is both are near-infinite storage facilities which fit conveniently into the palm of your hand... (and they melt in your mouth too).

      Putting one near infinite storage facility into another near infinite storage facility causes a massive explosion, which destroys both storage locations, shuffles around every other storage location, and tends to kill the moron that did it, and those unfortunate enough to travel with him/her.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    3. Re:Portable Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from Dungeons and Dragons. http://scentedhelm.hexgrid.com/stories/storyReader $42">Here's a link

    4. Re:Portable Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, should've previewed: Here's a real link

    5. Re:Portable Holes by Lachrymite · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is why you use a telekinesis type spell to drop the bag of holding into the portable hole next to the head of the sleeping Great Wyrm while you're standing a few hundred feet away.

      In most of the groups I've played in, extradimensional spaces became an artillery tactic rather than a storage space. :)

    6. Re:Portable Holes by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Well, in the game I play, magical items have the uncanny effect of destroying everything for miles, and leaving the region magically irradiated.

      Not to mention the tendency for the other storage spaces getting shuffled, which tends to piss off every arch-mage who owns one... as they've lost all their nifty shit, and it's been replaced with two rocks, a stick, and a bottle of mayonaise.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    7. Re:Portable Holes by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Not to mention the tendency for the other storage spaces getting shuffled, which tends to piss off every arch-mage who owns one... as they've lost all their nifty shit, and it's been replaced with two rocks, a stick, and a bottle of mayonaise.

      Which is why that's all I keep in my storage spaces...

      1. Shuffle spaces
      2. Investigate what I received from other mages
      3. Profit!

      ;)

      -T

    8. Re:Portable Holes by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you forgot step 4... which is get hunted down by angsty-pretensious mages with a penchant for mind-wedgies and general distemper.

      Wait a minute... so it was YOU who shuffled all the storage spaces!

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
  9. imagine the possibilities ... by DataShark · · Score: 1

    multidimensional worlds ... parallel universes , trevelling *faster* than ligth (assuming average velocity and a non uniform density universe) we 're already prepared ... what is ipv6 for ?

  10. Nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    my ex always told me that she was like a black hole... attracting all type of shit... I guess I wasn't enough of a shit, so I managed to escape. :)

  11. Boooooom by frenztech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So...

    a) How long does it take one of these micro blackholes to decay. and...

    b) Are they positive that a blackhole will just decay nicely. The big bang only took one particle supposedly, so...what happens when a blackhole pulls in upon itself? Boom?

    --
    "Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
    1. Re:Boooooom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At ~10 TeV, it shouldn't last more than 10^-27 seconds.

      When a black hole evaporates, it can't release any more energy than the mass-energy it started out with... which, in this case, is very small. (It's not accurate, by the way, to say that the Big Bang was "an exploding particle".)

    2. Re:Boooooom by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No... the big bang didn't just take "one particle".

      It's just that if we follow the maths backwards, we end up at a point where all 4 dimensions (Or more, depending on your theory) are infininitely small, and there is no such thing as time or distance.

    3. Re:Boooooom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually think this question is a bit interesting compared to some of the other ones out there. There's a theory that the entire universe is just one giant black hole that we happen to be inside of. The critical density of the universe, combined with what we know of the size of the universe, is actually pretty close to what it'd need to be if the universe were one big black hole. It's a scary thought.

      Now, if there's a little universe inside of each of these black holes that would be created, that would be freaky. Since time and space are all confused inside a black hole, the 'residents' of our little microcosm could potentially live out for what would seem to them to be billions and trillions of years in an infinite universe, even though their universe disappears in a tiny fraction of a second in a particle accelerator at CERN.

      From inside, you'd have no way of telling the difference. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it. :)

    4. Re:Boooooom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... the big bang did just take "one particle".

      Google for it and see for yourself; or ask yourself, "Self, what is it in Quantum Physics that pops into and out of existance all the time all the place (to coin a phrase)? Answer: particles!!!

    5. Re:Boooooom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to Google it; I've done work in quantum cosmology (inflationary loop quantum cosmology, to be exact). There are QC models that involve spontaneous production of universes, but they are not and do not come from "a particle".

  12. Whoa... by praxim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please tell me I'm not the only one to read that as "Large Hardon Collider."

    It must be the Slashdot->Goatse.cx->Giver thing. I need to get out more.

    1. Re:Whoa... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sounds like a gay porno. Would the subtitle be "Exploring Brown Hole Theory" ?

    2. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is a story about an artifical hole, so I guess it kind of makes sense.

    3. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If goatse.cx gives you a "large hardon", I think you have a serious problem, gay or straight.

  13. excellent, Smithers! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will help us with our project.

    Since the dawn of time, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun... :)

    1. Re:excellent, Smithers! by essreenim · · Score: 1

      Yesssss, nuclear weapons, gravity weapons only one thing is missing: -> An unusually large gravity weapon, muhahahaha muhahahahahahahahahaha

    2. Re:excellent, Smithers! by djward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, jeez, there's so many appropriate Futurama quotes... maybe just a few:

      "I call it a Hawking-Hole"

      "I'll just steer towards that Blackish-Holish thing"

      Prof: "Fortunately, I had this wormhole installed in the middle of the table."
      Fry: "Where does the other end come out?"
      Prof: "You know, I don't know." [Looks through hole. Food splatters down from above onto his head. He reaches down through the hole and wipes his head off with a napkin.]

      That's enough for now.

  14. Don't these guys read sci-fi? by RylandDotNet · · Score: 1

    Thousands of microscopic black holes escape the collider and orbit the center of the earth, gradually sucking in matter and growing. OK, if someone has a time machine in the works, I'll shut up, but come on... it's right there in black and white!

    1. Re:Don't these guys read sci-fi? by jmccay · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. When will Scietist learn, the idea of "let's throw it in there, and we'll see what happens" will eventually kill us. The idea of scientists creating black holes on Earth scares me. I'd rather they waited till they can build a permanent stationary space station away from the orbit of the planet Earth to try out these things. That way we will not be risking the Earth--unless it's with some Universe bomb that could destory the Universe (like the rainbow bomb or something like that from a whacked out Sci-fi book) in whihc case I think they should experiment with it at all.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  15. Obligatory Event Horizon reference by Faust7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Motto over the European Center for Nuclear Research:

    "Liberate tutemet ex inferis."

    No wonder the Christian Science Monitor picked this one up. ;)

    1. Re:Obligatory Event Horizon reference by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      Okay, Babelfish does not work on Latin. Can anyone translate for those of us educated by the Texas public school system, please?

    2. Re:Obligatory Event Horizon reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roughly "Save yourselves from Hell"

      Go rent Event Horizon. It's a good sci-fi/horror movie. It'll all make sense after you watch it.

    3. Re:Obligatory Event Horizon reference by nicomachus · · Score: 1
      "Liberate tutemet ex inferis" isn't quite coherent Latin (second person plural imperative, but second person singular nominative "tutemet"). It might be marginally better as "Libera te tutemet..." ("Save you you...", where the second "you" is accusative and intensive). I think what they were trying to say is "Libera temetipsum ex inferis", or maybe "Libera tu temetipsum ex inferis" ("Save yourself from the underworld [i.e. hell, in Christian usage]". I'm no Latinist, and especially no medieval Latinist, but it seems to me "ab inferis" would be more idiomatic.

      If you wanted to say "Save yourselves from hell", "Liberate vos ex inferis" would do.

    4. Re:Obligatory Event Horizon reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I said:
      "Libera te tutemet..." ("Save you you...", where the second "you" is accusative and intensive)
      Sorry--I meant "nominative and intensive". Assuming anyone cares.
  16. Already been done by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe someone already make an artificial black hole about two or three years ago... It was located at the New York Stock Exchange.

    1. Re:Already been done by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I believe someone already make an artificial black hole about two or three years ago... It was located at the New York Stock Exchange.

      And Greenspan and W still have not found the way out for us.

  17. Dilbert by donscarletti · · Score: 1

    Well, from what I have learned from dilbert, things that have the capibility to create artificial black holes make great excersise machines... remeber the gruntmaster?

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  18. Wow! by embedded_C · · Score: 1
    If scientists could do this, and black holes can be used as wormholes, then maybe we can travel time?

    What would be worse, a gray goo scenario gone bad in the laboratory, or a home-made black hole gone bad?

    I choose the black hole.

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the grey goo scenerio is overdone. I mean the earth did just fine with little nano machines covering it's entire surface. Of couse we call it life, but still...

    2. Re:Wow! by kamikasee · · Score: 1

      Anyone who is interested in an exploration of this idea should check out *The Light of Other Days* by Stephen Baxter and A. C. Clarke. Based on the style, I'd say it's more Baxter than Clark, but Baxter is a good writer in his own right. Wormholes, time travel (of a sort), it's all there. JR

  19. Heh... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine if Acme had ever made an operating system.

    *rubs chin*

    Naw, couldn't be...

    1. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

    2. Re:Heh... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      Ever noticed on the install CD of Office, theres a file ACMESETUP.EXE or something to that effect; which is called by the normal SETUP.EXE ?

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    3. Re:Heh... by Bilange · · Score: 1

      In fact, they planned to work on a new OS long ago, then they worked on it for some time. Then, some company bought that project along with the job done so far. What was the company name already, Microloft?

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  20. Have you ever read Hyperion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of the book Hyperion by Dan Simmons. In Hyperion, a black hole ends up falling into the center of the Earth.

    1. Re:Have you ever read Hyperion? by zabieru · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in the obligatory Matrix tie-in, the AIs did it... Hopefully I'm not spoiling the rest of the series.

    2. Re:Have you ever read Hyperion? by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      The Hyperion series had me reading nonstop, excellent books! The AI's did it, but they found a way to 'cast the Earth, remember? They didn't destroy it.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    3. Re:Have you ever read Hyperion? by jmccay · · Score: 1

      I read Hyperion Cantos ( a compilation of the Hyperion series), and I think that part was left out.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  21. Hey atleast our training will pay off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it this might be the event that all geeks around the world have been training for their entire lives. I say let the demons come, we'll put up one hell of a fight

    1. Re:Hey atleast our training will pay off... by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't think shooting a double-barreled super shotgun (super shotgun? seriously now) at a transdimensional demon in a videogame and shooting a double-barreled super shotgun at a transdimensional demon in real life are very similar experiances. But, I could be wrong.

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    2. Re:Hey atleast our training will pay off... by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      There are similarities: in both scenarios, an arm gets blown off. The difference is in whose arm it is.

      I can only shoot a single-barelled 12 gauge shotgun with the weakest shells for about 5 or 6 shells before my shoulder starts to hurt. A wimpy shotgun is a different matter; there are those shotguns that kick about as much as a .22 (I think called a four twenty or something like that).

    3. Re:Hey atleast our training will pay off... by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I took up skeet and trap shooting over the summer break last year (I'm a student) and my arm was in a continual state of pain. So was my wallet, those shells are expensive. Maybe a super shotgun in the game is a ten gauge - I've seen them but never shot one. I've never shot a 4-10 either (actually 12 is as far as my experience takes me), though I hear they are pretty weak.

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  22. Doesn't this seem dangerous by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I believe this was the reason the brookhaven institute in Long Island was shutdown.

    This could easily wipe out every living life form on Earth. Why? just for some stupid experiment.

    Maybe the reason why seti has not found any alien life forms is because they run experiments like this and wipe themselves out.

    We should not play with the fabric of time and space.

    1. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brookhaven has been shut down? It looks open to me. http://www.bnl.gov/

    2. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by UrGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, the Brookhaven National Laboratoy is NOT shutdown - see http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/about_BNL.htm). They are also doing heavy ion collider research, attempting to create a quark-gluon plasma and they have published a paper on why it will NOT create black holes or open the fabic of space and time and destory the earth. If I am wrong, please post the URL of the announcement - I missed it.

      But this news that CERN might create black holes IS distrubing. Even if they do have a short, short half-life - what happens of the unexpected happens and one makes it beyond it's containment vacuum to the wall and starts sucking metal. It grows and becomes stable and aquires enough mass to drop to the ground. It will not stop. It will suck matter, grow, and drop to the center of the planet and bounce around like a marble in a hot var of butter. Then it will settle down and devour the earth, releasing massive amounts of energy as it sucks up the nickel, iron, and maybe uranium at the center. The core will probably protect us from the radiation....while it lasts. We will probably all die in volcanos and earthquakes as the planet is compressed and the mantle collapses. We will be all long gone before the event horizon is exposed.

      Yep, this really sounds like something that should be done beyond the orbit of Mars. Maybe Pluto.

    3. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things would be produced with way beyond escape velocity, and are so small they'll pass right through matter without being slowed down (or even having an appreciable probability of hitting much). Even if they managed to survive long enough to exit the accelerator vacuum, they'd fly right through the side, through the atmosphere, and into space.

    4. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Funny
      Actually, they are all clustered up in the Andromeda galaxy, all the civilizations of the cosmos, all giggling behind tenticles, fronds and telepathically, and then hysterically shusshing each other: "Tee hee! They're about to do it! I can't wait to see the look on their faces! Hush now... we don't want them to hear us!".

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    5. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Informative
      There seem to be two major misconceptions in this thread. First, it takes way way more mass than the Earth has (several orders of magnitude), possibly more matter than the entire solar system has, to make a stable black hole.

      Second, unstable black holes, of the sort being made here, occur all the time on earth. Cosmic radiation creates them. They are just trying to make one the same way that they occur all over the place so they know where it will be and have recording equipment ready for it.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    6. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, unstable black holes, of the sort being made here, occur all the time on earth.


      We don't know that. The theories that predict black hole formation at "low" energies like the LHC's ~10 TeV are not widely accepted; they're predicated on the existence of large extra dimensions or suchlike. Most particle physicists do not expect black holes to be produced below the Planck scale (a level that no cosmic rays reach, either).
    7. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by afranz · · Score: 1

      not sure where you get your information, but the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory is doing quite well, runnig as I write this and producing new physics results every day.

    8. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look,

      I figure you're probably right. In fact, i'm sure of it. But humans are wont to make the odd mistake here and there even when they're Positive(tm) that they're right. Is the annhialiation of all life on earth something you're willing to bet on? Just because we have a scientific explanation for what "should" happen doesn't mean it's right. 500 years ago (semirandom date, don't flame based on date) all matter was made up of 4 elements and had something to do with a super incredible-looking redhead name Leeloo. I wouldn't want to push the button.

      Paul

    9. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      "First, it takes way way more mass than the Earth has (several orders of magnitude), possibly more matter than the entire solar system has, to make a stable black hole."

      Wow, that's a great theory! Since it hasn't been proven I would be glad to risk the entire planet on that (most likely true) theory. Bla.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    10. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      agreed, don't know if parent is lying, but it;s a good point that the cosmic ray thing is also just theory.

    11. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
      No - what people forget all the time with these end-of-the-universe predictions is the fact that nature already produces interactions at energies far in excess of anything we can produce in colliders today. Cosmic rays, which are high energy protons, strike the earth's atmosphere continuously. The measured energy spectrum of these protons goes up to energies literally thousands of times larger that the LHC.

      So don't worry - if the LHC could create anything dangerous nature would have already produced it and we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion!

    12. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the annhialiation of all life on earth something you're willing to bet on?

      Yep.

    13. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by mpxcz · · Score: 1

      Now that we've created an itybity black hole let's make a bigger one... ops!
      Now that were sucked in the black hole let's all blame Hawkins.

    14. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "econd, unstable black holes, of the sort being made here, occur all the time on earth"

      Prove it

    15. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Funny
      I believe that's being done.

      I believe that's the point.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    16. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Realistically, the amount of energy involved here hits the earth every day. Either it produces black holes (which we think it does) or it doesn't. Either way, this experiment is safe. All it's reproducing is something that happens on this planet all the time. They are just doing intentionally so they can watch the spot where it occurs, since it's impossible to predict where it's going to happen when the cosmos in general is firing the radiation at us.

      It's a bit like using a sunlamp on a plant indoors to standardize and observe. Do you really think there will suddenly be a massive fusion reaction enveloping the planet from a sunlamp?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    17. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by jgardn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IAAP -- I am a Physicist.

      Environmentalism is leaking to the cosmic ray / subatomic particle world! Pretty soon, they will be saying "Save the muon!" and "Stop abusing our natural resources -- don't harvest photons!" I can't wait for the day when they will try to elevate the particles to be on par with humans, like they are doing with monkeys, dogs, and fish.

      And that whole "we shouldn't play with the fabric of space and time" crap -- Okay. Let's stop playing with the fabric of space and time. Everyone, you must cease existing immediately, but without releasing any radiation at all. Any attempts at motion -- even very slight or slow, will also disrupt the fabric of space and time, so you must do this without moving any parts of your body. There, now that we have prevented anyone from disrupting the space time continuum, we should probably move to eliminate the earth, the sun, and all the planets as well. There's no telling what their enormous gravitational fields could do to space-time around them!

      Why am I being so foolish? Because everything you do -- everything you are -- disrupts the space-time continuum. In fact, some physicists believe that matter and energy are just folds or tears in the space time continuum. It was Einstein who discovered that space-time wasn't as continous as we had hoped, both from a Relativistic notion, and from a gravitational notion. But it is these inconsistencies that make life, and all existence, possible.

      I think it is really sad that so many uneducated people want to get involved in this discussion, when they have nothing to add and gain nothing from hearing the experts. It's like 40 years ago when the mention of "radiation" and "radioactivity" would send common folk running in fear. Now it's just "black holes" and "particle accelerators".

      Let me rephrase that in plain English: Don't tell me what I can and can't do unless you take the time to learn about it. After all, you would hate to have the Pope come and say "You shouldn't clone in Java and other programming languages. Cloning is wrong."

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    18. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better not go outside then, there you would be barraged by constant RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR REACTIONS.

    19. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was one of them there black holes that ate my homework, honestly. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    20. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      what happens of the unexpected happens and one makes it beyond it's containment vacuum to the wall and starts sucking metal.
      It will not. The black hole is tiny (both physically and in terms of mass) with barely any gravitational pull. It's going to have to practically pass through an electron, proton, or neutron in order to "suck" it in. It'll have to pass through enough of these to gain enough mass to have enough gravitational force to be able to pull matter from any real distance toward it. If it did, and gravity pulled it to the center of the earth, the chances are it'd just end up with a (small) hole around it comprised of the matter it was able to suck in, the matter outside that hole being far enough away to ensure the forces that hold them there are greater than the black hole's gravitational pull.

      Even if Hawking is wrong about the holes leaking mass through radiation, it seems unlikely the hole would be any serious threat.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    21. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't see where you get the first misconception. It cerntainly is not one that I share.

      As for the second, true enough - IF we truly understand cosmic rays. But it is only a matter of time until we could be exploring types of collision that superpass them. Hopefully, once again, in in orbit far, far away.

    22. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you are sooooo sure that black holes are sooo understood that you would bet the whole planet on it? Would it be better to wait and and experiment with them in an orbit far, far away and make DAMN sure that we understand them before put all of humankind at risk.

      Understand that I am mainly talking about any experiment that exceeds the energy of naturally occurring cosmic ray reaction - not necessary the ones in progress today or in the next five years. But eventually, we WILL exceed that threshold. And beside that

      I said "what of the *UNEXPECTED* happens". Science has been surprised before. And you do not need gravity to start the sucking. A black hole this small could have a charge - like a positive one. Then electrons would come flying to it. True, eventually enough elections would cancel out that charge - IF this process is truly understood. Given that a black hole has NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN OBSERVED, there is one hell of lot riding on this hypothesises. All of humankind.

    23. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand that I am mainly talking about any experiment that exceeds the energy of naturally occurring cosmic ray reaction - not necessary the ones in progress today or in the next five years. But eventually, we WILL exceed that threshold.


      Really? The highest cosmic ray energies are already 100 million times beyond what we can do today, and look how big today's accelerators are. They'd have to be ridiculous to get up to cosmic ray energy.


      I said "what of the *UNEXPECTED* happens". Science has been surprised before.


      Yeah, so what? The "unexpected" can always happen, by definition. You could accidentally create a black hole that sucks up the Earth by sneezing.

      If theories about microscopic black holes are that wrong, then they're probably so wrong that the things don't exist at all.


      A black hole this small could have a charge - like a positive one. Then electrons would come flying to it. True, eventually enough elections would cancel out that charge - IF this process is truly understood.


      Maybe maybe maybe. Yeah, so they violate Hawking radiation, conservation of energy, conservation of charge, are much bigger than we think, and all that other stuff, magically so something bad can happen to the Earth. And maybe the laws of physics are wrong and you can create universe-destroying particles in household microwaves, which have low probability but will happen tomorrow.
    24. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Well, now hold on. Right now, the only thing that my comment relied upon us having an understanding of was gravity. And, frankly, if we can't rely upon our understanding of gravity enough for this experiment, then we're screwed anyway.

      As I said, if Hawking's theories about black holes bleeding mass in the form of radiation are incorrect, we still have nothing to worry about. The black hole, like any other mass>0 matter, will drift down to the gravitational center of the Earth, and if, by that time, it's large enough to excert enough force to pull atoms towards it and away from their natural bonds (unlikely), all it's still likely to do is create a hole around itself slightly larger than its gravity can pull at neighbouring atoms with sufficient force for them to break away.

      What you're actually implying, if you criticise this view, is not where I'm soooo sure that black holes are sooo understood that I'd bet a planet on it, but if gravity is sooo understood I'd bet a planet on it.

      To which my answer is fuck yes.

      And, for what it's worth, if our black hole really is that dangerous, it's likely to be a pretty painless way of collective mass-suicide on mankind's part. If there's anything to lose, we'll never know it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    25. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      There seem to be two major misconceptions in this thread. First, it takes way way more mass than the Earth has (several orders of magnitude), possibly more matter than the entire solar system has, to make a stable black hole.

      It turns out that the required mass is much lower - asteroidal or less. Anything produced in an accelerator, however, would certainly decay quickly (depending on your definiton of "stable", threshold mass for stability is 1e5-1e8 tonnes; maximum possible mass from an accelerator collision is about 1.7e-24 kg/TeV).

    26. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      Truthfully, I can't do the math. I never had the opprotunity to learn calculus and just barely squeaked by alegbra and all I do these days is number conversions (i.e. decimal the hexadecimal, etc.) So, all of my knowledge of this matter is on faith from reading the pop books.

      But as I understand, gravity is NOT understood AT ALL at the quantuum level. Classical gravity is understood well enough to target ballistic missiles and to slingshot around the solar system but all that is known about gravity at the quantuum level is that it very, very, very weak...under normal conditions. And every since I had my cerebrum tweaked into a knob trying to swallow the Inflationary Big Bang, my faith in our knowledge of gravity has been shaken like a can of Coke in Britney Spears's cutoffs.

      Or maybe I just need a job. It increases my paranioa, like having a Republican fortunate son selected by the Supreme Court to suspend the Constitution.

      What the hell. Fire it up. Make a *BIG* whole hole and the suckage end!!!!!!!!!!

      But I doubt it will be painless. As the crust collaspes into the magma, you will experience relativity first hand as your last few seconds become an eternity of hellfire. Damn, almost sounds like Revelations!

      Damn, maybe I need just need a drink.

    27. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seem to be two major misconceptions in this thread.

      There seems to be one major misconception floating around your head - that humans actually know what the fuck they're doing.

      You've learnt some Physics, well done; you have a memory. However, absolutely NONE of what you've learned is guaranteed to be true.

      I like how you parrot what was written in the article, when in fact noone has ever seen even ONE these mini unstable black holes.

    28. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking's result was derived within the context of classical gravity. So people are pretty confident in Hawking radiation as a general process.

      On the other hand, these microscopic black holes are below the Planck mass (22 micrograms), so they're into the quantum gravity regime.

    29. Re:Doesn't this seem dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is guaranteed to be true, however, is that cosmic rays routinely duplicate and surpass the conditions found in the LHC.

  23. No, stop him! by jsse · · Score: 1

    I remember years ago a scientist warned about the dangerous in performing atom accelerator experiments, which might lead to total disaster. I forgot the details but move along this line, someone might create a mishandled black hole and all of a sudden we suck into a tiny dot. Then we might hear something like that:

    "Hey, who tell hell could tell me what's going on?"
    (a voice from 5 nano-meter away)"Sorry, I dropped the black hole on the ground...."

    1. Re:No, stop him! by spike+hay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember years ago a scientist warned about the dangerous in performing atom accelerator experiments, which might lead to total disaster. I forgot the details but move along this line, someone might create a mishandled black hole and all of a sudden we suck into a tiny dot. Then we might hear something like that:


      Actually, the scientist is completely wrong. There are much higher energy reactions going on naturally with cosmic rays and such. Quantum black holes, wormholes, etc are created all of the time. And destroyed just as quickly.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    2. Re:No, stop him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, who tell hell could tell me what's going on?"

      Nice English, Shakespeare.

    3. Re:No, stop him! by UrGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here is that paper from the RHIC (the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at Brookhaven National Lab:

      http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf

      It it titled "Review of Speculative 'Disaster Scenarios' at RHIC".

      However, they did shut it down for a bit to "upgrare some detectors". Probably true, but I did notice that instead of banging gold ions against gold, they are banging gold against deuteron. Makes you go "Mmmmmmm". I, for one, am glad that someone is thinking about this and perhaps weighing on the side of caution.

      I still would feel better it was done beyond the orbit of Mars or further!

    4. Re:No, stop him! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      THe scientist are using very heavy particles being hit at close to the speed of light. Cosmic rays are nothing and what are the odds naturally that 2 particles will hit each other at the speed of light in exact opposite directions in nature.

    5. Re:No, stop him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previous poster was correct. Cosmic rays are way more energetic than the "very heavy particles" we use in accelerators, and travel way faster.

      Hitting "in exact opposite directions" is not needed; all that matters is the energy involved.

    6. Re:No, stop him! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Short term, not a bad idea... long term, you'd now have (worst case) a singularity relatively close to over 50% of the non-solar mass in the system (asteroid belt and jupiter). You might go from a small BH near the sun to a medium size one that could eat the rest of the system.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    7. Re:No, stop him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosmic Rays are leftovers from the big bang, when the universe was hot enough to allow supermassive particles to exist. They are so massive that they can be used to probe sub-Planck length distances. A particle accelerator of today's designs would have to be as long as the Milky Way in order to produce equally massive particles.

    8. Re:No, stop him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosmic Rays are leftovers from the big bang, when the universe was hot enough to allow supermassive particles to exist.


      Actually, most of them were produced in supernovae and other high-energy events well after the Big Bang.


      They are so massive that they can be used to probe sub-Planck length distances.


      Even the highest energy cosmic ray ever detected was still about 8 orders of magnitude away from the Planck scale.
    9. Re:No, stop him! by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      WHOA! I think you have SEVERELY overestimated the mass of the asteriods! The last that I hear they were not even a fraction of the mass of Mercury. But I certainly would not mine this work being done beyond the orbit of Pluto, just to be safe.

      It can wait, dammit!

    10. Re:No, stop him! by biawak · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, creating black holes that would devour the earth was a major concern of the politicians who were debeating building the accelerator down in texas. It was the scientists who told them that was a silly concern. I guess the politicians were on the right track for once.

    11. Re:No, stop him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I remember, creating black holes that would devour the earth was a major concern of the politicians who were debeating building the accelerator down in texas.


      No, it wasn't. The idea that a black hole could be produced in an accelerator -- which comes from physics that's even speculative for string theory -- came years after the Superconducting Supercollider was shut down. (The main debate, and reason why it was shut down, was simply about cost.)
  24. Cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone above mentioned Acme Co. for creating this, but I also clearly remember seeing this done in a Pink Panther cartoon when I was quite young.

    At least they can't patent it, as there is clearly a lot of prior art. :)

    1. Re:Cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the closest one so far. It was actually the ant and the aardvark.

      The famous quote (say it like Jackie Mason would) "Instant hole, I hate you"

    2. Re:Cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...

      The animated "Pink Panther" first appears in 1964, in a movie and then made into cartoons much later. Any occurrence of a 'portable hole' in that postdates any in the WB cartoons by at least 10 years.

      I don't care who saw it when and where. I just care about who did it first - anything else is derivative. Trying to guess a specific where/when someone saw one instance of use across 50 years of cartoons seems - silly.

      Now, if we want to argue about something, Is a 'portable hole' and a 'black hole' the same thing? I don't think so, a 'portable hole' seems to be more a movable displacement in the fabric of space. A 'black hole' is a displacer of space and time.

      Ta

  25. Microsoft's new Porta-Hole by dduardo · · Score: 1

    Not only does it suck, you can get internet access.

  26. After reading this by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    This should be enough to pop off numerous tiny black holes, with masses of just a few hundred protons. Black holes of this size will evaporate almost instantly, their existence detectable only by dying bursts of Hawking radiation.

    I had a vision of the experiment going disasterously wrong and instantly consuming the earth. Scene then cuts to a couple of very nervous scientist standing before a very pissed God saying 'Ah your Supreme beingness what actually happened was we miscalculated slightly and then some diet coke was spilled on the control panel and...'

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:After reading this by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Presumably all of the experimenters will only be permitted to drink 7-UP. Its status as an un-cola will make it the only beverage safe to drink around control equipment for dangerous subatomic reactions.

  27. Old News by Boglin · · Score: 5, Funny

    These scientist want to study structure which anything can enter, but nothing can leave? /dev/null

    1. Re:Old News by wildsurf · · Score: 2, Funny

      These scientist want to study structure which anything can enter, but nothing can leave?

      Black Hole-tel California?

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    2. Re:Old News by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Or a Roach Motel. ("Roaches check in, but they don't check out!")

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    3. Re:Old News by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      Or Thunderdome. (would that make Mel Gibson into Hawking Radiation? oh nevermind...)

    4. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nonono, it is two men enter, ONE man leaves....so it's obviously possible to escape.
      and btw, that movie sucked...big time...

    5. Re:Old News by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > onono, it is two men enter, ONE man leaves....so > it's obviously possible to escape.

      Your post's parent was referencing the type of interaction with a black hole where the energy creates a virtural particle that splits into two opposite charge particles, one of which escapes from the hole.

      That is a bit different from TDome. In this case, it seems more like "zero men enter, one man leaves".

      --
      -JC

  28. Re:Doom IV? no - HALFLIFE!!! by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    I believe that the first weapon we get in that adventure is not a shotgun - It's a crowbar. That game had some creepy aliens.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  29. this is insane by lingqi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    why? because we don't even KNOW if there are such things as blackholes. evidence only remotely suggest that there are very dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon for our universe, but if they are singularities or not, that's questionable.

    in another words, we don't know if the space really contract into a singularity - because for one, a singularity causes all kinds of problems for all kinds of theories.

    Just a few monthes ago people were expressing immense interest in gravistars (I forgot the name) where instead of collapsing completely into a singularity, after the neutron stage the space being crushed will exhibit strong force outward (due to some quantum mechanics thing) where it would balance out into a "shell" or somesuch - though the shell diameter is still smaller than the event horizon.

    IF the above turned out to be true, though - no blackbody radiation (as the radiation will gets trapped onto the shell) and no dissipation, which means the end of earth, etc.

    Even if they are really singularities, if they emit black-body radiation is merely a theory by hawkings. We simply don't know if regular laws of phisics holds up at singularity level (that's the reason we call them a singularity, after all).

    Man... I know nobel prize is a million bux and all, but risking the entire human race on it seems kinda sketchy.

    I never thought there are real "mad scientist" types out there. I guess I got proven wrong on this.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:this is insane by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 3, Informative
      hawking radiation is not blackbody radiation. Hawking radiation comes from the spontaneous creation of particle pairs very close to the event horizon. Before they are able to annihilate each other, one is pulled in, and the other one escapes. I guess radiation isn't the right name for it, but that's what it's called.

      However you are correct in that we have no idea if Hawking radiation even exists. If it did, we would observe GRBs of a specific type, yet we haven't. I think we should look for these GRBs some more before we start cooking up black holes.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:this is insane by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
      Man... I know nobel prize is a million bux and all, but risking the entire human race on it seems kinda sketchy.

      Well, on a positive note none of us would ever have the time to realize it had happened.

    3. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? because we don't even KNOW if there are such things as blackholes.


      Yeah, we pretty much do, most notably from evidence of matter vanishing from sight as it falls into compact, massive astrophysical objects. (If they were neutron stars or something, there would be a heck of a lot of radiation as the matter hit it; but if there's an event horion, there isn't.) Not to mention evidence for an innermost circular orbit and other strong-gravity predictions of gravitational fields near a black hole.


      in another words, we don't know if the space really contract into a singularity


      No, we don't, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether black holes exist. Black holes may or may not contain singularities.


      Just a few monthes ago people were expressing immense interest in gravistars


      I hate to break this to you, but while that sort of stuff flies well with the New Scientist crowd, it's not compelling science. The authors of the paper admitted that there's no known astrophysical process that could remotely produce something like a gravistar; it was an artificial solution of the equations they wrote down to have properties they wanted it to have. On the other hand, we have strong evidence that real astrophysical processes will lead to black hole formation.


      IF the above turned out to be true, though - no blackbody radiation (as the radiation will gets trapped onto the shell) and no dissipation, which means the end of earth, etc.


      There isn't any theory that even remotely suggests that a particle accelerator will form a "gravistar".


      Even if they are really singularities, if they emit black-body radiation is merely a theory by hawkings. We simply don't know if regular laws of phisics holds up at singularity level (that's the reason we call them a singularity, after all).


      Hawking radiation doesn't have anything to do with singularities; it has to do with event horizons.

    4. Re:this is insane by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

      First of all, the idea is that black holes dissipate via Hawking radiation, not blackbody radiation. It's been a few years since I read Hawking's papers on the subject, but they are quite different things. It has something to do with quantum fluctuations and virtual anti-particles being pulled INTO the black hole being the same as normal particls falling OUT of the black hole. That's how I remember it, but read his works, it's explained pretty well.

      Second of all, higher energy impacts occur all of the time in space and in the upper atmosphere (which the article points out!) so either 1. Even that much energy is not enough to actually create a micro-black hole, in which case no problem or 2. They evaporate somehow, in which case, no problem.

      Finally, these things will have very little mass. A penny does not attract near by mass towards it with any noticable effect, so these won't either. Just because they are very dense does NOT mean they have an immense gravitational field.

      Here is a simplified way to look at it while ignoring blackbody and Hawking radiation. A black hole exists because at some point enough matter got together so that its gravitational field counteracted electrostatic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, and it collapsed into a mathematical point. It remains a point because its gravity remains strong enough to counteract these other elementry forces. Now, if the blackhole was created by something else counteracting these forces, such as a high energy impact, then, once it is created, the gravitational field is NOT strong enough to counteract the elementry forces, and the black hole would dissipate.

      IANAP

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    5. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mechanism for hawking radiation as I remember it is that a gamma ray that pair produces with the CMB near the event horizon may have one particle in the positronium fall into the black hole, while the other escapes. It thus appears that the hole is radiating electrons or positrons.

    6. Re:this is insane by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The linked article answers this pretty compellingly: if the LHC can make quantum holes, then any other equivalent source -- like, oh, say, the solar wind -- can do the same thing. That means they're either being created all the time (in which case we can probably safely ignore everybody's favorite doomsday scenario) or they aren't being created (in which case, it would awfully nice to understand exactly why.)

      OTOH, maybe IHBT, IHL, HAND.

      Does anybody remember Larry Niven's short story "The Hole Man"?

    7. Re:this is insane by jmv · · Score: 1

      why? because we don't even KNOW if there are such things as blackholes. evidence only remotely suggest that there are very dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon for our universe, but if they are singularities or not, that's questionable.

      I thought a blackhole only meant "dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon" regardless of singularity, no?

    8. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking radiation is indeed blackbody radiation. It is due to quantum field theoretical processes, unlike the way ordinary blackbody radiation is produced, but the spectrum is identical.

      Hawking radiation is not produced because non-gravitational forces are stronger than the gravitational field of the black hole. It is produced because of quantum mechanical uncertainty. (One way of looking at it is that particles can "tunnel"; another is the virtual particle description; another is that the location of the horizon itself is uncertain.)

    9. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CMB is not involved; this is a vacuum effect. Most Hawking radiation is photons (since they are massless); particles with more mass are produced less often.

    10. Re:this is insane by Brad+the+Informer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know! Let's form a committee of the people in this thread who don't know squat about physics (but have strong opinions), and let them decide what research gets done and what doesn't!

      My cousin is a physicist at Brookhaven. I'll try to get you a heads-up if the world is about to be destroyed by the eggheads.

      By the way, it's great to see you posting again, Charly. How's Algernon?

    11. Re:this is insane by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

      You are correct in that saying that Hawking radiation is produced by quantum uncertainty, but (I believe) mistaken in classifying it as blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation is emitted from matter excited by heat (like the orange glow from your stove).

    12. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and blackholes are matter. And blackholes have a temperature.

      Therefore, like all matter that has a temperature. Blackholes radiate. That is also called, blackbody radiation.

      I'm gonna post anonymously because it's been 20 years since I got my physics degree. And I could be wrong. But I'm not. No I'm not.

    13. Re:this is insane by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      This just sounds a lot to me like the old rumor that if you went faster than 30 mph your blood would boil. Also, keep in mind that a singularity is estimated to have a mass many, many million times that of earth. We're talking VERY massive, like "not enough raw material in the solar system" massive.

    14. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First of all, the idea is that black holes dissipate via Hawking radiation, not blackbody radiation. It's been a few years since I read Hawking's papers on the subject, but they are quite different things. It has something to do with quantum fluctuations and virtual anti-particles being pulled INTO the black hole being the same as normal particls falling OUT of the black hole. That's how I remember it, but read his works, it's explained pretty well.

      I guess this is the Slashdot way of saying "I haven't read Hawking's papers, but allow me to bullshit you into thinking I did." Hawking's paper doesn't talk about virtual particles at all. All of that stuff is just a handwaving description that doesn't have much to do with the actual physical reasoning.

    15. Re:this is insane by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "I never thought there are real "mad scientist" types out there"

      Never heard of Mengele?

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    16. Re:this is insane by zymano · · Score: 1

      i read that the energies involved are the same as a gamma ray hitting a molecule in the upper atmosphere. Happens all the time.

    17. Re:this is insane by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      Have a read of Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan for a similar scenario ten-thousand years in the future where a physics experiment based on a wrong assumption creates a slowly but consistently growing ball of `other stuff'
      It might be the case that the black hole _slowly_ grows, giving the astrophysicists a chance to unite and save the world (I see some movie rights here - who'd a thunk it - scientific research being done purely for the movie rights and game plotline)

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    18. Re:this is insane by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that they don't teach physics to anyone anymore, not that there are real "mad scientest" types. (By the way, IAAP).

      They're trying to copy a reaction that occurs in our atmosphere and they think it creates sub-atomic black holes. If it doesn't... well they're wrong, and that would be huge for new physics. If it does, then black holes are created all the time, all around you, and that would be huge for century old physics.

    19. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      By the way, it's great to see you posting again, Charly. How's Algernon?

      I wish this could be moderated "+1 0wned".

      Great call.

    20. Re:this is insane by pla · · Score: 1

      Okay, since the other attempts to respond to you got it wrong, here you go:

      Hawking radiation does not equal "black body" radiation.

      Black-body radiation, while quantum in nature, results from perfectly ordinary electron transitions. The "body" slowly leaks energy as it radiates away as photons via electrons transitions toward ground state.

      Hawking radiation, OTOH, results from "vacuum" fluctuations. Imagine a pair of virtual particles popping into existance, which happens all the time (AMAZINGLY often, we don't deal with just a slow trickle here). Immediately after this pair appears, it pops right back into the vaccuum where it came from, thus having no net effect on the universe.

      Now, imagine a virtual particle pair pops up right at the event horizon of a black hole. As the particles have some spatial separation between them, the possibility exists that one appears inside the event horizon, and one outside. The one inside remains trapped, the other escapes, thus the pair cannot annihilate one another. This means the universe has apparently "grown" by one particle (that one particle forming the actual "radiation" of the Hawking radiation), a not-quite-kosher result.

      But, the universe has a convenient way of balancing this little inconvenience - The hole "shrinks" by the inside-virtual-particle cancelling out some of its mass, and the rest of the universe gains the no-longer-virtual particle that didn't get trapped in the hole. So, the universe stays balanced (that whole "conservation of matter and energy" thing), and the hole appears to have "leaked" a tad.


      Incidentally, Steven K. Lamoreaux proved the existance of this constant virtual particle flux in 1997, by measuring the force involved in the Casimir Effect. So those in a panic over the possibility that Hawking radiation might not actually exist and destroy the black hole can relax - It does exist, we have experimental proof of it, and the black holes will "evaporate" very, very quickly.

    21. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes have a temperature, and because of it, they radiate as a perfect blackbody. This radiation is called Hawking radiation.

      Google it if you don't believe me.

    22. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes aren't considered "matter", though they do have mass, and also a temperature.

    23. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation: in fact, it is a perfect blackbody spectrum, due to the black hole being in perfect thermal equilibrium, as described by quantum statistical mechanics. Matter also radiates a blackbody spectrum (though not a perfect one), but this does not change the fact that a black hole radiates as a blackbody.

      If you don't believe me, check out any of the texts on quantum field theory in curved spacetime. I prefer Birrell and Davies, but Wald's book is also good. Or heck, just Google for "Hawking radiation" and "blackbody".

    24. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second of all, higher energy impacts occur all of the time in space and in the upper atmosphere (which the article points out!) so either 1. Even that much energy is not enough to actually create a micro-black hole, in which case no problem or 2. They evaporate somehow, in which case, no problem.

      Sorry, that argument doesn't work--different kind of collision.

    25. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that the one where the space pirates were using a captive black hole to drop ships out of hyperspace and, um, pirate them?

      They had a electromagnetic 'ladel' that they used to hold the hole in place. It got loose and 'ate' the asteroid it was built on. Very cool story.

    26. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I never thought there are real "mad scientist" types out there. I guess I got proven wrong on this."

      Proving a person who is infinitely dense does not consume the Earth...

    27. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. Whether the radiation is blackbody or not has very little to do with anything, other than the fact that it implies that black holes have temperature and are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and also provides a mathematical formula for the spectrum. An interesting result, but whether blackbody radiation results from one process or another is ultimately immaterial, since the final result will be the same.

      I don't see what this has to do with whether black holes will eat the Earth, though. As people have amply pointed out, it won't.

    28. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about "Borderland of Sol". "The Hole Man" is about a scientist on Mars who commits murder by cutting off the magnetic containment to an alien gravitational-wave communication device, which falls through someone below.

    29. Re:this is insane by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 1
      point very well taken. Black holes are one of the most dangerous and destructive things in the universe. We have no bussiness messing with them.

      If Hawkings theory is wrong or if the black hole falls to the metal walls of the collider before it evaporates then we all die.


      Except as you'd know if you RTFA, cosmic rays bombard the earth with more energy than this collider will manage. If dangerous black holes could be created at this energy level, we'd be dead already..

      --
      Why?
    30. Re:this is insane by pla · · Score: 1

      Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation: in fact, it is a perfect blackbody spectrum

      If I created a pitching machine that could perfectly duplicate the pitches of Nolan Ryan, would you say that such a machine "is" Nolan Ryan, based solely on its measurable output of baseballs?

      That seems like the argument you make here: That simply because Hawking radiation and black-body radiation have the same spectrum, they have the same underlying cause.

      Or perhaps you disagree on a different basis - Do you mean that, at some hidden level, virtual photon pairs appearing near an event horizon "are" electron transitions toward ground state, and vice-versa?

    31. Re:this is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems like the argument you make here: That simply because Hawking radiation and black-body radiation have the same spectrum, they have the same underlying cause.


      That's not at all what I'm saying. They certainly do not have the same "underlying cause"; Hawking radiation doesn't proceed by the same mechanism as atomic transitions. But they are both blackbodies, producing blackbody radiation.

      A blackbody is defined to be a perfect absorber in thermal equilibrium.

      We can build objects out of matter that are pretty good absorbers in pretty close to thermal equilibrium; we call them "blackbodies". But black holes are better blackbodies.


      Or perhaps you disagree on a different basis - Do you mean that, at some hidden level, virtual photon pairs appearing near an event horizon "are" electron transitions toward ground state, and vice-versa?


      No. "Electron transitions" don't appear anywhere in the definition of a blackbody. There is more than one way to make a blackbody. A blackbody is defined by its macroscopic thermodynamic properties. Those properties can arise (via the axioms of statistical mechanics) in more than one way, based on very different microscopic physics (e.g. electronic states in matter vs. quantum geometric states in a black hole).
    32. Re:this is insane by pla · · Score: 1

      No. "Electron transitions" don't appear anywhere in the definition of a blackbody. There is more than one way to make a blackbody. A blackbody is defined by its macroscopic thermodynamic properties.

      Ah, fair 'nuff. I can accept that as a compromise. I had the idea of "real" radiative heat loss in mind, rather than an idealized statistical description thereof.

      Point to you. ;-)

    33. Re:this is insane by RichardX · · Score: 1

      This just sounds a lot to me like the old rumor that if you went faster than 30 mph your blood would boil.

      I know it's easy to say this with hindsight, but I completely fail to understand where that ever came from, given that many species of animal have been able to exceed 30 Mph for.. well, pretty much all of human history, really... a cheetah can quite easily double that figure, and the Indian spine tailed swift has been clocked at 219 Mph.. I can understand that the people who held this belief probably hadn't seen too many of them around, but man has been riding horses at 30 Mph or more for a very long time.

      Oh well, offtopic, I know, but I just find it puzzling

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  30. I remember that cartoon by vagn · · Score: 2, Informative

    The guy made holes like he was
    making pancakes. And he said
    "portable hole" in a funny voice.
    And he wore a bowler.

  31. Oh dear. by E_elven · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yet another example of our dear scientists considering the 'can I' instead of 'should I'.

    --
    Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
  32. I'll reserve comment... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

    until a reputable source at LEAST mentions this. Seems very unlikely.

    1. Re:I'll reserve comment... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      While you can easily do this sort of research yourself with an obscure tool known as "Google", I'll help you.

      http://www.nature.com/nsu/011004/011004-8.html
      http://www.sciencenews.org/20020323/bob9.asp
      http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/558-2 .html
      http://www.spacedaily.com/news/blackhole-01b.html

      These reputable enough? They're all on the first page of results when searching for "large hadron collider" "black hole".

      You shouldn't judge a newspaper by its name; the Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the best English language papers there is, and in my experience, their science reporting is much better than average.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    2. Re:I'll reserve comment... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      Consider me suitably corrected & chastened. I appreciate the reply.

      Thanks!

    3. Re:I'll reserve comment... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Actually, for a long time I assumed that the CSM was some sort of propaganda like a newspaper version of the 700 Club. I don't remember what changed my mind. I think it was someone responding to me the same way I did to you. They have an interesting history. They do have a regular column promoting Christian Science, but I haven't detected

      The only thing I don't like about them is that their stylesheet mixes pixel-height fonts and point-height line-heights, which makes all the lines run together on Mozilla/Linux. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    4. Re:I'll reserve comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you didn't reserve comment. You posted one right there.

  33. In all seriousness by xihr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Natural cosmic ray (probably created by supernovae or hypernovae) are far more energetic than any puny little collision we can muster. Concerns about doing something bad because of our particle collider experiences is unwarranted; if something bad were potentially laying in wait, it would have already been sprung billions of years ago from cosmic rays events. The most energetic cosmic ray -- consisting of a single proton -- had the kinetic energy of a hard-thrown fastball.

    1. Re:In all seriousness by NanoProf · · Score: 1

      There is one (small) potential way out of the cosmic ray argument: give up lorentz invariance. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) defines a preferred reference frame, at least on the largest scales. Now all of the cosmic rays that impinge on the earth, if one wants to change reference frames and turn them into head-on symmetric collisions, as in a particle accelerator, end up with very large boosts relative to the cosmic microwave background, whereas the earth/accelerator reference frame is by comparison essentially at rest relative to the CMBR. So there is at least some measure of physical distinction between the two processes: ultrahigh energy cosmic rays and human-built colliders. However, one would be hard-pressed to connect that formal distinction to an actual mechanism to modify the dynamics of the Hawking radiation...

      --
      Curtains for windows?
    2. Re:In all seriousness by PSC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Natural cosmic ray (probably created by supernovae or hypernovae) are far more energetic than any puny little collision we can muster.

      First off, the origin of 10^20 eV cosmics is not at all understood. The Auger experiment for example is investigating this question.

      Second, those very high energetic cosmic particles crash into earth (or whatever object in their path), which is basically at rest (compared to the speed of the cosmics). In particle physics, this is called "fixed target mode". Since both energy and momentum are conserved in the crash, the particles produced in the collision are not at rest but must carry the momentum of the cosmics (think billard). Thus, only a small part of the energy of the cosmics is avalable for forming new objects, namely sqrt(E), which is only 10 GeV, well within range of terrestral accelerators since over 10 years. The rest of the cosmics' energy just propels the new objects.

      The Large Hadron Collider at CERN will crash protons at 7 TeV energy against other protons of the same energy/speed but opposite direction. This is called "collider mode", and the entire energy of 2x7=14 TeV is available for new objects.

      (Well, not really, since protons are themselves compound objects, made of 3 quarks and lots of "gluons" which glue the quarks together. So really its only a quark-quark or gluon-gluon collision with less than a sixth of 14 TeV but still more than the 10 GeV above.)

      There is of course the possibility of a cosmic particle colliding with another cosmic particle, but given the rate of 5 of those cosmics per 1000 km^2 per year, and the very low cross section of these high energetic particles, this isn't going to happen very often :-)

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
    3. Re:In all seriousness by mcelrath · · Score: 1
      Wrong. In fixed target mode, the center of mass energy is sqrt(2*m_p*E), assuming the primary is a proton and m_p is the mass of the proton (1 GeV). So the center of mass energy is upwards of 100 TeV, much greater than the 14 TeV available at the LHC.

      Furthermore, I think the scenario in which this happens is pretty far fetched. More realistic models (which can avoid proton decay, for instance) usually have to put the scale at which black holes form much higher (100 TeV or higher).

      Further furthermore, Hawking Evaporation is on a very sound theoretical footing. Hawking isn't famous for nuthin, ya know. With Hawking evaporation, these things will decay so quickly that they cannot pull in more matter.

      Nothing to see here, move along...

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    4. Re:In all seriousness by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I think the scenario in which this happens is pretty far fetched. More realistic models (which can avoid proton decay, for instance) usually have to put the scale at which black holes form much higher (100 TeV or higher).

      I'm familiar with the argument that you need large extra dimensions to be able to produce gravitational objects in the low TeV domain, but I've never heard proton decay cited as a constraint on this before. I'd be really interested in seeing a reference to this. Can you post one? (To be fair, most every theory these days seems to have something to say about proton stability, eventually.)

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    5. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:In all seriousness by mcelrath · · Score: 1
      The other reply to your post has a good review. There are ways around it however, such as imposing B-L as a discrete or broken gauge symmetry, or (in the context of extra dimensions), separating fermions in the extra dimension (a subject I have written about). But even this requires the gravity scale to be ~100 TeV, out of reach of the LHC. Frankly, the extra-D crowd are largely ignoring proton decay because it makes their lives very hard and I think it's wishful thinking. With a gravity scale at ~1 TeV you can write down the gravity-induced proton decay operator, and it gives rise to proton lifetime of ~minutes, where in reality it is > 10^32 years.

      There are many extra-dimension models that place the gravity scale back up where it belongs (> 10^16 GeV or so) and they do not face this problem, but we also will not be creating black holes at colliders this aeon...

      So yeah, as a physicist, who has written papers on this subject, I would place an extremely large wager that we will not be discovering black holes at colliders. Take that to mean what you will...

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    7. Re:In all seriousness by xihr · · Score: 1

      No, the cosmic ray background does not defined a preferred reference frame. It defines a frame, but "preferred frame" has a very special meaning in relativity -- it means a frame where the laws of physics work differently than in other frames. That certainly is not true of the cosmic background frame. It's unique in the same sense that a frame at rest with respect to the Earth is unique, but the laws of physics hardly work differently in Earth's rest frame rather than the cosmic background's.

      Furthermore, you're missing an obvious detail: Due to the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background frame is not even unique. At rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation is not transitive; at rest with respect to the cosmic background here is not at rest with respect to the cosmic background there.

    8. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The origin is not understood, but there are *a lot*.

      The difference between "fixed target" and "center-of-mass" is *not* E versus sqrt(E), unless you are in the appropiate units (which you aren't). If you have a total available energy of E (big compared to the masses of the particles involved) in a fixed target experiment, the energy at the center-of-mass is sqrt(E*m) (m is the mass of the target). LHC's target is a proton, and so are most cosmic rays, and a proton has a mass of ~1 GeV. So a 10^20 eV cosmic ray is equivalent to sqrt(10^20*eV * 10^9*eV) ~ 10^3 TeV, far above the few TeV that the LHC can get.

      So no need to look for a collision of two cosmic rays...

      See? nature was there far before we were. Don't worry be happy.

      (it's not the scientists who you should be afraid of, it's the politicians).
      jbc

    9. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh, I should read the other replies before posting :)

      (and yes, it is sqrt(2*E*m), I forgot the "2")
      jbc, who retires posting for real physics

  34. That's all folks by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bugs Bunny used these to escape from E. Fudd. Nothing new about them, then :)

  35. Almost.. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was primarily NASDAQ.

  36. OT by E_elven · · Score: 1
    You should read "Hyperion" by Dan Simmons.


    You should actually read the entire series (4 books.) Best literature on earth.
    --
    Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    1. Re:OT by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      I have. And I agree.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:OT by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      There's four of them? I only read Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion, I wasn't aware there were any more. Could you tell me a little more about the series? Amazon.com has a bunch of his books listed, but I'm not sure which ones are the "Hyperion" series. You're right though, there are truly excellent books.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    3. Re:OT by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Endymion and Rise of Endymion are the ones you're looking for. They take place, as I recall, about 400 years after the Fall of the Farcasters. Unfortunately I can't tell you much of anything about them without spoiling the story. Just read 'em.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    4. Re:OT by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Great, thanks a lot! I'm hitting amazon.com as we speak...

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    5. Re:OT by Lane.exe · · Score: 1
      Hear, hear!

      Mod this man up, please!

      --
      IAALS.
  37. It is not really that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't have the links handy, I do recall hearing about this at least a year ago. The hypothesis goes that if much of the force of gravity is confined into other dimensions all curled up on each other, then when you collide two particles with enough energy, they would enter a regime where that gravity could affect them, and immediatly collaps down into a black hole with the mass of the two particles. Such a hole would evaporate immediatly by Hawking radiation and be observed as a spray of random elementry particles. And if the hypothesis is correct but Hawking was wrong, we are screwed anyway, because the relevant energies hit the planet quite frequently in the form of cosmic rays, creating mini-black holes in the upper atmosphere all the time. If they didn't decay, then they are somewhere inside the earth even now.

  38. What if... by VTS · · Score: 1

    ...one of these physics experiments (not necessarily this one) just vaporises the earth? Its not like they understand everything yet so how can they be sure its safe?
    Maybe it works just like they think it will or maybe they will create an artificial big-bang or something.

    Or am I just too damn paranoid?

    --
    --- No 16-bit support in Vista? Half of our modules still use it! ---
    1. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess we find out which religion was right :)

  39. Aside by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    from all the other reasons, it's because a black hole doens't have any magic "sucking powers"

    Beyond the event horizon, it acts as any other massive body.

    A black hole the same size mass as the sun would be much smaller, but at our distance from it, gravity would be the same, so the earth would continue to orbit...

    That kind of thing.

    So would a little black hole be dangerous? Sure.. you have to have a way to keep it in place, with electric fields or whatever... but other than that... it's not really a big issue.
    Beyond it's event horizon, a black hole is just another massive object.

    1. Re:Aside by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      OK, so say they make a black hole, hold it in place by magnetic fields, and then there's an earthquake. Power goes out, etc, and the hole falls down sucking more and more in until it IS big enough to cause a problem...

      Not an acceptable risk. Perhaps the reason we have never encountered other intelligent life in the universe is because all intelligences advance their technology until they make a black hole that sucks in and destroys the entire planet.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
      The black hole dissapates due to the Hawking Effect.

      Please try and relax, oh and take your thorazine before bedtime skippy!

    3. Re:Aside by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      The black hole dissapates due to the Hawking Effect.

      If they were so sure of the Hawking effect (which they're not), then why bother looking for it? Yes, extensive testing has shown it to be theoretically valid, but "you never know".

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    4. Re:Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, can I ask you a question? I have this friend who lives in Pasadena, see, and he tried this recently and now he's got a little problem in his basement. Can you tell me, I mean my friend - I'm pretty sure he reads slashdot - some more details about your "electric fields or whatever" that can keep little black holes absolutely fixed in space relative to the earth? I'm trying to stuff phone books and throw bags of concrete under it right now, but it's not working. This is kind of important. Thanks. I'll check back every couple minutes. For my friend.

    5. Re:Aside by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you get this "sucking more and more in". Anything passing the event horizon would add to the mass, and make it slightly larger. A super tiny black hole such as we are talking about can't suck in much matter, or get very large.... it's not going to eat the earth. The density of the earth, compared to the density of a black hole is a HUGE difference... what I mean is, even if it falls to the core of the earth, and knid of orbits around in there for a while, it's not going to expand forever.. it will reach some kind of equilibrium. You have to add a lot of mass relatively speaking to make that thing grow... it's not exponential growth or anything.

      ALso, if this would create black holes, so would normal cosmic rays hitting stuff, all the time, on a daily basis.... and the earth hasn't been swallowed yet, neither has the rest of the universe.

    6. Re:Aside by NetFu · · Score: 1

      If they were so sure of the Hawking effect (which they're not), then why bother looking for it?

      And, at one point in history everyone was SOO sure the Earth was the center of the universe, so why did we bother checking that?

      Uum, it's called scientific progress. Maybe we should decide it's not worth it in this case (at this point in time), but to ask why we bother to check hypotheses and theories is absolutely idiotic...

    7. Re:Aside by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      RTFT (thread)

      Uum, it's called scientific progress.

      I know that bonehead. The original poster claimed that this experiment was safe because of Hawking radiation. Well, if we're checking for Hawking radiation, then isn't that because that we believe that there is some small, even minscule, chance that it doesn't exist? Doesn't that make justifiying the safety of it based on what we're looking for a little wrong? It doesn't make logical sense.

      Perhaps, you should try to read the meaning of my statements and the context next time.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    8. Re:Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real chance for something not existing is the for the black hole in the first place. Black hole creation in LHC is based on a very speculative theory -- much more speculative than the theory of Hawking radiation. If we don't see them, it's probably not because they were created and didn't emit Hawking radiation, it was because they weren't created at all.

  40. Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article.

    "But wait", I hear you say, "Has anyone considered that creating artificial black holes might not be the best idea?" The idea of creating black holes in the laboratory has to give one pause. I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC. The black holes produced at CERN will be millions of times smaller than the nucleus of an atom; too small to swallow much of anything. And they'll only live for a tiny fraction of a second, too short a time to swallow anything around them even if they wanted to. If it makes you feel any more comfortable, we're pretty sure that if the LHC can produce black holes, then so can cosmic rays, high-energy particles that smash into our atmosphere every day. There are probably a few tiny black holes forming and dying far above you right now. So I think we should all relax, fire up the Large Hadron Collider, and get ready for a view of the universe that we've never seen before.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      I think it will be safe. It makes me feel better to know that cosmic rays do this all the time. On the other hand.. well, we've never observed cosmic rays doing this, the same theory just points it out.

      that better be a good theory..

    2. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by RoninM · · Score: 1

      Why? If the theory's wrong, then cosmic rays don't do it. And if cosmic rays don't do it, then the LHC won't do it. It's not as if a bunch of Scientists and oversight committees have suddenly forgotten how to do science or employ common sense for public safety. Sheesh.

      --
      If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
    3. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by calethix · · Score: 1

      "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago"

      If it sucked up some of the traffic and people but left Six Flags untouched, I'd be happy. :)

    4. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by hanmer · · Score: 1

      I did read the article. Is it really all that reassuring?

      Disturbing words in this quote from the article are:

      "might not"
      "at least not in the manner planned"
      "to swallow anything even if they wanted to"
      "we're pretty sure"
      "probably"

      So I assume these are our last few days and will be living accordingly. Whoo-hoo!

    5. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The media likes to play up risks to make it sound Mysterious and Exciting and Dangerous.

    6. Re:Next time, Read the Story FIRST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because mankind has never done ANYTHING and found out later that they shouldn't have.

  41. Re:Erm by raider_red · · Score: 1

    If you're going to throw that out, would you care to explain to those of us who aren't quantum mechanics experts what Lamarck's theorum is, you stupid socially inept person.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  42. Black hole in the cellar by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here is an old czech folk song (it actually rhymes in original)

    "We used to have a grandpa and he was getting pretty old. One day in July - early morning -
    he went into the cellar - to get a pitchfork
    for haymaking. But he never made it back, it looks like that he has vanished for good.

    Chorus: "We have a small black hole in the cellar.
    It eats everything it finds and it has no restraint. Grandma, please don't go there for coal - or it will eat you too - and police will never ever find you!"

    Scientists came from far away - and from near too, grandma is nervous and beats us all, the kids. She is all alone there to do the cleaning and taking care of kitchen - while grandpa sits in the cellar and is infinitely heavy.

    Chorus: "We have a small black hole...

    Don't worry grandma, please don't despair, my wife is making the lunch. Her food is usualy quite terrible and I am gonna use it to feed the black hole. So I fed the leftovers from lunch to the black hole and it threw up everything including the grandpa. Then I took the chaisaw and cut the hole into pieces. And so the man won again over mysterious forces.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:Black hole in the cellar by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Now I know where I got my twisted sense of humor from... I'm a quarter Carpatho-Rusyn. If this is from that part of the Czech republic... 'Nuff said.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    2. Re:Black hole in the cellar by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Well, it's better than the horrible "there's a hole in my bucket, Eliza, Eliza."

      I never did figure out why the fuck they couldn't just patch the goddamn bucket.

    3. Re:Black hole in the cellar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With what would they patch it, eh?

    4. Re:Black hole in the cellar by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      Windows Update, duh.

      --
      IAALS.
  43. The Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of Stephen Donaldson's 'Singularity Grenades' - highly unstable, highly experimental and never appropriate for use.

  44. Furthermore by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

    this has nothign to do with singularities. What a black hole is to an outside observe (just an event horizon) and what's INSIDE IT (a singularity, a shell, a universe?) is irrelevenat... the area beyond an event horizon is undefined.

    FOr any given energy density, there is a diameter at which there is an event horizon.

    Things no more get sucked into a black hole than thigns get sucked into a star, or any other gravity well.

  45. We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Troll
    If we are going to stop this madness we need to educate politicans and the general community.

    Its not right to wipe out our own existance just for some stupid experiments.

    The idea of course is extremely absurd which is why the funding this happened. If only people knew the potential risks of such a disaster.

    I noticed alot of cern is based in belguim so I am going to search the web for some belgian government email addresses.

    1. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only people knew the potential risks of such a disaster


      Go ahead, tell us what the "potential risks of this experiment are". Reconcile this with the fact that cosmic rays hitting the Earth are exactly like a giant particle accelerator, only even more powerful.


      I noticed alot of cern is based in belguim so I am going to search the web for some belgian government email addresses.


      Go ahead: they'll probably give you the standard crank treatment: snicker and post a printout of your mail on their office door.
    2. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please educate yourself about the matter before complaining about it to CERN. Scientists doing research in these areas are much more knowledgeable about the dangers of such experiments than the average Slashdot reader is, and I assure you that they do not want to kill themselves.

      Now, if you have a degree in Physics, it might be different, but as it is, you are just misguiding the public. There have always been fears of disasters from new experiments: for example, many movies were made about monsters being formed by radiation. And furthermore, the fear of genetic engineering, etc. Most of these are caused by the lack of education in the public about such things, and people who think they know more than they do. Please, don't speak so strongly about things you don't understand. It can have very unfortunate effects --- such as spreading fear of genetically modified foods, and of radiation, to look at the past.

    3. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by linzeal · · Score: 1

      At least some of their politicians are stoners over in europe as opposed to our cocaine and booze swilling ones here. You might have luck with the paranoid ones.

    4. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stop trolling, foo'! It has already been explained several times in subthreads you've been party to that particle collision experiments like this are happening at much higher energy levels constantly in the upper atmosphere.

      Arrrrrgh!

    5. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Christ man! Live a little! All human advancement takes place at the risk of the entire world. Take for example... The Printing Press! The dangers of movable type were not very well explored! What if they turned it on and weren't able to shut it down? What if the type evolved consciousness and started taking over the world? Did those fears keep them from making the printing press? No! And we're better for it! If we listened to the luddites every time something dangerous stood between us and advancement, we'd still be sitting around in caves! Without fire!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:We need the email addresses of funders for cern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you're like that guy with the white hair in "Contact" that blew up the first "machine", aren't you?

      THE SKY IS FALLING!

  46. Europe Stop! by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 1, Funny

    First they want to replace our GPS, now they want to open a gateway to hell. Please Stop Europe!!! Just fade into the history books.

  47. A different kind of danger? by grungy · · Score: 1
    If people had known about Los Alamos they'd have been scared of that: people these days protest genetically modified foods. New science with the power to destroy (GMO's have maybe only the power to "drift" on the wind and out-compete native species) often gives rise to public fear, ill-founded or no.

    Bombs - even nuclear ones - are familiar and have limited range. Certain types of GMO's may be scary (release an oil-eating bug to clean up a spill and it eats all the oil in the world, etc.), but lots of places have survived the introduction of non-native species, which seems similar.

    Something about the idea of a hole that can eat all the matter on the Earth (& solar system, etc., etc.) is scarier than other technologies with potential for "oops". Even if the physics says it "shouldn't" be a problem, it's scarier.

    I'm usually sympathetic to the idea that smart folks who've done the math should be given deference when it comes to making decisions about implementation of new technology, but in this case a popular reaction of "Oh, Shit! Don't do that!" feels well-warranted.

  48. More goatse.cx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think anyone's going to click on a link entitled http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?location=http:// goatse.cx/loopback.jpg?

  49. Why are electrons not black holes by mdubinko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something I've wondered about: Electrons definately have mass, and seem to have a zero physical size.

    So, why are they not black hole singularities with infinite mass? Why don't they evaporate in a puff of Hawking radiation?

    --
    --- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
    1. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electrons might be singularities, but of course they are not of infinite mass: they have finite mass. (You're probably thinking of infinite density, which they theoretically would be if they're of zero size.) However, that doesn't make them black holes: they violate the mass/charge/angular-momentum inequalities for classsical black holes, so they'd strictly speaking be naked singularities, without a horizon.

      Of course, classical physics doesn't apply here, and we don't have a replacement theory of quantum gravity, so we can't really say whether electrons are really singularities or not.

    2. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many physicists believe that electrons are actually charged spinning rings. The physicist that came up with the currently used electron orbital theory believes that they have a real physical size, shape, and mass.

    3. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by MetricT · · Score: 1

      An even better question is this: could you tell the difference between an electron and a black hole with the mass and charge of an electron?

      Black hole evaporation in the low mass limit always struck me as being similar to a high-energy particle spewing off particles to transition to a lower energy state (think muon -> electron + assorted neutrinos + gamma rays). Maybe we're all made of black holes and just haven't discovered it yet?

    4. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many physicists believe that electrons are actually charged spinning rings.


      No, they don't. That's Dave Bergman's nutty crackpot theory, which zero physicists believe.


      The physicist that came up with the currently used electron orbital theory believes that they have a real physical size, shape, and mass.


      The currently used "electron orbital theory" wasn't invented by a single physicist; it was the work of many, including Heisenberg, Schroedigner, Pauli, etc. Their theory has actually been superseded by the more accurate quantum electrodynamics (Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga), but the QED corrections are usually ignored. In both QM and QED, the electron is a point particle.
    5. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electrons are stable particles, and do not spontaneously decay. Black holes of that size are highly unstable.

    6. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by jgardn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      IAAP - I am a Physicist

      Easy: Electrons are not black holes.

      What is a black hole? It is a collection of matter so dense that light and any other form of radiation cannot escape it.

      For the record: Electrons do have a "physical size". It is just very, very, very small.

      Now, go back to your algebra books. Read the algebra equations. See them dance and play. Then you move into Trigonometry, where you realize that there is something deep, very deep, here but you cannot put your finger on it. When you move up to calculus, then you can start learning "real physics". Conquer the field of calculus, understand Newtonian mechanics in all its beautiful glory, then you move into Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, and Electromagnetism. Master that, then you can start to consider this mysterious "electron". But you will not understand it, just like no physicist understands it today. If you are able to understand it, then I hope you get a Nobel prize for it. But unless you gain the same learning that we have already achieved, you have no hope of ever understanding it.

      Right now, you should be contemplating the parobola of the path of a mass as it moves through two dimensions under the effects of gravity. Your poor mind is unable to contemplate anything more magnificent yet.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    7. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YAADE - You are a Dick Eater

      Perhaps you could be a little more condesending.

    8. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      IAAAP - I Also Am A Physicist.

      It's jerks like you that the rest of us well-meaning geeks a bad name.

      Are you being so very condescending because you can't explain what an electron is? Are you afraid that makes you no better than the rest of the unwashed masses? Do you have deep-seated insecurities about your fundamental particles?

      And 'for the record' we still haven't figured out how to define the physical size of an electron--it may well have zero effective volume.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    9. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, Mr. I AM A PHYSICIST, I am also a physicist. So tell me, what is the size of an electron?

      When you answer that, you'll get a Nobel prize for it.

      In quantum field theory, electrons are pointlike. They might not actually be pointlike in nature, but we have no evidence for their size.

      Incidentally, nothing you said forbids electrons from being black holes. (However, the charge/mass/angular-momentum inequalities do, at least classically.)

    10. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 1

      Oh, great. The sci.physics loons have discovered /.

      On the other hand, sci.physics is a lot funnier than the trolls that hang out here, so it's probably an improvement.

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    11. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      With all these wonderful masters of physics around I was wondering if there was a laymen's explination of how the hell anything could escape a black hole and yet still maintain C as the speed limit of the universe ( hawking radiation ) and if there is any indication yet if we live outside the event horizon of the begining of the universe or if the universe still exists inside of an event horizon dating back to the collection of mass at the big bang ?

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    12. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No real particle escapes from inside the black hole.

      I don't know what you mean by an event horizon of the Big Bang. Everything in the universe is causally influenced by the Big Bang.

    13. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      No real particle .... ack I give on that, going to have to go back to learning to get that one. If there is dissipation there is loss of mass. Otherwise what is disipating ? Perhaps its a poor term buts its used alot, That then seems to break the limit of light speed somehow as whatever escapes has to escape the schwartzchild (however you spell it) radius.

      As for the Big Bang thing I will pose it this way. If all matter was compresed into a small area then it stands to reason there was an event horizon. Of course I understand there is a growing belife that the constants of physcis where in flux at that point.... Think a big string theorist guy was using that idea to deal with the issue of inital expansion rates after the BANG. However that would seem irrelevant as what ever the light speed value was nothing could have ever exceeded it.. so unless light speed at formation was so high that the matter was not suffciently dense to create an event horizon there was indeed an event horizon and it could never be escaped thus we are in a contracting universe... Ok thats way off the deep end for me... but perhaps that gets across the idea of what I was asking.

      I certainly am not a physics person but the Light speed limitation and the big bang just don't seem to mesh unless we are inside the event horizon of the collection of matter from right before the Big Bang.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    14. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD UP SCIENCE !!!

      SCIENCE IS NOT FLAMEBAIT !!!

      Someone bothers to try to teach a little science to these know-it-alls and it gets labled flamebait !!

      The bottom line is this : In modern physics the results of extremely precise experiments match to trillions of a percent with the results of mind numbingly complex calculations that no one is sure of the "meaning" of.

      The equations work. All Human language translations of those equations is inaccurate, so one mystical hand waving explanation is offered after another until everyone who can read is satisfied that they kind of get it. Well sorry, you are being lied to; you don't get "it" if you don't get the math. The math is "it".

    15. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is dissipation there is loss of mass. Otherwise what is disipating ?


      The black hole loses mass, but matter doesn't have to travel from inside the hole to outside for it to lose mass. (The mass of the hole isn't even characterized by its matter content; strictly speaking, there is no matter inside a black hole, other than perhaps transient matter that falls in every once in a while.)

      You might have a better handle on the virtual pair production analogy for Hawking radiation; think of the radiation as being produced at the horizon, not inside of it.


      If all matter was compresed into a small area then it stands to reason there was an event horizon.


      No, that doesn't follow. Large density doesn't automatically imply that a horizon forms. See this FAQ.
    16. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's flamebait because it didn't answer the question, what little attempt at an answer was wrong (electrons having a finite size), and because the majority of it was simply patronizing.

      I actually gave an explanation of why electrons can't be black holes: their quantum numbers violate the black hole inequality between mass, charge, and angular momentum. Thus, they would have to be naked singularities. Now that's actual science, and it doesn't involve telling the poster to come back after he's self-taught himself graduate physics.

    17. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      I understand..... wait make that I can envision matter being blown off from outside of the horizon for a simple reason... outside of the horizon escape velocity does not exceed C.

      If there is not matter per say inside the black hole then what formed it... I thought it was matter which became sufficiently dense that its gravitational pull caused its escape velocity to exceed that of C. IE in the article they are talking about compressing the nucleuses to a sufficient point to exceed the density needed to form a S_Radius

      If mass is being lost from inside an event horizon where is it going ? MOre importantly how the hell is it leaving ? Mostly a rhetorical question... I imagine the answer is many years of school and probably a nobel prize or two.

      Thanks for the link, I'll dig into that later. I have always been under the impression that the compression of matter prior to the big bang was into essentially a deminsionless point ala ye olde electron which is why I made that assumption that it follows there would have been an event horizon. In fact I would imagine if all the matter of the universe were compressed to the size of an electron be it a point or not I would imagine escape velocity would be many multiples of C if not many powers of C with the appropriate exponential drop off acording to the increasing radius out to the S_Radius. Course the properties of Anti-matter might goof that one up.... damn stuff is pesky as hell to experiment with :-).

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    18. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Electrons are stable particles, and do not spontaneously decay. Black holes of that size are highly unstable.

      Really? What would be the decay products of a charged black hole with the mass of an electron? I haven't heard of any charged particles with less mass.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    19. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes form from the collapse of matter, but all the matter quickly ends up at the singularity, which as far as GR is concerned, is out of existence. You're left with a pure vacuum.

      I didn't say that mass is "leaving from inside a horizon". In GR, mass is a property of the entire spacetime -- it's not localized somewhere such as "inside" or "outside" the horizon. In particular, you can have solutions (such as black holes) that have mass, but no matter anywhere.

      An event horizon encloses a region of space from which light cannot escape to infinity. That means that if there's a horizon, there has to be an "outside the horizon". But there's no such thing as outside the universe.

      You may be incorrectly thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion of something located in an otherwise empty space, and then the horizon consists of the region of empty space that the explosion hasn't reached yet. If so, that's not correct; the Big Bang was when all locations in the universe were compressed to a point -- the Big Bang was everywhere in space, all at once.

    20. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said the decay products have to carry charge? It couldn't decay out of existence, but it could lose arbitrarily much mass through decay to photons.

      Besides, an object with the mass, charge, and spin of an electron violates the laws of black hole mechanics; it would have to be a naked singularity.

    21. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      That first sounds more like a limitation of GR than anything else to me... at a rough guess I would imagine its part of what led to SR

      Law of conservation tells me the matter is somwhere as it can't be created or destroyed, even if its compressed to a deminsionless point it is still there and we can see the efects of its presence. Unless I am totally spaced mass is a measure of matter therefor to have mass implies matter. Perhaps my understanding of the conservation of mass/energy is too simplistic.

      As for my take on the Big Bang.. could be. Obviously I am not well versed in the minute details of the theory. However it seems to me that is all a semantic issue based on the deffinition of the universe. The 'Soap bubble' multiverse idea would imply that there indeed was an explosion located in an otherwise unoccupied or perhaps even occupied space ( and thus did have a horizon ). At anyrate if the demensions of the universe today are greater than it was at the Big bang where was the space into which it has expanded before the bang ? Or is it simply that the universe then is the universe now and silly things like deminsions have no real meaning other than convienence for our perception.. ie the concentration of matter ( space/time ) made the demenions effectivly the same for the singularity formed prior to the big bang as today its just our perceptions of the deminsions that change.... ack brain melt, think I'll leave off there and let the ole noodle cool off.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    22. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Various points:

      SR came before GR.

      Mass is not a measure of matter in GR. You can construct vacuum solutions to GR (including, but not limited to black holes) which have mass.

      There is no "conservation of matter" law. Matter can be converted to energy. In this case, Hawking radiating can be interpreted as quanta of spacetime geometry being converted to quanta of radiation/matter, so perhaps matter is converted to geometry at a singularity.

      "Soap bubble" multiverses aside, it's not correct to claim that just because space expanded, there was something outside of it to expand "into". Distances are intrinsic to the universe, and in GR, distances between points in the universe can change, without there being anything outside the universe. So in a sense, you're correct: space expands because our perception of the spatial dimensions changes: those dimensions changed in size.

    23. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Dought... damn I have always seen them presented backwards then.. IE GR discussed then SR discussed always thought it was a linear presentation. Oh well live and learn.. there is my new thing for the day or at least one of them.

      Mass is not linked to matter in GR ? Say which ?

      as for conservation of matter/mass visa vi e=mc^2 as I understood it that simply reffered to its two extreme states. IE matter is energy. The equation is balanced. Turning matter into energy does not make it dissapear.

      e=mc^2
      however that means
      m=e/c^2

      matter as stored energy or energy as stored matter is same difference.

      So matter of whatever amount.. be it two hadrons colliding at high speed or a supermassive star runnning out of gass reaches sufficient density via gravitional collapse or high speed collision to form a singularity.

      Now what ? Convert the Matter to energy or comperess it till it has no demension, only mass whatever you like but the speed limit of the universe means it can't escape the S_radius defined by the mass of the singularity.

      ack I give.... mostly just thinking out loud now.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    24. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Special relativity is Einstein's theory of mechanics in flat spacetime. It came first, and is usually discussed first. General relativity is his theory of gravity, which he obtained by allowing spacetime to curve.

      In GR, mass is a global property of the entire spacetime; because of spacetime curvature, it's actually not possible to say how much mass there is at a point. (This is a complicated issue involving gravitational energy.) Rather, people have to define the "mass" of a body by its gravitational effects on distant bodies -- e.g., if it makes bodies have such-and-such orbits, then there must be so-and-so mass present in the spacetime. (But it's not possible to localize the mass and say exactly where in the spacetime it is.) Keywords are things like "ADM mass". In particular, there can be spacetimes that are pure vacuum (no matter or radiation), but have nonzero spacetime curvature (nonzero gravity), and nonzero mass.

      This is a pretty subtle issue that doesn't get discussed enough, IMHO.

      I wouldn't say that matter "is" energy; rather, I'd say that it has energy as one of its properties (that energy given by E=mc^2). But it has properties other than energy as well (such as spin, charge, etc.)

      So, you can compress matter into a singularity, but the nature of that singularity is in question. It might not be matter; it could be some other kind of field, or it could be just a concentrated region of spacetime curvature (vacuum, but nonzero gravity).

    25. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Poor choice of words... I was mostly just reffering to the fact that other aspects aside matter and energy can move to either side of that equation... I would have stated it better as mass has energy and energy has mass and the relation is mathmatically stated as E=mc^2. Take any value of E or m and you can solve for the other.

      Thanks for the info, and I appreciate all the responses. That link dealing with the Bang and H_radiation were excellent. Mostly just raise more questions though :-) I generally go cross eyed at space time curvature. I can accept space time constructs that allow for mass without matter, I have a vauge understanding of how you can zero matter out of the equation by folding space time.

      However I just don't follow how you can zero matter out of an equation when you start with matter and compress it to the point of creating a S_radius... my understanding says you can keep it or convert it to energy but thats it, its going to be there inside that radius in one form or another.... compress it down to a geometric point thats fine by me but it didn't go anywhere. Its a point. That point has co-ordinates and a timeline of existence and you can observe its effects as exibited by its gravitational influence on its neighbors. All space encompassed by the singularity might be a vacuum but not the singularity itself... perhaps its a limitation of euclidian geometry but the way I see it you can't fit infinite points at a set point.. IE only one point goes at the point... any defined physcial space is comprised by an infinite amount of points, but a point defines the utmost breakdown, the smallest unbreakable denominator by its deffinition it defines a singular point. Thus that one point of the infinity of points withen the S-radius that defines the singularity possess the matter in some shape or form that created it.... at least when speaking of a singularity formed from a concentration of matter.

      Anyway.... My ultimate theory is that the Event Horizon is the hiding place of Schroedinger's damn cat since in terms of direct observation we can't stick our noses inside that limit... in fact by deffinition it pretty much defies observation all around which leaves us with blackboard gibberish with which to work. Not that you can't accomplish great things on a black board but this similar state of affairs created the wondefully complex and beautiful construct of Ptolemy. I wonder if the next 'Galileo' will find evidence corroberating all the black board dancing we have done regarding black holes or if they will turn it all on its ear.

      Is this something you deal with as a hobby or proffesionaly ? For me its pure curiosity, perhaps one day I will lessen my ignorance of the more intimate details of these theories that bug me so much from time to time.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    26. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether there is still matter at the singularity is unknown; GR breaks down there. We don't even know if there really is a singularity. However, whether there is or not, or whether there is matter there or not, my point was that the mass of the black hole isn't really due to what's going on at the singularity. Space curves in on itself an forms a stable region that possesses mass. (In fact, no matter what happens at the singularity, it isn't going to affect the horizon, and it's the horizon geometry that affects the outside gravitational field, and hence the mass.)

      Not to nitpick, but the singularity doesn't have coordinates or a worldline; that's what makes it a singularity. It's mathematically a "hole in spacetime", not a point in spacetime. But this could well be an artifact of the failure of GR to describe high curvatures.

      As for me, I spent the last four years working toward a Ph.D. in quantum gravity, but I was recently forced out of the field when my advisor left and couldn't support me at his new institution.

    27. Re:Why are electrons not black holes by tmortn · · Score: 1

      *crossed eyes*

      He he... like I said thats the point at which the theory looses me. Leave it to me to butt heads with an almost PHD in Quantum Gravity. Hope you get a chance to finish it. You have a handle you post under ? Hard to tell one AC from another

      I think most of my problems accepting the concepts stem from the fact I refuse to accept lightspeed as a limitation and I refuse to accept time dilation. Which gives me fits with discussions of space time as discribed by GR. Probably puts me on a moral level with the Flat Earth Society but hey.. instead of wanting to be anachronistic at least my refusal is based in my desire for humanity to head for the stars instead of just look at them :-)

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  50. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the Jesus theorum, black holes do not exist. God don't make no junk.

  51. Good Place For It by Pooua · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    They're hoping to use the new Large Hadron Collider at the European Center for Nuclear Research

    That's a great idea! Europe already is one giant black hole!

    --
    Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  52. wow by tempny · · Score: 4, Funny

    I honestly don't think I've ever seen this many paranoid, uninformed, and irrational responses to one slashdot story. And I am aware of how many of those there usually are.

    People almost sound as if ms were trying to make these black holes.

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly don't think I've ever seen this many paranoid, uninformed, and irrational responses to one slashdot story.

      Don't read many of the pro-linux posts, do ya?

    2. Re:wow by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      What if Apple made black holes? The iHole. *snicker* Of course that's pretty much what buying a Mac is, huh?

    3. Re:wow by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Looks typical to me....

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  53. not really by theblacksun · · Score: 1

    The way they're creating "colliding antiprotons with protons" happens in the atmosphere all the time. So if it does not cause a castastrophe then it more than likely will not cause a castastrophe later because if the Hawking effect was bogus and black holes did not decay one of those created in the atmosphere would get to the center eventually and destroy it. *insert thunderclap* Seeing as that has not happened yet I'm not all too worried. No one says the experiment is going to succeed in creating a black hole anyway.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
  54. They should read some sci-fi first... by TexVex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    James P. Hogan has written about artificial black holes in at least two of his novels. In Thrice Upon a Time, scientists accidentally created a bunch of microscopic black holes tha turned out to be stable, and proceeded to destroy the earth, pac-man style. In The Genesis Machine a machine can create small singularities and turns out to be useful as a doomsday weapon.

    Ok, so it's just sci-fi and the author ignores (or misunderstands) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics. And it's still a good read. But -- if these guys are actually going to go creating singularities, could we make 'em set up shop on the moon to do it? I'd rather not have a black hole in my back yard. Yes, I know the article makes some reassuring statements about the incredible smallness and short life-span of such a thing. But, seriously, splitting the atom led to the Cold War and we're all still sitting on enough nukes to turn Earth into a warm glob of glowing goo. I hope we don't rush headlong into this singularity thing -- what if it turns out to be more dangerous than fusion bombs?

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    1. Re:They should read some sci-fi first... by druske · · Score: 1

      David Brin's Earth also comes to mind as a read on playing with gravity and black holes. The idea of the earth becoming sentient seemed a little silly (if I remember the novel correctly), but it was entertaining nonetheless.

    2. Re:They should read some sci-fi first... by mwood · · Score: 1

      More than two. The Giants use circulating black holes to generate the stressfields for their nifty propulsion and communication systems. (_Inherit the Stars_, _The Gentle Giants of Ganymede_, _Giants' Star_, _Entoverse_.)

      I wondered how many milliseconds it would take for someone to think of _Thrice Upon a Time_.

  55. Are they doing this research on a base on Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this research sponsored by Union Aerospace Corp, an arm of the most powerful conglomerate on Earth? I'm going to keep my Glock handy.

    1. Re:Are they doing this research on a base on Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were a smart man you'd keep a Sig-Sauer P226 or P228 handy instead of a GlockB ;)

  56. Where's Fred Moody when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from Microsoft-toting / Linux-bashing ABCNews articles, Moody was famous for his dire warnings that the Brookhaven Labs experiments were going to destroy the universe. Now that we're going to actually make a black hole that can turn the earth into swiss cheese, where is he to sound the alarm? Well, he got fired from ABCNews, so no such luck. [I did a quick check and, remarkably, even though his last book got the worst reviews in Amazon history (like Jayson Blair kind of bad), he's at it again with a new book about Seattle.]

  57. It's better than [goatse.cx] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of retards on Slashdot

  58. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no such thing as "Lamarck's theorem", and even if there was, any work by Einstein on classical black hole dynamics has been superseded by Hawking's quantum mechanical work.

  59. Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I know is CmdrTaco isn't really a commander, and Cowboy Neal isn't really a Cowboy. But they are both flaming homosexuals.

  60. Black holes are just heavy particles by zymano · · Score: 1
    black holes are nothing magical. They should be renamed SuperMatter . They can't be seen with light. There is no such hole into another dimension.

    If you want to travel through other dimensions and faster than light than you might want to research way beyond the sub particle worlds of higs bosons where our laws of physics may not apply and where everything happens instantaneously. I am god.

  61. Anybody read much David Brin? by Strenoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    book in question: "Earth"

    lesson Learned? Make the !@$#%$^!&! things OFFPLANET, especially since we don't have any convienet ray-guns that can push/pull with gravitational forces. and yes, he knew enough to invoke the Hawking Radiation ideas too.

    --

    "It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'

    1. Re:Anybody read much David Brin? by zabieru · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if you'd read the book REALLY well, you'd notice that at the sizes 'cavitronics' (hand-waving) could make black holes, which would be larger than is possible with current tech, they WEREN'T stable, which is why he had to use more hand-waving and invent a 5-dimensional knot singularity that actually WOULD be stable. For those who haven't read it, Brin is an astrophysicist, so it's GOOD hand-waving, but he freely admits that he just made that stuff up.

    2. Re:Anybody read much David Brin? by PopeZaphod · · Score: 1

      I loved his essay on how, despite everything he's written in the Uplift novels, he is fairly certain that dolphins will never be able to talk to humans - even with genemod.

      --
      ->
    3. Re:Anybody read much David Brin? by zabieru · · Score: 1

      He's basically said that when he sat down to write Uplift, he thought to himself "Hm, I'll write a space opera. They need a way to go faster than light. No, wait. Make that a dozen ways. Might as well go over the top, eh?" and that's how we got things like fighting planetoids and probabilty beams...

  62. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if is dangerous, what are you going to do about it? NOTHING. Besides, if it does go out of control no one will care... because they'll be dead.

  63. Had to point this out by m1a1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of people are mucking up a fuss about the black hole sucking everything up. It should be pointed out that these claims are by and large ridiculous.

    It seems to be a mistaken idea that the gravity of an object is determined by its density. This obviously isn't so. Two electrons collided in a collider at high energy still have the mass of two electrons. Even if they are crunched into a "black hole" the gravity is not enough to suck everything into it anymore than two electrons sitting next to each other could suck everything up.

    1. Re:Had to point this out by meowsqueak · · Score: 1

      It is related to density however - consider a large cosmic object, like a star. As it collapses, the total mass doesn't change (of course) but the same mass is present in a smaller volume (hence a higher density). It's the concentration of mass that creates extremely high gravitational fields when near to the centre of mass. So a reference object situated (say) 1 metre away from the CoM experiences a certain attractive force from the combined mass only 1 metre away!

      When this same mass is uncompressed (i.e. the original star in a 'normal' state) and the same reference object is placed 1 metre away from the CoM (effectively *inside* the star) it is surrounded in every direction by roughly the same amount of 'stuff'. The gravitational attraction from all this mass almost cancels each other out.

      Even standing on the surface of the star, the gravitational attraction from the mass on the far side is much less (due to the non-linear diminishing factor).

      So it is about density in a way - too much stuff too close by 'sucks things up'... The only way you can get enough mass close enough is for it to have an extremely high density, otherwise it simply takes up too much space and the closest you can get to it is too limiting due to the inverse distance factor.

      Anyway, that's my simple laymans understanding. I'm not a physicist and I'm ignoring all that stuff about singularities and stuff. I'm sure it gets a lot more complicated than that.

    2. Re:Had to point this out by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      Even if they are crunched into a "black hole" the gravity is not enough to suck everything into it anymore than two electrons sitting next to each other could suck everything up.

      They sure do suck the money (to do the experiment that is).

    3. Re:Had to point this out by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's two protons actually (sorry, but I'm sitting at CERN at the moment, working on this experiment so I'm allowed to be pedantic ;-)

  64. Eddington limit by dark-br · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just speculating, but since black holes do evaporate, and the smaller they are the faster they evaporate, I wonder what the implications of evaporation would be in the presense of an acretion disk.

    Given that in the process of evaporation, a black hole emits radiation, at some point the radiation pressure from the evaporation would balance out the force of gravity pulling matter into the black hole so then the black hole might stabilize in size.

    Surely they'll have named that limit already, but I don't think it's the same as the eddington limit.

    Or perhaps there won't be a limit here because the cross section area of the acretion disk would be so small compared to the surface area of the event horizon. (yes, I think that incoming matter would have to form a disk and not form an acretion shell)

    1. Re:Eddington limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Most astrophysical black holes are not evaporating due to Hawking radiation, because they absorb more energy from the cosmic background -- let alone accretion disks -- than they radiate. They are growing, not evaporating.

    2. Re:Eddington limit by misterpies · · Score: 1


      There's no radiation pressure inside the black hole, because all the radiation comes from _outside_ the event horizon (as it must do, since nothing can escape the horizon).

      Basically Hawking radiation is a consequence of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum plus an event horizon. In a vacuum, "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs (including photons, which are their own antiparticles) are forever being spontaneously created and then annihilated. Hawking radiation happens when one half of that pair is swallowed up by a black hole. It can no longer reach the other half, so they can't annihilate each other. Instead the other particle escapes -- and that's Hawking radiation.

      Essentially the black hole is "stealing" energy from the vacuum. Of course the universe has to balance the books and ultimately it works out that black hole has lost the amount of energy emitted by the escaping particle.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    3. Re:Eddington limit by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      The Eddington limit is achieved when the radiation pressure from the surface of a star is sufficient to balance the gravitational attraction of infalling matter. As more matter falls on a star, it becomes more luminous, increasing the radiation pressure and reducing the rate of accretion. As long as there is more matter available, this process continues until the Eddington limit is reached. The resulting equilibrium is stable. (Probably.)

      The problem is that the radiation pressure from a black hole decreases (and decreases rapidly) with mass. So, as more mass accretes, less radiation pressure exists and the rate of accretion accelerates. In principle, it might be possible to create a highly unstable equilibrium with a very low-mass black hole--but I suspect that such a system would tip over into either complete evaporation or rapid growth very, very quickly.

      Here's a neat derivation relating evaporation time to mass. Radiation pressure varies as roughly 1/m^4. It's not gonna be stable--and you need a very small black hole (ie much less than a solar mass) to see any appreciable radiation at all.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  65. Pinky and the Brain? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    First thing thing that came to mind was, of course, the ACME holes (not black holes actually, but wormholes if you've seen that episode of farscape). The second thing that came to mind however, was an episode of Pinky and the Brain where they created black holes in a jar and sold them as garbage dispasals IIRC.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  66. Atomic Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were people that said we should not test atomic energy.

    Send one atom into another it splits creating a domino effect of splitting... will it stop?

  67. Ehh...I'm not sweating it. by clifgriffin · · Score: 1

    We know so little about black holes...because we've actually never seen one.

    We've observed behavior in which a black hole phenomenon would adequately explain.

    Doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.

    As far as the end of the world...I'm having troubles fathoming a black hole such as this having that immense and limitless effect.

    The Hawking effect makes sense.

    But then again, we're assuming we know anything.

    1. Re:Ehh...I'm not sweating it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a logical fallacy that you need to actually see something for it to exist. Fact of the matter is, you've never seen an electron, but you're probably sure it exists, and that your computer isn't running on little green men flipping transistors. You've never seen me, but you probably know I exist, too.

  68. What strikes me as unusual about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that nobody has mentioned Earth yet. Does nobody read David Brin anymore?

  69. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  70. Re:Did anyone actually read the article? by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

    It was obviously a reference to that obscure little game, you know, DOOM, in which a portal opens to hell and demons pour into our dimension. It's a good thing you didn't get all excited and fly off the handle because you didn't get the joke.

    --
    Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  71. Don't panic! by madmarcel · · Score: 1

    Calm down people <> Do you know where your towel is? Got some peanuts and a couple of beers ready?

    Right, listen...
    We geeks are safe from harm...because we are
    already familiar with the disaster-scenario's that this could bring about. We are PREPARED! Yes indeedy. SF writers have been pondering this stuff for years...

    All we need to do is check for a solution in one of these books <<peers at ginormous bookcase stuffed with SF novels>>...the question is...which one of these novels holds the CORRECT solution?

    Hmm, alternatively we can load up some cheesy FP computergame and thats bound to tell us how to beat the spawn of evil!
    I'm sure the Spawn of Eternal Evil will wait half an hour while I finish a game of Doom looking for the solution ;)

    Hey, you all know how to fire a shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher, right? :o

    If all else fails...we can ask the white mice to order a new planet for us :^)

    1. Re:Don't panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulder-mounted rocket launchers are for SISSIES. Everyone knows you hold a rocket launcher straight in front of you, like a shotgun or something.

  72. Toxic waste disposal? by codewritinfool · · Score: 1

    Hey, here's an idea. Why don't they pack a bunch of nuclear or chemical waste around the point where this thing will be created. Create it, the waste gets pulled in, and then it starves and disappears. Ta-da, no more waste. Maybe not practical, but if you're going to be creating them anyway...

    1. Re:Toxic waste disposal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. There's an idea.. Feed a tiny black hole, giving it more mass, making it grow and grow and grow, and then it'll be large enough to start sucking in more mass until it sucks the whole planet in!

  73. Ah.... I get it now... by miketang16 · · Score: 1

    THAT's what they were doing in the Half-life intro. Everything is so much clearer now...

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  74. wrong by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative

    The gravitational attraction between two objects is dependant on mass linearly, but is also dependant on the distance between those two objects.

    Gravitational Force = GMm/r^2

    Where G is the gravitational constant of this Universe, M is the mass of the larger object, m the mass of the smaller object, and r the is the separation between the center of the two objects. [an objects gravity is "centered" at it's center, thus the gravitational force at the center of the earth is infinite (r = 0)].

    It is true that black holes do not create increased distortions of the gravitational field by altering size (initially). They do so by shrinking the radius of the object. If you double the mass of the sun, but keep its radius the same, the gravity you'd feel on the sun's surface would only be doubled. If, however, you half the sun's radius, but leave the mass the same, then the gravity you'd feel on the sun's surface would be quadrupled (because r is 1/2, the denominator in the formula is 1/4).

    I believe what you were trying to say is that the effective field of gravitation for these black holes would be so small as to be insignificant, and you're right. Gravity decreases exponentially with an exponent of 2 as the distance between the two objects increases; thus, for black holes of the mass these guys are creating, the field in which they would warp the space-time continuum would probably be atomic -- e.g., after about the radius of an atom, their gravitational force becomes insignificant.

    Of course, this is all a shotty analysis of it, as Newton's Laws of gravitation don't even hold true for describing planetary orbits, and even Einstein's Theory of Gravitation (the warping of space-time) breaks down at a singularity.

    1. Re:wrong by boneshintai · · Score: 1

      [an objects gravity is "centered" at it's center, thus the gravitational force at the center of the earth is infinite (r = 0)].

      I believe you meant to say that the Earth's gravitational force upon itself is infinite.

      Nit: picked.

    2. Re:wrong by Random+Walk · · Score: 2, Informative
      [an objects gravity is "centered" at it's center, thus the gravitational force at the center of the > earth is infinite (r = 0)].

      beg your pardon, but that's nonsense. the formula you quoted (Gravitational Force = GMm/r^2) is only valid for two masses m and M, if their centres of mass are distant by r, and both are spherical, or can be considered as point-like (e.g. if they are small compared to r). in particular, it is not valid if their smallest enclosing spheres overlap.

      the case of a mass m within (say, a cavity of) mass M is different, and the above formula is invalid. at the centre of the earth, earth's gravitational force is zero, just as one would expect - in the centre of a symmetric mass distribution, all forces cancel.

      in a subway tunnel, your formula would also be invalid, strictly speaking, but the difference would be insignificant.

    3. Re:wrong by g4dget · · Score: 1

      Gravity decreases exponentially with an exponent of 2 as the distance between the two objects increases;

      Stop using big words if you don't understand what they mean.

    4. Re:wrong by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      an objects gravity is "centered" at it's center, thus the gravitational force at the center of the earth is infinite (r = 0)

      No.

      As others have pointed out, that formula is applicable only for "point masses", masses that are small compared to the distance r. As you move beneath the surface of the Earth, it can be shown (see any basic Physics text book) that the gravitational force drops off linearly with distance.

      The gravitational force at the centre of any body is zero, not infinite.

    5. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides all your other stupidity that other people have already covered (your physical understanding is about equivalent to that of a high school student), the fact that the gravity would be 4x stronger if you decreased the sun's radius by 2 is because you're 2x as close. r is the distance between the two objects, moron, not the radius of the sun.

      If you keep the distance between the two objects the same, changing the size of one or the other has zilch effect on the gravitational force.

      In any case, that formula (besides all the other caveats) doesn't hold strictly for black holes, because black holes exhibit general relativistic effects. Although it doesn't matter in most practical circumstances.

    6. Re:wrong by dh003i · · Score: 1

      Since singularities are clearly "point-like", the formula does apply. Your right about gravity being zero in the center of the earth, though -- my bad.

    7. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      r is the distance between the two objects, moron, not the radius of the sun.

      Actually, I believe the original poster had this idea mostly correct (at least more correct than what you thought). He was talking about the gravity exerted on an object at the suface of the sun, therefore if the radius is smaller, the distance between their respective centers of gravity will be likewise decreased. Of course, treating both an object at the surface of another object, and that other objects as point-particles is fallacious since their distance apart does not overwhelm their size.

      your physical understanding is about equivalent to that of a high school student

      and it seems your ability to discern textual information is also quite remedial.

      The original poster did, of course, make many mistakes;but you would have been better off focusing on another one of them.

    8. Re:wrong by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      In fact if you do the calculation, you'll find that if you find yourself at distance k from the centre of a rotationally symmetric body of radius r, with k <= r, then the gravity pull you experience is that of that portion of the body within radius k, which proves that at distank k=0 of the centre the gravity pull is also 0.

  75. This is already an old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This all sounded familiar, so I did a little checking in google. Sure enough...

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F 30 E13FE3F5C0C728DDDA00894D9404482

    Dated 9/11/2001. Same colider, same questions posed, same concerns. Or did I miss something new in the CSM article, such as them specifying actual experiments?

  76. Re:Erm by watchful.babbler · · Score: 1
    raider_red rebuked an Anonymous Coward thus: If you're going to throw that out, would you care to explain to those of us who aren't quantum mechanics experts what Lamarck's theorum is, you stupid socially inept person.

    I believe that would be the "I'm an Anonymous Coward with a brittle understanding of quantum physics and a chip on my shoulder" theorem. But perhaps I'm mistaken, and I doubt he'll be checking back in to clear up his post. *shrug*

    Einstein did believe that black holes were physically impossible, but -- drawing on my own very brittle understanding of quantum physics (push too hard and it collapses) -- his reasoning was based on the idea that stars could not collapse to a stable point just above the Schwarzschild radius; the problem with his thesis is that a black hole (according to theory, below) collapses beyond that point , rendering his correct observation irrelevant. (The radius of the singularity explains why a black hole is black -- ejecta from the hole, emitted below the Schwarzschild radius, can't escape the gravitational distortion.)

    In any case, Einstein's paper on this subject, published in or around 1939, happened to coincide with and was generally superseded by the work of Oppenheimer and Snyder, who used general relativity to show the effects of mass collapsing through the Schwarzschild radius. It wasn't until the 1950s that Wheeler actually coined the term "black hole," but the theory was set.

    Since then, we've seen a fair amount of observational evidence that suggests that black holes exist, but, although most scientists (and laypeople) accept their existence,the jury is still out.

    --
    "Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
  77. If the Earth dissappeared, wouldn't that be good? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    If I understand things correctly, we all crave "karma" - if you have bad karma, you get reincarnated to try again. The ultimate goal is blissful non existence, right? (AKA Nirvana). So, wouldn't it be a great thing if everyone could achieve this all at once? Maybe it's the gin...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  78. Interesting by General+Sherman · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a really great experiment to test way out there theories, but say he's wrong and black holes don't evaporate and it sucks the whole planet in killing us all? That would suck. (pun intended)

    --
    - Sherman
  79. I have been saying it for years... by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

    Those bloody high-energy physics guys will not be happy until they manage to turn their big particle accelerators into giant, glowing holes in the ground. Why don't they go do something useful, like violating Newton's Laws or whatnot.

  80. God's Black Hole by Graff · · Score: 1

    Just remember, "Black holes are where God divided by zero."* It makes sense that the Christian Science Monitor should be the first ones to make a black hole, all they have to do is pray hard enough and God will create one for them.

    Right? :)

    *quoted from Steven Wright

    1. Re:God's Black Hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The funny thing is:

      When God divides by zero, it damn well divides, physics be damned.

      (Hence Black holes)

  81. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by phaetonic · · Score: 1

    BLACK HOLE CREATES YOU

  82. Tough decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would be worse, a gray goo scenario gone bad in the laboratory, or a home-made black hole gone bad?

    Hmmm. To be Crushed or to be Eaten?

  83. Am I the only one thinking by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Damm I hope Hawkings is all he's cracked up to be!!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Am I the only one thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you kidding? He's the Shiggity Schiznitt!

      YLFI.

  84. insane by io333 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read Steven King's "The Mist" (a shortstory).

    This is a bad idea.

    1. Re:insane by jagripino · · Score: 1
      Read Steven King's "The Mist" (a shortstory).

      Already covered by those that quoted the game "Half-Life". Valve, in an interview to the late NexGen magazine told that they used that story as a source of inspiration for Half-Life.

  85. maybe at CERN they can do it we could not :-) by afranz · · Score: 1

    These doomsday stories always come up when a major step towards new science happens, a few years back they said the same thing about the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider on Long Island and Comedy Centrals "Daily Show" even had a program about it (it was great). But now that this project produces major science results, nobody is interested, maybe one should start a doomsday rumour again toget noticed :-)

    and YES I'm one of them working there

  86. -1 Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm, those strange charm always give me a large hadron.

  87. yeah by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    One moment you're using a line printer as a dumb terminal with the paper feeding into a black hole, and then you pretend that it was the rest of us.

    cat /dev/urandom >> /dev/lp_blackhole

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  88. Look beyond the cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all need to look beyond the cover story. This is really just a giant conspiracy. The French (les macaques capitulards bouffeurs de fromage), feeling the stinging contempt (and reduced commerce) of new Europe, the UK, the US, and the coalition of the willing, are going to attempt to use the time-warping effect of the black holes to go back and change their UN vote so as to lighten the pressure of their tounge's on Saddam's boots. Even they apparently feel some shame over the discovery of 10,000+ person mass graves, and billions looted from Iraq by Saddam et. al., condeming enormous numbers of ordinary Iraqis to death. I just hope that their ego-manical weird-science attempt to salvage their reputation will not destroy the earth. :(

  89. It's still incredibly small by coyote-san · · Score: 1

    Even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist, the black holes created will still make atomic nuclii look huge. To it, the earth will appear to be a harder vacuum than space does to us and once it balances its electrostatic charge meals will be few and far between.

    But even if it aborbs a neutron or proton + electron a million times/second - so what? How long until it weighs even a gram? As a rough estimate, I seem to recall that Avogandro's number is something over 10e23, and if a gram is maybe 10e20 particles and the consumption rate is around 10e6/s, it will take 10e14 seconds - over 3 million years. And it will still be far, far smaller than the subatomic particle it consumes.

    But that assumes that the blackhole even stays in our neighborhood. Escape velocity from earth - from the solar system! - is nothing compared to the velocity of these particles before the collisions... or most of the particle sprays coming from them. There's basically no chance that the black hole would emerge at essentially no velocity.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  90. iLoo by linear_shift · · Score: 1

    The iLoo? I know its a coporate joke, but I had to say it.

    --

    Nos una. Nos unique. Nos victum.

    1. Re:iLoo by llamalicious · · Score: 1

      No, that's iHole.
      Of course, Apple may have that copyrighted by now, so my guess would be that Microsoft would use a simpler name:

      A-Hole

      And, like the OS, it'd be totally wide-open to attacks.

      *ducks*

      ok, time to get coffee.

  91. Am I the only one here who thinks by da+cog · · Score: 1

    ...that this experiment sucks?

    --
    Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
  92. Just some thoughts by rzbx · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is the big bag theory. Some creatures way back before us and before the big bang accidently annihilated themselves, thus causing life to recycle. (Just a crazy thought)
    Also, maybe to be safe they could do this in space. Or are the machines/devices/etc. too large to send into space?

    --
    Question everything.
    1. Re:Just some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm....have you even got the slightest idea what a particle accelerator is?
      take a little look over here to get a grasp about the sizes of the things...

      the circumference of the LHC is 27 km (or a little less than 17 miles)

    2. Re:Just some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here is an air photo with the locations of the accelerators outlined (they are, of course, under ground)

  93. Re:If the Earth dissappeared, wouldn't that be goo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does that make us A.C.'s who have transcended the Karmic cycle but still hang around some kind of Bodhisattavas? (sp?)

    First Om!

  94. But if you wanted to make a longer-lived hole... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    Any BH that is created in this manner would dissipate fairly shortly, and not be a threat, as there is not enough matter to 'feed' it. A though though, what if the newly formed BH was showered with matter (a stream of subatomic particles)...

    Would it be possible to add enough mass that the BH's gravity started to affect the world in a meaningful way? By consuming the collider, switzerland, etc.?

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  95. I see a big white thing in the fog. by twitter · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes

    Oh, and this ship will not sink.

    There are probably a few tiny black holes forming and dying far above you right now.

    So what signature are we expecting? If you don't know, you won't see it. Do we see it now from way up there? Wny not?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:I see a big white thing in the fog. by DennyK · · Score: 1

      Do we see it now from way up there? Wny not?

      I think it's because we don't know where to look. Even if these collisions occur all the time in our upper atmosphere, we have no way to predict where one will happen in time to be able to observe it. If scientists control the collisions in an accelerator, however, they will know where to look to observe the results...

      DennyK

    2. Re:I see a big white thing in the fog. by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      > > In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes

      > Oh, and this ship will not sink.

      Jeez. There is nothing magical about a black hole that makes it different from every other massive body until you cross its event horizon. A black hole made of two protons colliding has less mass (and less gravitational pull) than a goddamn helium atom.

      Why is that concept so hard to grasp for people here?

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    3. Re:I see a big white thing in the fog. by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      As it was explained to me, once something goes past the event horizon, it stays there in the black hole. Now, while Hawking radiation might dissipate the black hole, if it happens to gain enough mass as it travels towards the center of the earth, that it doesn't dissipate and has a net rate of growth, then that is a bad thing.

      The best argument I've seen so far in support of this experiment is the cosmic ray argument that if the collider can make these things, then they're being made all the time in the atmosphere. So far, no problems.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  96. Good catch! by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    You beat me to to correcting all the Wile E. Coyote posts. As much as I love old Wile E. he didn't use portable holes.

    Now steel barriers that spring up out of the road just as you come flying along with vitamin-fortified legs....

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:Good catch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he did use portable holes as tunnels. wtf?

  97. my favorite by twitter · · Score: 1

    "You don't need eyes to see where we are going."

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  98. ya, so they build one... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ..so what's next? Say they successfully build one that lasts just a tiny amount of time and evaporates? Now think, these are uber geeks. UBER brand geeks, but still geeks. What DO geeks do? They get all hyped up, want to build a bigger/faster/ longer lasting one. If and when that works, they repeat this process. This is just what geeks do after all.

    Now, who's going to tell them to stop, and when? You can see this discussion now "Well, it's working good now, we'll just slap some more watts to this baby and...." And you KNOW some insane military goofus with billions to throw around with some black budget funding will think "hmm, sounds like we could make a WEAPON outta this thing somehow, hmmm" and that's EXACTLY how those guys think and do, too.

    The little experiment is nothing *as it stands now* but the progression of the experiment is sorta ... nuts.

  99. hawkings / blackbody / information theory by lingqi · · Score: 1

    due to the fact that a black hole has

    1) mass
    2) a non-zero temperature*,

    *granted, it's still lower than background radiation temperature usually - but non-zero.

    it satisfy the definition of a blackbody and would emit blackbody radiation. At least, by the laws / theories of known physics.

    In fact, black holes have been called "the perfect blackbody," no?

    You can say that the blackbody radiation from the black hole is actually hawkings radiation, etc. But I think the official word is that the blackbody radiation is manifested as hawkings radiation, or produced via hawkings radiation, or somesuch - for one they two share the exact same spectrum**

    ** not quite sure on this. correct me if you would.

    Now, one thing that nobody seem to have touched on is the fact that a evaporating black hole destroys information, which cannot be allowed in the current view of physics. This opens barrels of cans of worms for physics, and gravistar is one of the solutions that came out to help out on the "information loss" part of the theory.

    In the end, even you'd have to agree that WE DON'T KNOW. and no, the author doesn't know for sure either. He can say a lot about how high-energy collisions are happening in upper atmosphere, but we don't know that they are, and we sure as hell don't simulate that kind of environment in a collider (much more concentrated particle beams, anyone?).

    so, while maybe by what we know right now, black hole evaporates (let's just ignore information theory for a minute there), but the fact is we don't know that for sure, and I might sound like a sissy to say that we should wait until we can outrun a possible blackhole swallowing up earth (as unlikely as that might be), but fsck - i think it's better to be sissy than be looking for trouble that can get everyone killed, yes?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:hawkings / blackbody / information theory by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny
      Now, one thing that nobody seem to have touched on is the fact that a evaporating black hole destroys information, which cannot be allowed in the current view of physics.


      Ah, now I undestand the real reason of those experiments. Politicians all around the world are certainly eager to destroy information they don't like. Now finally, physicists seem to have found a way to reliably do so - therefore there's certainly a great interest of manufacturing those devices, as well as researching if they indeed destroy information. :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  100. how big is small? by twitter · · Score: 1
    Finally, these things will have very little mass. A penny does not attract near by mass towards it with any noticable effect, so these won't either. Just because they are very dense does NOT mean they have an immense gravitational field.

    Ah, but how much mass do you have to have in a singularity? Will one electron compacted so terribly be able to pull in a second that gets too close? What's the event horizon for a neutron? Any mass is infinitely dense if it occupies no volume. Hmmmmm. Tell me why this won't suck!

    -Best Beavis voice - This sucks, it sucks, it really really sucks. Ahhhhhh!

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:how big is small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the previous poster's point. A body compacted into a black hole is no more able to pull in another body, because its mass is the same and so is its gravitational field at the same distance.

  101. Re:Did anyone actually read the article? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2
    Where the hell did this come from? The article makes no wild speculations like this.

    He was alluding to the popular FPS game, DooM, where an experiment gone wrong opens a portal to another dimension (or Hell, or maybe they're the same thing, never was quite sure about that part) and demons, monsters, and Pauly Shore come out to kill you. It was a fun game and a lot of people on Slashdot played it and were expected to get the joke.

    I mean, I can see how you might expect that kind of reporting from a Christian news site

    Actually, despite the name, the Christian Science Monitor isn't really a religious publication. It was founded by the woman who founded the "Christian Science" cult, which is a bizzare distortion of Christianity (and is only tangentially related to either Christianity or Science).

    But its purpose has always been to provide a balanced realistic source of news as a public service. I don't know how well they succeed but they have independent reporters all over the world and they're quoted by an awful lot of people, so I suspect that they must at least do a pretty good job.

  102. Clearly... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    The fact that no one has come back from the future in a time machine proves that we will destroy ourselves before one can be invented! More than likely, it will be with an experiment like this. The only way to ensure the survival of humanity is to immediately end all scientific inquiry.

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  103. Instantaneous or infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something along the lines of this:

    Because a black hole is affects both space AND time, the closer you get to the core, the longer time stretches out. Therefore, even if the entire Earth were to begin being sucked into a black hole created by Earthlings, it would actually take "forever", rather than being instantaneous.

    Either way, if we create a black hole and it destroys us all, so be it.
    Natural selection in action.

    It could be worse, at least if we all get sucked into a black hole there won't be any Danielle Steele novels left behind to embarrass us.

    1. Re:Instantaneous or infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An object that falls into a black hole passes through the event horizon and reaches the singularity in a finite time, according to its own clock. And it's not a very long time, either.

  104. Bag of Holding by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    And for God's sake -- never turn a Bag of Holding inside-out ... !

    --
    -kgj
  105. Kiev Project redux? by andfarm · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it in the Hyperion series (by Dan Simmons) in which the backstory included a scientific research project -- the Kiev Project -- which created a number of small black holes which sunk to the earth's core, destroying the planet over a period of several hundred years?

    --

    TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

  106. Oh my. by NegativeK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I fear that this post may be lost in the numbers surrounding it, but it needs to be said. First off, I'd like to give an example of how utterly tiny this thing will be. If the sun were to turn into a black hole instantly, its event horizon would have a 3km radius. For the sun, that's extraordinarily tiny. According to the article, this thing should have the mass of a couple hundred protons. That's, in case you can comprehend these numbers, 1.67*10^-25. Now, the radius of this bugger will be that times 1.48*10^-27. Yeah. That's FREAKING TINY. 2.47*10^-52 tiny. Many many many orders of magnitude less than the Planck distance.

    Now, to address another issue. Hawking radiation is a pretty solidly entrenched idea. Particle and anti-particle pairs do form in space - the existance of the particles which are a part of it have been experimentally verified through the Casimir effect, which is Googleable. So worries about that not happening are pretty unnecessary. And, as many others have stated, these microscopic black holes have been forming and evaporating all the times due to cosmic rays right above our heads.

    For those who wish to learn more about black hole physics, I have to suggest an excellent source for the layman: Jillian's Guide to Black Holes. She can explain things in simple terms, and has some hefty gravitational wave and Penrose diagrams for the really interested.

    Oh, and P.S.: If the world really is sucked up by a black hole, it'll be a saving grace for all of the physicists who have been extraordinarily wrong for the past three-quarters of a century. ^-^

    And yet another P.S.: For those physicists out there, what interesting things start to happen with black holes at scales this much past the Planck length? I believe that I've read somewhere about quantum gravity showing up heavily, but I'm unsure. =)

    --
    This statement is false.
    1. Re:Oh my. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have very little idea about what happens with sub-Planckian black holes, actually. Our current theories of quantum gravity have trouble with even Planckian holes.

    2. Re:Oh my. by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      P.S.: If the world really is sucked up by a black hole, it'll be a saving grace for all of the physicists who have been extraordinarily wrong for the past three-quarters of a century. ^-^

      E ~ mc^2 ahem, Einstein was wrong.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    3. Re:Oh my. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are only conjectures. We don't actually have any evidence that "Einstein was wrong", and E=mc^2 doesn't hold.

  107. Reminds me of A Story... by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of a story I read once, "Bobo's Star." Basically this boy grew a miniature star in an indestructible container (he got it by mail-order) and it wasn't the right shape, so he kept feeding it until the sun was suddenly a black hole and the indestructible container suddenly wasn't. Super short ending, 'the world got eaten.'

    I love being reminded of fun Sci-Fi stories, espceially ones I haven't read in 5 years :-D

    --

    - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  108. Oh yeah by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

    Shotgun - Check Handguns - Check Armor - Check Victory Whiskey - Check Black Hole to release the hordge - soon my prescious

  109. Firing up my dusty old copy of Halflife and Doom by cOdEgUru · · Score: 1

    as I write this.. Afterall I need practice dont I ?

    Where is that damn Chainsaw ?? And does anybody know where I can find a bloody BFG in the middle of Alaska ?

  110. umm by Kenderific · · Score: 1

    ok, i'm kind of new, but at the point at which the two particles collide, isn't there a tiny pseudo-vacuum surrounding them where the mass of two used to be? and wouldn't this itty bitty vacuum suck the surrounding gas into it... and into the baby black hole, and so on, and so on? or do the theories tell us it would instead decay so fast as to not be able to pull much of anything?

    1. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      at the point at which the two particles collide, isn't there a tiny pseudo-vacuum surrounding them where the mass of two used to be? and wouldn't this itty bitty vacuum suck the surrounding gas into it


      Umm... no.

      First off, the experiment is done in a vacuum to begin with; there aren't any particles nearby before or after the collision. Second, vacuums don't attract anything; they just don't push things away from them.
  111. Dear paranoids: by bagsc · · Score: 1

    Since theory doesnt assuage your spasing, heres some empirical evidence:

    1) The energy used collides with Earth daily. Cosmic rays are much stronger, and so far, I've noticed no 'sucked up into the sky' disasters
    2) Even if it doesn't radiate, the gravity holding it together is less than the electromagnetic forces. It'll fall apart either way.

    On another note, I will be selling 'Black Hole Insurance' at very resonable prices. Please inquire for rates.

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  112. God may not place dice by skraps · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anybody care to bet whether the black holes will be stable? I'm betting they will simply dissipate.

    If they gobble up the whole universe, I'll pay one million dollars to each any every one of you, honest. If not, then you'll owe me.

    --
    Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
  113. Oops. by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    With any luck they'll create a mini black hole, it'll fall through the ground, and they'll just say "oops" and go onto their next project. 20 years later there will be great earthquakes and soon planet will give off several large explosions, the first of which killing all the survivors of the quakes, as it's sucked into the tiny black hole at its core.

    1. Re:Oops. by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

      i would imagine the growth of the singularity would be exponential, and planetary destruction would occur within minutes, if not seconds. If it happens at all, of course.

  114. Re:But if you wanted to make a longer-lived hole.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A black hole that small radiates so quickly that you'd have to shower it equally quickly to keep it stabilized -- not likely, especially since we have no way of even capturing the thing.

  115. Surrender Freeman!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got HOSTILES!!

  116. Proven? by adipocere · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's worth pointing out that Hawking Radiation has never been observed. It's theoretical. We've got some really solid evidence for the existence of black holes. We don't have anything for Hawking Radiation.

    Not long ago, I attended a symposium where the presenter made a decent case, using some of the same arguments from QM that Hawking used, plus some other bits (sorry, don't have the notes), that Hawking Radiation would actually be forbidden by other physical laws. While the stuff at Ph.D. level and beyond me, it wasn't for the rest of the audience - and they couldn't poke any holes in it right away. Or by the end of the Q and A session.

    Is it fringe? Sure. Be nice to verify, though, in the face of what could be a world-ending event. If black holes exist sans Hawking Radiation, we'd be in quite a bit of trouble upon the production of even the smallest one. Probably wise to check that little problem out. I'm not advising doing anything wacky and superparanoid, like building it on the Moon

    Scientific method is great, but when it comes to doing planet-wide experiments, you get a sample size of 1 and no control group. Oh, and no "do-overs." This is Chicken Little, signing off.

    1. Re:Proven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not long ago, I attended a symposium where the presenter made a decent case, using some of the same arguments from QM that Hawking used, plus some other bits (sorry, don't have the notes), that Hawking Radiation would actually be forbidden by other physical laws. While the stuff at Ph.D. level and beyond me, it wasn't for the rest of the audience - and they couldn't poke any holes in it right away. Or by the end of the Q and A session.


      I've read at least four independent derivations of Hawking radiation, using different methods. They all agree. There is also experimental evidence of Hawking radiation in analog models of gravity. (These are physical systems -- solid state, acoustic, etc. -- that reproduce the kinematics, but not dynamics, of general relativity. Hawking radiation depends only on the kinematics, at least for large holes that don't shrink appreciably.)

      Who was the presenter, and who were the people in the audience who "couldn't poke holes" in this claim?
    2. Re:Proven? by syukton · · Score: 1

      exactly. We should only do these kinds of experiments on Mars.

      [insert Doom reference here]

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    3. Re:Proven? by praedor · · Score: 2, Informative

      As is oft said, if black holes produced by a collider are dangerous, then it is already too late as the cosmic rays striking our atmosphere all day, every day, carry more energy by orders of magnitude than the energy of the best collider. Thus, these cosmic rays would already be producing a shower of black holes all day, every day. It must already be too late (if hawking radiation is incorrect).


      The only reasonable conclusion is that if they manage to produce any quantum black holes, which is what we're talking about here, it will be perfectly safe as cosmic rays have produced them from the time the earth formed up to now, some 4.5 billion years...and yet we all exist and haven't long since been sucked into a hole.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    4. Re:Proven? by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 1

      If black holes exist sans Hawking Radiation, we'd be in quite a bit of trouble upon the production of even the smallest one. Probably wise to check that little problem out. I'm not advising doing anything wacky and superparanoid, like building it on the Moon

      Not really a problem, even without Hawking decay to destroy the little guys. Laboratory black holes would be substantially smaller than a proton, electrically neutral, and thus unable to interact with other matter at all, except via gravity. Moreover, they would almost certainly be moving at relativistic velocities upon production. Or certainly well above escape velocity, at any rate.

      V_esc ~ c/100000 so for a singularity with a mass of "hundreds of protons", the excess energy needed to reach escape velocity is on the order of a few GeV. At LHC, that's muon noise.

      Therefore, I would expect a non-decaying black hole generated in a collider to simply escape into space harmlessly. With an interaction cross section probably comparable to that of a neutrino, it could even fly right through the Earth and come out the other side, probably without even disturbing many atoms in its path.

      (Recall that a flux of a few trillion neutrinos per square meter passes right through the Earth each second. You can calculate that the stopping distance in lead for an average solar neutrino is ... about a parsec. I'm not worried.)

      Another reason not to worry: if black holes don't decay via the Hawking process, then the universe should be chock-full of primordial black holes with masses ranging from atomic to small planet. None of them seems to have swallowed the Earth yet (or, even more conviningly, the Sun).

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  117. Brookhaven isn't shut down by NanoProf · · Score: 1

    In fact, the brand new relativistic heavy ion collider is working quite happily. You're thinking of the controversy over some very small leaks of radioactive materials a few years back- the lab didn't handle the public relations very well on that (gave an impression of not being fully open) so it made a stink, but the health consequences for the surrounding community were pretty much negligible.

    --
    Curtains for windows?
  118. Halfliife 2 is gonna be bettter than I thought! by digitalmonkey2k1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Totally emersive game play!!! Wow, sierra was right, this ones gonna be killer!

    --
    My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
  119. Top 3 Things by Barkmullz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Top 3 Things You Don't Want To Hear At The European Center for Nuclear Research:

    3. Oops
    2. You are turning into a Penguin. Stop it!
    1. Is that Rob Malda over by the button that says "engage" on it?

    If worst comes to worst, you best re-familiarize yourself with old betsy.

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
  120. Obligatory Lexx reference by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    As a type-13 planet, I guess it was a matter of time before we annihilated ourselves by crushing our planet into a singularity.

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    1. Re:Obligatory Lexx reference by Devir · · Score: 1

      Or get blown up by a Giant insect battleship controled by a jealous, lovestruck robot head.

  121. Doom-2, 1.666 by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    I'm loading up Doom-II 1.666 right now. My favorite levels are 9 and 10, but the whole "damn" game is awesome!

    Oh well. If they manage to blow up the whole damn planet, that would be one hell of a trip!

  122. No, electrons are bigger than atoms. by MickLinux · · Score: 1
    You've got to remember the heisenberg uncertainty principle: Delta E * Delta T = hbar (limit case).

    That said, it means that an electron is bigger than a nucleus. Don't believe me? Look at the structure of an atom. Big electron, tiny nucleus. Large-mass structures like you and me are only large in size because we are held apart by the electron shells.

    Which leads to an interesting error, and makes me wonder if they really know their science as well as they say:

    Even a person will [provide the mass to make a black hole] do, although you'd have to cram them into the space occupied by a single electron. (from the article)

    If he had wanted to say this, he could have said as easily "atom" instead of "electron". So it looks like he was saying "cram them into a space 1/1000 the size of a hydrogen nucleus", since an electron is 1/1000 the mass of a proton. But in that case, he needs to say "cram them into the space of an nucleus of mass 1000u." Less impressive-sounding, but more impressive.

    Not confused yet? I am. So I'm going to stop talking now.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:No, electrons are bigger than atoms. by Sirion · · Score: 1

      Electrons are, as far as quantum theorists can determine, points. They are described by delta functions. You seem to be talking about the 'electron cloud' taught in high school chemistry classes, but that cloud is just a way of visualizing the volume in which the electron is likely to be found. If you try and figure out the electron's location, it will be in exactly one place, and will act exactly like a infinitely small point.

  123. clod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a black hole you insensitive CLOD!!!

  124. VETO by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    um... I'd like to veto myself on grounds of stupidity... the earlier comment is incorrect, sorry.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  125. Not likely to happen by SiliconEntity · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article doesn't make clear that this is an extremely speculative prediction which requires some highly nonstandard physics results. Indeed, if this accelerator (or cosmic rays for that matter) actually produces black holes it will undoubtedly be considered one of the greatest and most astounding physics discoveries of the past 100 years.

    The paper that started all this speculation (which is now presented as fact more often than not) is http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0106219. In that article, the authors explain that the model requires a version of the universe that has ten dimensions, arranged in such a way that the Planck mass, where gravity merges with other forces, is about 10^3 GeV. Standard physics says that the Planck mass is at 10^19 GeV. Their assumption is 16 orders of magnitude different from the conventional wisdom.

    The paper above concludes with the comment, "Collider study of black hole creation would certainly be an astounding pursuit". Indeed, the authors and experimentalists would be guaranteed Nobel prizes if black holes actually form.

    Unfortunately, popular articles gloss over the speculative nature of these predictions and we are told that the LHC "should be enough" to create black holes, and that cosmic rays are "probably" creating them right now. The levels of certainty implied by this wording could not be more misleading.

  126. dammit by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    That should read, "I haven't detected any bias in the rest of the newspaper."

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  127. Billions in tax money... by Sunlighter · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...being poured into a black hole.

    Literally.

    How very sad.

    --
    Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
  128. Obligatory William S. Burroughs comment by icday · · Score: 0


    Far away on Galaxy X, a group of protestors have got together, to protest against the use of black holes as an energy source. A little late though. Closing time gentlemen.Dr. O.D. Benway (Certificate on request)

  129. Imagine a beowu... by gykh · · Score: 1

    1. Create blackholes with Large Hardon Collider.
    2. Make a cluster.of em.
    3. Feed it pictures of Natalie.
    4. Oh wth - Chuck in a goatse pic too.
    5. ?
    6. Profit!

  130. Souls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahem. If we are all instantly sucked into nothingness, will our souls be sucked in, too?

  131. Deimos experiment. by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    They are supposed to do that on MARS.
    It's in every sci-fi novel.

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  132. Picture of a black hole event... by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is cool! I've come to work today and found you all talking about us!



    Many people have already pointed out that black holes are not going to destroy the earth, but I guess people might be interested in this, which is a simulation of what a black hole event might look like. It shows an end-on view of the the ATLAS detector (picture), with most of the noise and rubbish taken out.

    The curved, coloured lines are tracks left by charged particles. The green ring is the electromagnetic calorimeter, whilst the red ring is the hadronic calorimeter. Calorimeters just measure energy - so the histograms radiating out show how much energy was deposited at each point. So by looking at the histograms you can get an idea of how energetic the track was. Hope that makes sense!


    Incidentally, the picture is zoomed to show the interesting detail better. The detector is extremely large! Look here for a picture that shows people standing next to it ... it's about 5 storeys high, and is in a cavern 100m underground which is about 13 storeys high. Oh, and I work on it...

    1. Re:Picture of a black hole event... by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 1

      How sweet!

      I don't suppose you have a link handy for that simulation? I'm curious to know what you expect the decay products of a black hole event to actually be.

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    2. Re:Picture of a black hole event... by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      Actually I do. It's not exactly the most user-friendly program in the world, but instructions for Atlantis are here. It's java so pretty much anyone should be able to play with it - I'm using it under linux for example. I think event 3 is a black hole event (not the same one probably).


      Have fun!

  133. Is this a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummmmm, guys? Wouldn't a BH fall to the center of the Earth and consume it eventually? I mean, what if the little darling doesn't evaporate the way Hawking predicts?

    1. Re:Is this a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't fall to the center of the Earth. It would evaporate almost instantaneously, and even if it didn't, it would be produced with far greater than escape velocity, and would leave the vicinity of the Earth.

  134. Black holes eating earth, I hope not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to see one of these things get loose and destoy the earth. It is were I keep all my stuff...

  135. something you aren't thinking about by WildCode · · Score: 1

    everything to do with black holes is all theory, even their existance is a theory based on effects seen in space, not the cause. Just look at the atom bomb, it had a much bigger effect than anyone originally anticipated. The only thing known for certain about these so called black holes is that there is a huge amount of gamma radiation being released from near the center, which is trust out way beyond the edges of the hole itself. Has anyone even considered or calculated how much dangerous radiation this thing will create, and if at all they are successfull, if the amount of energy released can be contained, or worse still if it would cause a cascaide effect? Once again, think atom bomb which reacts by compressing a very small about of uranium.

    1. Re:something you aren't thinking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone even considered or calculated how much dangerous radiation this thing will create, and if at all they are successfull, if the amount of energy released can be contained, or worse still if it would cause a cascaide effect?


      Yes. The energy they get out of it won't exceed the energy they put into the accelerator to create it in the first place. In other words, it will be about the same energy release as any other unstable particle they make.
  136. Only when it has infinite momentum ;- n/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t means "no text".

  137. Units by benja · · Score: 1

    Hi,

    That's, in case you can comprehend these numbers, 1.67*10^-25. Now, the radius of this bugger will be that times 1.48*10^-27. Yeah. That's FREAKING TINY. 2.47*10^-52 tiny.

    Don't scientists use units there, or did you just figure out at 10^-52 it simply doesn't make a big difference whether it was from a meter, kilometer, or millimeter? ;-)

  138. Mmmm, a part for my Miracle Machine! by magi · · Score: 1

    I have a little theory of my own. Let's assume that the world is a multiverse that "splits" indefinitely at each quantum event. The splitting creates apparent randomness in the world from the perspective of observers. An observer can obviously only observe events that do not cause his destruction.

    Now, if the observer wants to observe a certain event, all he has to do is hook a detector of that event to a machine that destroys himself. For example, lottery results are affected by quantum-level randomness. Hence, if you hook lottery info service to a bomb that blows your head, you will always win in lottery.

    However, while this works nicely in personal level, it is somehow depressing to think that in most universes, your friends will see your head explode and you're gone forever. They'd be sad. So, take your friends with you! Make it better, take the entire world with you! All you need is a machine that destroys the world if you lose in lottery. (Talk about bad losers, ehm?)

    The downside of such machine is that it would probably not work. You see, it might be more probable that the machine burns a fuse than that you win in lottery.

    We could use the Miracle Machine to make things better in the world too! For example, hook it in stock market and make it cause destruction of the world if the markets crash. It could also make us safe -- make it trigger if a nuke blows in your home country (or anywhere else). We would eternally observe world peace!

    I somehow get very nervous when a scientist wants to test a theory, when if false, the test itself causes destruction of the world.

    "'Ooooooh' and 'aaaaaah', that's how it always starts. But then later comes the running and the screaming." -- Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

  139. do you want to know how deep the black hole goes? by m1chael · · Score: 1

    nuclear bombs are so 80s...

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  140. Dont you mean... by Bazman · · Score: 1

    "Good news everyone!"

  141. Credit! by davidmb · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to see the episode where the debt collectors come round to break his legs.

  142. The Acme/Wily user interface framework is great! by porttikivi · · Score: 1

    Acme is a great text+mouse+windows user interface framework for programmers on Plan 9 (where Linus gets his better ideas):

    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme/acme.ps
    http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Using_acme / index.html

    Also available for other unices as Wily:

    http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~oz/wily/

    --
    Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
  143. Re:Well by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    As some one who was in Amsterdam friday and brussells saturday and live in London (originally from oz) standards there do not suck. Amsterdam is a beautiful city where the majority of peole get around on bikes (being dead flat helps) not to mention the coffee shops. Brussells was great too. It has the best beer in the world. No arguments there. I have been to alot of places. Sure they have dodgy areas but so do all cities. The only thing they lack is space, which is a bit annoying. But then again New York is hardly spacious.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  144. Weather Control Device by essreenim · · Score: 1

    Wuhp, stop evrything,
    I didn't order a bowling,

    Activate the discombobulator immediately, Gordon must die!!!!

    Q: Isn't it time for a weather control device.
    Then we could generate a catastrophic lightning storm like in C&C RA II

  145. MPAA by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    I'd think that the MPAA has the rights to Event Horizon. Maybe everytime they create a black hole they have to pay the MPAA.

    "THe point of no return is the Event HorizonTM.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  146. spiderman by Oldskooldave · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else watch the spiderman series in which a scientist (british if i remember correctly), created a machine to create black holes for transportation, then the green goblin got the machine yada yada yada ...... time to get a life

  147. All sorts of nasties?? by LeeBarnes · · Score: 1

    Damn it!

    Where's Howard the Duck when you need him!?

    --
    "Before humanity, the stars shone throughout the heavens. After humanity [has gone], the stars will continue to shine"
  148. Precautionary Principle inconsistently applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It can have very unfortunate effects --- such as spreading fear of genetically modified foods, and of radiation, to look at the past.

    So you admit that they are deliberately fudging (for trade balance reasons) when they invoke the "Precautionary Principle" on the genetically modified foods debate?

  149. stop feeding the trolls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy has posted the same thing about 5 times on this article.

    and SOMEHOW people keeping modding his posts to +5 insightful.

  150. goatse.cz slashdotted.... by 286 · · Score: 1

    the difference is that people bookmark the "Large Hardon Collider", but tend to "Block images from this Site" the first time they hit goatse and vow never to make the same mistake again...

  151. Re:Did anyone actually read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a) It's in italics...that means the submitter said it, not the editor.

    b) It's a joke. Science mishaps resulting in dimensional portals and nasty armies of demons coming through are a staple of video games and science fiction. Doom and Half-Life are prime examples of this.

    c) You're just a goddamned moron.

  152. More abuse of NH lore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Referencing an old Nethack saying:

    "Black holes are the reason why nature abhores a vacuum...they suck!"

    I wish to apologize this post.

  153. Keep in mind that time slows down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Asuming it all goes ary, and the planet is sucked into oblivion, it will be a long (very long) and painfull death as time will slow down exponentiontially as you get closer and closer to the center. All while being turned (very slowly) into a piece of spaghetti. :)

  154. INTO ANOTHER DIMENSION by lajiri · · Score: 1

    If in fact this "blackhole" does manage to suck us all up... Perhaps we can land somewhere very far away, possibly nowhere near a sun (energy source), thus leaving us in absolute darkness for a couple of minutes, at which time our entire planet will freeze, and shrivle up... ahhhh, gottah love science :-) OH NO! That would mean the end of slashdot!

  155. Problems with black holes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problems? Or is it solutions? What science needs to do is find a way to pull things back out of black holes. Selectively would be nice. That way, you've got a place to put all your stuff. (With the option of getting it back out of course) :) Just thinking of George Carlin here.

  156. James P. Hogan, Inherit the Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is a series of Sci Fi books that I particularly like by James P. Hogan. In those books, the (friendly) aliens use artificial black holes. One use is, they create a microscopic black hole and use its wormhole effect to send radio signals light years instantly. There was a spy on Earth and the main character sniffed him out by noticing that his house was built out of material necessary to support a massive weight, way out of proportion to the actual house. Of course! It was the weight of the microscopic black hole used to transmit data back to his headquarters, light years away.

  157. Black holes are female stars. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just see the comment. Nuf said.

  158. Black Hole Power by cquark · · Score: 1
    It is possible to use a black hole as a generator, though Hawking radiation is not an effective way to do it. There are two ways to extract energy from a black hole:
    1. Matter radiates away approximately half its mass as it falls into the black hole due to the intense acceleration. While this is incredible efficient (50% mass to energy conversion compared to less than 10% for matter-antimatter reactions), it is released as high energy x-rays or gamma rays which may be difficult to use.
    2. Many black holes release huge amounts of energy as magnetic fields, heating up the gas that surrounds them. Here's article at NASA where that's been observed and another one from Los Alamos.
    1. Re:Black Hole Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a third way to extract energy from a black hole: the Penrose process, involving sending matter into and out of the ergosphere of a rotating hole.

  159. It's all fun and games ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until someone sucks up a planet.

  160. DHMO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you into activism about important scientific subjects, like how to ban things, need to check out this . We need to ban dangerous things!

    1. Re:DHMO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the URL http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

  161. Portable black holes? by LuckyPhil · · Score: 2, Funny

    They suck!

  162. Explains some stuff by DaLiNKz · · Score: 1

    like the triangle that i live in.

    --
    I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
  163. YOU SUCCEED!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA! YOU SUCCEED!!

  164. Mother-In-Laws around the world beware by mo2 · · Score: 1

    Hey do you think they would sell me one of those things so I can toss my big fat greek mother-in-law into one of them.

    It would have to be a big one not a small one like the article mentions.

    With my luck the other dimension on the other end would send her back, and she'd fall on top of me...

    --
    I love every bone in her body, especially mine!
    1. Re:Mother-In-Laws around the world beware by lajiri · · Score: 1

      Yes, I knew there was a valid reason for crereating portable black holes! Hmmm... Perhaps it is the scientific community who is brewing a plot to destroy all mother-in-laws in one fell swoop. I like. I likitalot! Muhahaha. Muhahahahaha...

  165. Words I'd rather not hear: by chiph · · Score: 1

    Uhh, Steve, have you seen my black hole? I left it right here, where the desk used to be.

  166. hear hear by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    bitch - slapped.

  167. Possible cartoon source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > The guy made holes like he was making pancakes. And he said "portable hole" in a funny voice. And he wore a bowler.

    Tip: ask nicely on alt.binaries.multimedia.cartoons.looneytunes for a VCD copy and we might get lucky. There are guys there with a huge archive and encyclopledic knowledge of all the WB stuff.

    (What I really wanna see are the banned "Sloan Foundation" cartoons - the German immigrant mouse explaining "mass produktion und mass consumption" to his friend from the old country. There were three of them, I think. The one with the mice explaining capitalism while being chased by Sylvester, and two more with Fudd/Sylvester talking about why he should invest his inheritance.)

  168. People that deserve to be eaten by a blackhole... by pzilla · · Score: 1

    If they must create a blackhole, I suggest they do it at SCO, because they suck. Imagine the company being sucked by something that reminds the blackhole bomb from the arrival. That would be fantastic.

    --

    --
    Karma is overrated, whoring is ok.
  169. Stupid question here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the black holes are so tiny that a particle can't fall in, how exactly are they going to produce any hawking radiation?

    1. Re:Stupid question here... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      IANAP. Doesn't Hawking Radiation result from quantum tunneling, i.e., the stuff INSIDE the whole (that got there before it was wrapped up in the r(Schwarzchild)) starts to leak out due to virtual pair production? Or am I a couple of decades behind the times?

    2. Re:Stupid question here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said the black holes are so tiny that a particle can't fall in?

    3. Re:Stupid question here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can think of Hawking radiation as tunneling, but what's tunneling is not matter that previously fell into the hole. Rather, it's still virtual vacuum particles.

    4. Re:Stupid question here... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      But the mass conserved from the virtual particles is the mass that fell into the hole, right? I mean, if a hole existed by itself in the universe, with no external mass, it would still evaporate via Hawking radiation?

    5. Re:Stupid question here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mass-energy of the Hawking radiation is equal to the mass-energy lost by the black hole. However, the mass-energy of the black hole is not associated with any particular bit of matter; rather, it is a property of the global spacetime geometry.

      An isolated black hole would still evaporate by Hawking radiation.

  170. Star Trek tech applications... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

    Shoot 'em down boys....

    Artifical gravity: generate several micro-black holes, accelerate them in an annular confinement track to close to the speed of light. Their relativistic mass will rise, gravitational effects, etc. Gravity at your feet but not at your head, though.

    Photon torpedoes: create a confinement structure that breaks on impact (duh!).

    E-Z fusion: create two concentric confinement tracks. Run black holes in both of them exactly out of phase. This should create a focus at the center that could squeeze plasma to all hell.

    Black hole drive: figure out some way to direct Hawking radiation ;). The virtual half-particles will come out of nothingness, all in the same direction, propelling the ship forward. No thermodynamics problems, as the black hole is the energy source, created by pouring energy from somewhere else in the first place.

    Just a few B.S. pop science ideas tossed off without having RTFA.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  171. And how certain are the effects described? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    How many of the effects that will limit the possibility of the black hole gaining mass have been verified?

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:And how certain are the effects described? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      How many of the effects that will limit the possibility of the black hole gaining mass have been verified?

      Interaction cross-section for neutral particles, and the fact that matter acts as if it's mostly empty space, have been verified by just about every particle accelerator or radioactivity-based experiment ever performed.

      The fact that a black hole with mass this low would be extremely tiny is a consequence of the equations that tell us black holes are possible at all.

      The fact that black holes, if they exist, would evaporate is shown independently by multiple approaches, some hinging on theoretical constructs (it shows up when you model black holes with string theory), some hinging on physical laws (it's required for black holes to be consistent with thermodynamics), and some hinging on observed processes (we know virtual particles exist and know how they act, and near an event horizon, you get evaporation as a direct consequence of their existance).

      So to answer your question, "all of them".

  172. FAGTASTIC! by AndyRooney · · Score: 0

    Well you thought wrong, dick! I'm old and even I know cosmology better than you!

  173. 10% efficiency? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    Matter radiates away approximately half its mass as it falls into the black hole due to the intense acceleration. While this is incredible efficient (50% mass to energy conversion compared to less than 10% for matter-antimatter reactions), it is released as high energy x-rays or gamma rays which may be difficult to use.

    Huh? In a matter-antimatter reaction, 100% of the matter is converted to energy. Not 10%.

    See more here

    -T

    1. Re:10% efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, matter-antimatter is 100% efficient. The mass is entirely annihilated. In order to conserve mass-energy, all of the mass has to be turned into energy. It's pretty simple, actually.

      Maybe he was thinking of a nuclear reaction. That's more like a 0.1-1% efficiency in mass-energy transformation, though.

      Incidentally, falling into a black hole does not necessarily mean intense acceleration. A supermassive black hole as postulated in the center of most galaxies would actually have a very low gravitational acceleration at the event horizon. Of course, once you entered the thing you wouldn't be able to get any energy out.

      Accelerating objects are supposed to emit gravitational radiation, but I don't believe acceleration causes an object to lose mass. In fact, quite the opposite. Accelerating any mass increases its mass. This is basic relativity (it's why you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light or beyond).

      The radiated gravitational energy actually comes from the fact that the two objects are getting closer together. Basic physics tells you that two masses separated by some distance attract each other under their mutual gravitation, and so potential energy exists between them. When you bring those two objects closer together, some of that energy is lost. One of the key indications that gravitational radiation is real are two pulsars that are slowly spinning into each other (we can measure this precisely because they're pulsars). Their orbits shouldn't be decaying unless the system is losing gravitational energy somehow.

      The Hawking radiation does provide a 100% efficient conversion of mass into energy. Although I think some of that energy could be in the form of mass (quantum mechanics again), so it's not necessarily all going to be useful.

    2. Re:10% efficiency? by cquark · · Score: 1

      MAM (matter/antimatter) reactions are much more complex than the simplistic answer that site gives. Think about what a particle accelerator does, like the Fermilab proton-antiproton collider or the SLAC electron-positron collider. They produce a whole zoo of exotic particles, such as the recently discovered top quark in the 1990's, from matter-antimatter collisions.

      In a matter-antimatter reactor for power, you're probably combining hydrogen and antihydrogen. Let's just consider the proton-antiproton interaction as over 99% of the mass is in that pair of particles. The most likely result of a proton/antiproton collision at low energies is a bunch of pions. While neutral pions can decay into photons (energy), charged pions cannot due to conservation of charge and have to decay into muons plus neutrinos. Muons will eventually decay into electrons plus more neutrinos. The neutrinos end up carrying off over half the mass-energy you started with.

      Even in the ideal situation where all the resulting electrons and muons find corresponding antiparticles in the reaction chamber and annhilate, the efficiency is around 40%. That's very unlikely and real designs calculate closer to a 10% efficiency which is still great compared to fusion reactors.

      Oh, and here's a calculation for the ideal case.

    3. Re:10% efficiency? by cquark · · Score: 1

      Accelerating charged particles, such as the electrons and protons in atoms, causes them to emit electromagnetic radiation. Gravitational radiation too, but there's about 40 orders of magnitude less of that. Black holes were first discovered through this radiation--ones that are consuming matter around them, accelerate the matter and cause it to emit X-rays and gamma rays.

      Today physicists do not interpret relativity to mean that mass is dependent on velocity. The definition of momentum from Newton is formula p = m v. Special relativity makes it p = gamma m v, and some people decided to keep the old p = m v by redefining mass in a velocity-dependent way: m = gamma m0, where m0 is the rest mass. No physicists do this any longer, though this idea remains in some layman's explanations.

      And yes, I am a physicist.

    4. Re:10% efficiency? by jefeweiss · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, what's the alternative explanation as far as the relationship between mass and velocity? Do things not increase in mass as velocity increases? Or is it just the whole momentum thing kind of goes away? So you get momentum without extra mass? I'm kind of confused.

    5. Re:10% efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a matter of different definitions. What was once called "rest mass" is now called "mass" -- it is invariant. (Actually, the concept of invariant mass is slightly more general than rest mass; it encompasses photons, which have zero (invariant) mass; their rest mass on the other hand is undefined, because they are never at rest.) The "mass" that changes with velocity is now called "relativistic mass-energy".

      See this FAQ.

    6. Re:10% efficiency? by cquark · · Score: 1

      It's just a choice to redefine momentum, which has always depended on velocity, instead of moving the new velocity-dependence into the mass term. The naive idea that mass changes as velocity indicates that objects would collapse into black holes if their velocity was too high. As this does not happen (the conditions discussed in the article are quite different), it's clear that relativistic mass can't be used in the same way as rest mass. As they're different quantities, why not simply redefine momentum (and you can use relativistic momentum everywhere.)

  174. I can see it now by phorm · · Score: 1

    Scientist dude in white coat: "According to our calculations, the mini black-hole created will not be of any danger. In fact, it will have only 1/1000000000 of the force required to suck the planet into a screaming oblivion"

    Black-hole generator activated

    Nerdy scientist voice fading into the distance: "Oops, I um, forgot to carry the one"

  175. Lexx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > dear lord, haven't we learned our lesson from
    > Doom, Stargate and Half-Life ?!
    >
    > science, it's done nothing but cause trouble.

    Not to mention Lexx. Don't they know that that setup will allow them to measure the mass of a Higgs particle and thus ensure earth's destruction.

    Sign, where's a big bug when you need one....At least I have my towel.

  176. Anybody remember Yellow Submarine? by SolemnDragon · · Score: 1
    Where they went through the sea of holes? And collected one? At the end i think ringo had it, he held it up, and said, 'I've got a hole in me pocket... well, half a hole, anyway..."

    "what did you do with the other half?"

    I gave it to Jeremy."

    "Good, he can keep his mind in it..."

    I'm probably not recollecting word for word, but i do very much remember the cartoon with the holes that he developed like ink and used it to dispose of things... and i remember the monty python cartoon where they used it to catch a criminal, rolling it into position so he'd fall in, and then moving it so he'd fall out into jail...

    Thank you again, slashdot, for proving me to have no childhood that was not in some way based in early tv...

  177. I'd like to point out... by msouth · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...that the universe in a nutshell would definitely be within its Schwarzschild radius. Who is this Hawkings fellow, anyway?

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  178. Darwin Awards by Colosse · · Score: 1

    Maybe we'll get the biggest Darwin Award ever!!!

    http://www.darwinawards.com/

    --
    Colosse.
  179. Sit back and relax, it doesn't matter. by zaqattack911 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Logically, just about every step of human invention and evolution is a means to our eventual perfection. We learned to speak, to survive better, we started civilization to survive better. We developed nukes to kill, but it eventually lead to the mutual prospect of distruction, and therefore brought some form of peace after/during the coldwar.

    If we are capable of creating a black hole which could suck our entire world into it... statistically, logically it must be a form of evolution. So just sit back and relax, and for those of us who are immortal... be prepared for an eternity of floating in space, planetless... with nothing but your own consiousness to keep you company for the eons it might take for you to bump into a habitable planet.

    -- noodle

    1. Re:Sit back and relax, it doesn't matter. by zaqattack911 · · Score: 1

      troll2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trl)
      n.
      A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.

      I think you fuckers are on the wagon or something.

  180. Cats Vs Black Hole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a black hole encountered a cat, 1 of 2 things would happen. Either the never ending supply of FUR would cause the black hole to explode, or the FUR would cause the black hole to become infinitely large, thus devouring the entire universe.

  181. sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christian Science Monitor? Who are you fooling?

  182. Type 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, this is a type 13 planet.

    It's just a matter of time now.

  183. Danger of falling into orbit? by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

    There is a sci-fi novel titled "The Crone Experiment" in which an american scientist (Paul Crone) accidentally creates a few black holes that don't dissapate. As he is observing one, it dissapears and can no longer be measured. He forgets about it and figures it fizzled out. What actually happened is that it reached a point at which it was so massive that it fell through his containment apparatus and began to orbit the earth's core, cutting through the crust at regular intervals. Eventually it was found and scientists determined that its orbit would lessen as it grew more massive, and it would gradually suck in more and more of the planet from the inside out until earth was gone. All that would be left in earth's original orbit would be an infinitely dense dark spot the size of a basket ball, with a lonely moon spinning around it. Melodrama aside, is this a likely scenario? Will black holes that appear to dissapate actually be falling into earth's core? Or is it impossible to generate small black holes that dont dissapate withing microseconds of creation?

    --


    TallGreen CMS hosting
  184. What makes me wonder... by RedlumF · · Score: 1

    Well, if you work up from the radius of the event horizon and the mass that is inside you get something that I tend to call critical density (Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere), which in my mind is the critical density that matter has to reach in order to make a black hole. But, what could be with more density than the elements of matter itself? What can have more density than quarks? So, shouldn't quarks be black holes since they have the highest density possible?

    1. Re:What makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can have more density than quarks? So, shouldn't quarks be black holes since they have the highest density possible?


      Theoretically, all elementary particles have infinite density (since they have zero size). Without quantum gravity, we can't tell how they relate to black holes, if at all.
  185. Actually... by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't have to worry about nasties popping out our end. We'd be the nasties popping out the other end.

    From what I've been reading in some technical Sci-Fi writing guides, to travel through you start by going through the black hole and exiting via a white hole.

    So Orbox the 3 Headed would be sitting down to breakfast when a flood of nasty humans poured through the portal into his dining area. Poor Orbox :)

  186. possibly OT question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from my limited understanding of nukes, they work by compressing specific types of mass enough to fuse. Anyone know if there's any potential in that to do what the collider is going to do?

  187. Just in time... by christianT · · Score: 1

    for Half-Life 2.

  188. This sounds familiar... by shadowbolt · · Score: 1
    "Now, Gordon, if you could accelerate the hadrons to acceptable collision velocity and-- What? Shutting down! It's not working! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!"

    BOOM! ZAP! FLASH!

    "My, Gordon, I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade!"

  189. What if Hawkins was wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the black hole didn't dissipate after all?

  190. out of this world by QEDog · · Score: 1

    oh gosh! like that old game, Out of This World!

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  191. And Then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A BH is created, and recorded serveral times, and eventually enough study and experimentation occurs that stable and managable BH is maintained. Soon BH power stations, engines, galactic drives, and Cadillac Headlights are created. A few years later, they discover how to release regulated energy in large amounts and can shrink the black holes as needed, allowing all of the earths waste to be immediatley turned into clean reliable energy. Polution exists no longer, and there is no longer a need for coal, oil, or any other natural resource.

    Sounds very nice huh?

    100 years later, one of those dark matter particals passes directly into any one of these now common black holes, and creates an instant implosion destroying everything and essentually flushing the space toilet. Beings in dimension 79 scoff, and post comments to snargdot.com about them crazy earth beings.

  192. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny. There haven't been any American scientists in centuries. It's all Jews, Indians, Chinese and Europeans doing all the thinking for you.
    Now go back to McDonalds and don't forget to smile when the Indian pulls up in a Mercedes to order his coffee from you.
    "I for one is" huh... Back to grade school with you, fat ass american!

  193. Lucky My Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if hawking is an alien in disguise and this is all just a clever plan to bring over his alien buddies from planet Melmac and take over Earth?

  194. What? This is easy to do! by syzme · · Score: 1

    Just divide by zero.

  195. hardon collisions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are undeniably much worse than goatse.cx

    what is wrong with you people?

  196. more disturbing words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Large Hard-on Collider

    sounds like a new picture series from goatse.cx



    perhaps even scary?

  197. we are the black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it quite sad, all this paranoia about black holes eating away the earth. It is plain us who are eating away the earth.
    Is it a bad idea to create black holes in a lab? It is a bad idea to ride your car every day to work, or to produce so much waste. It is a bad idea to grow economically.
    We are the black hole which is sucking away all the natural resources on the face of the earth. What we fear reading about these experiments is really happening.

  198. Check The Straight Dope by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    linked

    The relevant bits are in the first paragraph. Basically, if we make a black hole with the same mass as a small dog, then the Earth will not get sucked in by it, just as the Earth does not get sucked in by a small dog.

    Now that I've written this, I'm not actually sure that it applies to your question, but I got to link to the Straight Dope, anyway.

  199. A very quick overview of the field by bmnc · · Score: 1

    OK, the black holes (BH) produced would be tiny, well smaller than an atom. The only way they can be made at this energy (1TeV) is if there are extra spatial dimensions which are very small, at least sub mm. Gravity ~1/r^2 doesn't hold in this regime, it'll be something like 1/r^(n+2) where you have n extra staial dimensions. We have no idea whether they'll be meta-stable and last "forever" (but be so small we won't worry about them cos the earth is likely to have already attracted a few), or meta-unstable and "immediately" decay into normal particles. look at arxiv.org and search for "semi classical black holes" in hep-th and gr-qc if you want to know more. SLAC is another good resource. The moral of the story is, these black holes are almost certainly likely to be harmless, and if there are extra dimensional aliens/demons they will be too busy worrying about being eaten by bacteria and other microbes too much to star in popular computer games =).

  200. 'Nother Black Hole Story by Squiffy · · Score: 1

    Artifact by Gregory Benford

  201. A new "Left Behind" sequel! by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    Black Hole . . . bottomless pit . . . yes it is all clear now.

    Disclaimer: Yes I believe the Bible. No, I don't put any stock in the "Left Behind" style interpretation (map prophetic events to modern events, use a hammer to make it fit) except as a form of Sci Fi/Fantasy entertainment.

    Revelation 9

    1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
    2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
    3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
    4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
    5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
    6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
    7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
    8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
    9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
    10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
    11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
  202. Shuttle by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    On second thought, maybe I will volunteer for a shuttle ride during such an experiment. Wouldn't that be ironic if the last remaining humans are 7 shuttle astronauts?

  203. Re:Did anyone actually read the article? by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    I got the joke. They made it sound like the article was saying something like that.

  204. My reply by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    That coward who said "only when it has infinite momentum" is referring to DxDp=hbar.

    That electron cloud is not just a visualization.

    The electron doesn't just take up a point. It exists in all those points at once. Thus, it can absorb a light ray that is bigger than a point. Indeed, you throw a whole bunch of electrons into an "electron gas" (that is, free electron cloud of a conductor), and the electron can recieve and transmit from a space the size of the whole conductor.

    The energy of that light wave is typically absorbed as a packet by *all* the electrons in the conductor. But it also can be absorbed by each of the electrons in the conductor.

    As a side note, very often, if the visualization works, it is because there is something inherently true about it. Plum-pudding models *don't* work for atoms. However, they *do* work for nuclei. That is because the structure of the nucleus involves a bunch of quarks continuously decomposing at the boundaries of the nucleus.

    The electron cloud of a Hydrogen atom exists at all points, because of the virtual particle creation and destruction that goes on throughout the entire field of the electron cloud. Conservation occurs, but the electron is virtually and mathematically at all points in the cloud, and all points in the cloud recieve the photon at once. Therefore, it isn't just one point.

    The electron is really that large.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:My reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, it isn't just one point.


      Yes, it is.

      What's correct to say is not that "an electron fills all of space", but rather it has a nonzero probability of being at any point in space. The electron's position simply isn't defined unless you measure it. If you do measure it, it collapses into a position eigenstate, and is perfectly pointlike.

      When we talk about the sizes of particles, they are either pointlike (for elementary particles, like electrons) or finite (for composite particles, like protons). They are never infinite.

      By the way, nuclei do not have "quarks continuously decomposing at their boundaries".
    2. Re:My reply by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      The electron doesn't just take up a point. It exists in all those points at once.

      The fact that an electron has nonzero amplitude everywhere does not imply that it takes up all the space in the universe. There is an important distinction to be made between the region a particle is likely to be and the region it occupies. Thus far, there has been no experimental evidence for electrons having nontrivial volume. Incidentally, if an electron were some kind of black hole, the region enclosed by the event horizon would be much too small for us to measure, or even distinguish from a point.

      The energy of that light wave is typically absorbed as a packet by *all* the electrons in the conductor. But it also can be absorbed by each of the electrons in the conductor.

      You're not making yourself very clear here. It looks like you are saying something about electrons obeying Fermi statistics and interacting with the EM field. Both properties are pretty much unrelated to size, e.g. protons (which do take up volume) also obey Fermi statistics and interact with the EM field.

      That is because the structure of the nucleus involves a bunch of quarks continuously decomposing at the boundaries of the nucleus.

      As another poster noted, this does not seem to make much sense. What are the decay products of these quarks, and what happens to them? Are you referring to the parton model? That does involve lots of quarks in some kind of confinement, but no decomposition, and no definite boundary.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    3. Re:My reply by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I am referring to the strong force, that is, the force which binds the nucleus together.

      Essentially, you have a H+ nucleus with R,G, and B quarks. The binding force on those quarks is essentially zero, and two of those quarks have the same charge. Either through what seems to be random motions or according to the electric field, they will separate.

      However, as you increase the distance between the quarks, the colorless principle is violated, and the energy of the strong field increases until it is enough to cause pair production (say, R/R'). The outer quark now annhilates with the newly made antiquark, and total energy is conserved, but the new quark is now back within the radius of the nucleus.

      So right at the boundary of the nucleus, you have continuous quark/antiquark production and annhilation. Thus, my statement about continuous decomposition. And it isn't a definite boundary, it is an indefinite boundary, but a very real one that is approximately (by definition) equal to the radius of the nuclus.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    4. Re:My reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking, right?

      The process you describe does violate the conservation of energy. Pair production of real particles is not spontaneous; they need to be given enough external energy for that to happen. And what happens to the decay products
      of the matter/antimatter annihilation?

      But even ignoring that, the binding force on the quarks is very far from zero. Only at much higher energies does it appreciably weaken. Statistically, quarks in protons do not separate or form new quark/antiquark pairs.

  205. Dr. Freeman by crusher-1 · · Score: 1

    Is there any chance that Dr. Freeman and his crowbar will be available and onsite at runtime? You know.... Just in case!

  206. Wow, maybe he's a Mathematician by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    You know the old story:

    Biologists think they're Chemists,
    Chemists think they're Physicists,
    Physicists think they're Mathematicians,
    Mathematicians think they're God.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  207. how long do these singularities stick around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether they are big enough to be called black holes or just big enough to mimic the density, don't they STAY HUNGRY? I mean - a singularity - no matter how small - has some depressing implications for the not so dense matter of our planet. I'd give the earth about 2 weeks if we simply let these singluarities fall to the core when we are done with them.

    Am I the only one paranoid enough to bring this up? Sam Neil be dammned! we're all gonna die!

    1. Re:how long do these singularities stick around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These black holes are unstable evaporate almost instantaneously. Even if they were stable, they are so much smaller than an atom, and their gravity is so feeble, that they are ridiculously unlikely to absorb any particles at all, even if they fell straight through the Earth. (Not to mention that they'd probably have speeds much greater than escape velocity, and wouldn't "fall to the core" to begin with.)

  208. replying as AC to AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it doesn't violate conservation of energy. First of all, energy is conserved on average, but can vary according to Heisenberg's principle. Because of that, you can get pair production followed by pair annhilation. Think of it as energy in the form of light converging on a spot, followed by pair annhilation, producing light leaving that spot. That happens all the time. You don't need to actively focus the light.

    The light can even be background radiation, which you aren't going to be measuring, so it will seem like energy is not conserved over a very short time, Dt=hbar/DE. Maybe it really isn't conserved within that limit -- I'm not going to get into that issue. But pair production followed by pair annhilation happens all the time. Less often, but also common enough, is pair annhilation followed by pair production.

    It also happens all the time, since it is the mechanism of the strong force (read Powers' book "Superforce").

    As for the binding force on quarks, it is lowest at close range, and strong at long range, thus the name "strong force". But since E=F*D (energy = force * dist), at a certain limit distance the potential energy of the quark will have been raised to the point that it can produce a quark/antiquark pair.

    Whatever.

    1. Re:replying as AC to AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't violate conservation of energy. First of all, energy is conserved on average, but can vary according to Heisenberg's principle.


      Energy consevation is an exact conservation law in quantum field theory.


      Because of that, you can get pair production followed by pair annhilation.


      The annhilation products will carry energy away from the nucleus.

      I think you're getting confused with virtual processes. You can think of a particle's propagator as being corrected by virtual interactions. (e.g. an electron emits a photon, which turns into an electron/positron, which annihilate back into a photon, which is reabsorbed back in to the original electron.) This renormalizes the physical constants (charge, mass, etc.) These interactions are not real, they are virtual: you sum over all interactions to get what really happens. Furthermore, virtual corrections happen to every particle, not just "ones on the boundary of a nucleus". The nucleus does not take up space because particles on its boundary are susceptible to virtual pair creation/annihilation that other particles are not.


      But since E=F*D (energy = force * dist), at a certain limit distance the potential energy of the quark will have been raised to the point that it can produce a quark/antiquark pair.


      In order to raise the energy of the quark enough to produce a quark/antiquark pair, you have to add enough energy to the quark to equal the mass-energy of the produced pair. It doesn't happen spontaneously.

      On the other hand, if you're talking about virtual interactions, then they can take place anywhere within the nucleus, not just at the boundary.


      It also happens all the time, since it is the mechanism of the strong force (read Powers' book "Superforce").


      Don't you mean Davies' book Superforce? If you want to read about how the strong force works, read a real physics text. Try Peskin and Schroeder, vol. II of Weinberg, Halzen and Martin, Huang, etc.
    2. Re:replying as AC to AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try Peskin and Schroeder... Unfortunately, I live in the boondocks without access to a decent library, and without the money to buy such books. That said, if you have read these yourself, you could be right. Regardless, I could be wrong. You may wish to stop reading here. And yes. Paul Davies, bad memory, long time no see.



      Energy conservation is an exact conservation law in quantum field theory.

      Energy conservation may well be assumed to be exact; however, all I was saying there is that whether one assumes it to be exact or not, energy does vary, right down to the point of particle tunneling/(disappearance and reappearence elsewhere within a time Dt and momentum Dp). The cause of that variance might be shown to be conservative, or might be shown to be nonconservative -- at least currently, there are testability problems with showing whether energy is conserved on a smaller scale. So we have to theorize, thus the name of "quantum field theory". That said, I have my own ideas on how you might achieve conservation, but they are my own ideas and not a millionth as respectable as QFT.



      Virtual processes.

      &LT religion &GT I do not believe that virtual processes are simply virtual. I don't believe in ghost communications without particles. &LT /religion &GT Maybe they do happen, but as far as I can tell, everything is explainable without ghost communications, or not explainable simply due to the fact that our technology and science is limited. To me, ghost communications are much worse than a violation of energy -- they'd be a violation of entropy. Therefore, I am left to conclude that the virtual processes must indeed be real, but very short-lived. In line with that, though, the renormalization I tend to think is very necessary, and is tied to both conservation of energy and the Heisenberg principle, which I think, in turn, is much more meaningful than anyone realizes. But this is just think. I can't prove this, at least not now, probably not ever for me.



      In order to raise the energy...

      I'd agree. I could just throw you a pat phrase on where that energy comes from *cough* (3-dimensional structure of space is directly tied to the 3 colors of the strong force, and those virtual particles are relativistic quarks interacting, accelerating, and decelerating) *cough*, but you rightfully wouldn't accept it without evidence. So don't.



      Nonetheless, The energy difference is greatest at the boundary of the nucleus, and the virtual pair production / destruction happens most often at the boundary of the nucleus. Boundary being a notoriously bad word, of course. Take the probability wave of the nucleus, and take the radial derivative (for H+ S-level. P- and D- will be different), and you'll get the spatial probability that a quark pair production-destruction event will occur. That event is what contains the nucleus via the strong force. To me, that would be a relativistic quark pair acceleration/deceleration event, but there is no need for it to violate conservation of energy. For every pair produced a pair is destroyed. Or for every quark accelerated, a quark is decelerated by the same amount, but energy is conserved.

    3. Re:replying as AC to AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe in ghost communications without particles.


      The correct notion is that of a quantum field. "Virtual particles" are merely ways of visualizing individual terms in an approximate series expansion. Individual terms have no meaning; only their sum determines physical quantities.


      as far as I can tell, everything is explainable without ghost communications, or not explainable simply due to the fact that our technology and science is limited


      I have no idea what "ghost communications" are. Are you talking about the EPR paradox? That exists even outside of quantum field theory -- in ordinary quantum mechanics, which is not described in terms of mediating virtual particles.


      To me, ghost communications are much worse than a violation of energy -- they'd be a violation of entropy.

      Ugh. If you ask me, entropy is an even more misunderstood subject than quantum mechanics.. combine the two, and I have very little confidence that you really understand the implications.


      Therefore, I am left to conclude that the virtual processes must indeed be real, but very short-lived.


      What does it mean for a process to be "real", if it can never be observed -- even in principle, with arbitrarily fast and accurate instruments?


      The energy difference is greatest at the boundary of the nucleus, and the virtual pair production / destruction happens most often at the boundary of the nucleus.


      I don't think so, but I can't prove it without a lot of QCD calculation that I'm not willing to attempt just to convince you.


      Take the probability wave of the nucleus, and take the radial derivative (for H+ S-level. P- and D- will be different), and you'll get the spatial probability that a quark pair production-destruction event will occur.


      That can't be true. The wavefunction merely gives the kinematics -- the probability of finding a particle in a given location. The dynamics are a completely different matter -- the probability amplitude for a process to take place is not simply proportional to the value of the wavefunction.


      To me, that would be a relativistic quark pair acceleration/deceleration event, but there is no need for it to violate conservation of energy. For every pair produced a pair is destroyed.


      I don't even know what process you're trying to describe here. What real particles are involved, and what virtual intermediates? What are the in- and out states? Are you talking about vacuum pair production, or production due to a background gluon field, or what? Are these pairs interacting with real quarks? What happens to the decay products of the annihilations? Etc. etc.

  209. Virtual Particles by Aku+Head · · Score: 1
    That is way that I understand that Hawking radiation works. I have always had a problem with this though. There is this other conjecture about a method of instantaneous communications. It involves capturing, separating and storing virtual pairs. The idea being that you can separate the particles by a vast distance, but once you destroy one particle, its mate also vanishes.

    So why is it true that with Hawking radiation, you can destroy one member of the pair and the other survives?

    1. Re:Virtual Particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking radiation consists of real particles. The Hawking effect relies on an observer dependence on what constitutes a "particle". To a freely-falling observer at the horizon, the pair of particles is virtual; to an observer out at infinity who measures radiation, the particles are real.

      It's also not really true that destroying one particle will destroy the other. Usually, in virtual processes, we're talking about a pair annihilating with each other, so they both vanish at the same time. But what happens to one particle doesn't have to happen to the other particle; they can undergo different interactions.

  210. Re:ENZEIT-MASCHINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well there actually IS a way to destroy blackholes:
    imagine superfluid or even ice hydrogen, cooled to
    a few 0 Kelvin. if you drop this into the blackhole, it would rip it apart. the mathe included (here NOT) is difficult, put the super-cooled hydrogen would implode bevore it reaches the event horizon, creating a space-time distortion, which would breach the event-horizon.
    die folge waere dann, dass das schwarzeloch ein teil seiner energie durch diesen "raumriss" verliert, aber das ist heorie. danke!
    bablefish-altavista for translation.
    real physics is writen about in german anyway!