Slashdot Mirror


Atom Smasher May Create "Black Saturns"

David Shiga writes "If we ever make black holes on Earth, they might be much stranger objects than the star-swallowing monsters known to exist in space. According to a new theory, any black hole that pops out of the Large Hadron Collider under construction in Switzerland might be surrounded by a black ring — forming a microscopic 'black Saturn'. This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough." An evocative excerpt from the article: "...there is an outside chance that in a few years in a tunnel near Geneva, physicists will make a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut."

423 comments

  1. 4D black donut? by bunions · · Score: 5, Funny

    mmmmmmmmmmmm, higher dimensional.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:4D black donut? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Think of all the bad science fiction that could result from this.

      "Captain! The warp drive just farted out a quad dimensional donut, possibly chocalate with cherry filling."

    2. Re:4D black donut? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know about you, but I'm going to be keeping a shotgun and a chainsaw close by at all times!

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    3. Re:4D black donut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eeeewwwwwww, nano goatse.

    4. Re:4D black donut? by beckerist · · Score: 1

      or all the good porn!

    5. Re:4D black donut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do that...
      I'll have the BFG

      dude... you can't just start out with the BFG.. you gotta be up to your ass in trans-dimensional monster guts first to prove you earned it!
    6. Re:4D black donut? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      IDKFA

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:4D black donut? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Just don't try that in Heretic. You'll end up with nothing but a quarterstaff lol

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:4D black donut? by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Funny

      you gotta be up to your ass in trans-dimensional monster guts first to prove you earned it!

      Knee deep in the dead, perhaps?

    9. Re:4D black donut? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. Nothing but my fists and 'IDDQD'!

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    10. Re:4D black donut? by DarkAxi0m · · Score: 1

      bah stuff that i'm in a hurry
      lots a food work and 'IDSPISPOPD'

      ...i wonder if that works in 4 dimension

    11. Re:4D black donut? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Pumpkins I assume

    12. Re:4D black donut? by nicolastheadept · · Score: 1

      I'll take the Gravity Gun and hide out in a DIY store

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    13. Re:4D black donut? by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      don't worry, i'm sure the navy's rail guns will be working by then . . .

    14. Re:4D black donut? by gonzoxl5 · · Score: 1

      s'ok, I'll just IDMYPOS before choosing an appropriate ground to IDCHOPPERS my way out of there

    15. Re:4D black donut? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      It could be worse:

      "Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. Lone Starr!"

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    16. Re:4D black donut? by Valtor · · Score: 1

      For those wondering

      "idkfa" is a cheat code in the iD Software game Doom, which gives you all the weapons in the game, as well as all the keys.

      --
      "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
    17. Re:4D black donut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine all the calories of a 3D donut raised to the 1.333333333 power!

    18. Re:4D black donut? by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      everyone assumes that its the stars that eventually collapses into black holes... could it be that it's indeed the third rock from the sun and thus the ultimate darwin award ? .. would explain why theres noone else outthere ... except alot of black holes !!!

  2. Pic from article by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Pic from article by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The funny part is, even though the relation you are joking about is obviously not the original intent; the article doesn't do much better. The need to relate a look or description to a common object is very standard in media. Saturn is not the only object surround by a ring, nor does it really relate to the ring that the article is taking about. It just make a more personal relationship to the concept by stating that it's like Saturn.

      --
      "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
    2. Re:Pic from article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yah! I know something that has a ring...

      D'OH! goatse'd yet again!!!

    3. Re:Pic from article by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here's a better picture: .

      Note: Image has been heavily magnified.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    4. Re:Pic from article by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      I was expecting comments on Uranus....

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    5. Re:Pic from article by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      You forget, it's going to be renamed "Urectum" to put an end to those jokes...

    6. Re:Pic from article by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure I saw a movie in the 70's titled "Black Saturn."

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    7. Re:Pic from article by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1
      Not from the 70's but there is Sailor Saturn from the Sailor Moon manga and anime.

      As Sailor Saturn, Hotaru can destroy the world and the solar system to some extent

      In the Anime, she is posessed and used to summon Pharaoh 90 who appears as a large black ball to destroy the Earth.

      No need to worry though, it's not like this could happen.
    8. Re:Pic from article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anime sucks. STFU!

  3. Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you actually suggesting that string theory might actually predict something that the standard model doesn't, and what it predicts might actually be measurable?! That's crazy talk! Next you'll be suggesting that string theory is disprovable and therefore actually science. I'll believe it when it happens.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm pretty confident that it won't happen, and that it won't slow down even one of those string-theory-mystics that make up today's physics departments. They'll just be like "Oh, our theory only really makes the predictions that are actually observed." But I hope my cynicism is misplaced!

    2. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Funny

      We are the String Theorists. You will be assimilated. Resistance is non-dimensionable!

    3. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was what I thought when I read the article. One of the major complaints about string theory has been that there's supposedly no way to test it experimentally. But the article says such a structure could only exist if there are really four dimensions. So if we succeed in creating one, would that be an experimental confirmation of string theory? Seems to me, at the very least it would confirm one of the major premises.

    4. Re:Now wait a minute.. by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Testing String Theory:

      Physicists create string theory test

      PITTSBURGH, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- Scientists have long questioned the validity of "string theory" and now U.S. physicists have created a test for the controversial "theory of everything."

      [... click link to read article]

    5. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      But I hope my cynicism is misplaced!
      It is. Learn some physics. I don't like string theory either, but at least I actually have legitimate reasons for not liking it. "It's not science!!1one lol!" is not one of them.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    6. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not science" is a very good reason. Science is by definition the refining of hypotheses through observation. String Theory is just about coming up with the simplest way of making the equations work out to cover the raw, gaping interface between quantum and classical mechanics. If there is no way to observe, test, or predict something, it's *not* science and does not deserve the label.

    7. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      4 dimensions

      length
      width
      height
      time

      QED

    8. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Large Extra-Dimensions are a set of theories inspired by string theory...sort of like a Hollywood movie that is "inspired by" true events. While finding them would certainly make people take more interest in string theory, they would not confirm nor deny string theory - just like you may get a hint of the "true events" from a Hollywood movie but it is in no way an accurate picture of what really happened. So sorry to disappoint you but this would still not confirmation of strings - just a hint that maybe we are on the right track.

    9. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

      So Quantum Field Theory is not science either. QFT is just as broad, perhaps even broader, in what it could conceivably describe, as string theory. The Standard Model is a QFT, and not a particularly pretty one at that. Much of the work that goes on in string theory is looking for a string theory, a particular model within the framework of string theory in the same way as SM is a particular model within the framework of QFT, that describes our universe. String theory is already just as good, and arguably better than, QFT, except in that finding models in string theory seems to be much harder.

      There are ways to test QFT, and there are ways to test string theory. For instance: Lorentz invariance. Just because nobody reasonably suspects that Lorentz invariance will turn out to not be a real feature of our universe does not mean that it is not a testable prediction. The frameworks of both QFT and string theory include Lorentz invariance.

      Furthermore, string theory is not as purely descriptive as you seem to think. It begins with some quite simple and quite basic first principles, and then attempts to derive all of physics from those. If it turns out that they can't describe all of physics from those principles, then they'll have to go back to the drawing board and look for new principles. Those principles are hypotheses. They have left the observation up to other physicists, and are using the existing theories as a description of those observations. So, they are letting observation refine their hypotheses.

      If they were merely looking for a way to describe all our known data, then they would just say "Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is." Such a theory would be absolutely right. It would even be science. It would be pretty poor science, but it would be science nonetheless. If they are truly looking for the simplest way to make equations that work out to cover all the physics that we know, then it is absolutely science. Simplicity and good description of data are what make a scientific theory good. And yes, they are trying to describe data. If they are trying to make particular limits of their theory match up with extant theories that are known to work in those same limits, then they are trying to describe data, simply because those extant theories are only extant because they themselves describe data.

      Now, I don't much care for the particular approach that string theory takes, but that in no way makes it not science.

      As I said, learn a little physics before you try and comment on physics. Learn a little bit more of the details of what string theorists actually do, and also learn a little bit more of the details of how every other scientific theory in existence was formulated. Not that they were all identical to string theory at some point, but at base, they all tried to find the simplest way of making equations describe data, and sometimes those data were represented by other equations.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    10. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it? You'll even get modded up. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything. Why? Because whenever someone finds a prediction with string theory that differs from observed data the string theorists have a reason why this doesn't disprove the theory. Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not. That's the difference.. that's what makes string theory not science. It may be interesting.. it may give us insights into how things may work, but you can't call it science. Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      then they would just say "Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is." Such a theory would be absolutely right. It would even be science. It would be pretty poor science,

      Actually no it wouldn't... Science is by definition predictive, that is how scientific theories are disproven. This is a very common misconception and one which is fundamental to many people's distrust of science.

    12. Re:Now wait a minute.. by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      imho, the problem is that science is supposed to study the apparently unprovable ~ if science only consisted of the proven, hypothesis wouldn't even exist, therefore, nor would your science

      string theory is just that ... a theory

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    13. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Such a theory is predictive. As it stands, it predicts that that is all the data we will ever have, or that any further data will exactly mimic what we've already got. That's why it is such poor science; it is ludicrously easy to falsify.

      Science's definition depends a great deal on who you talk to. Most everyone who has studied would agree that Plato did a bit of science. In fact, Plato's science was pretty amazing for its time. You recall the "four (or five) elements"? Plato said that each element was in fact tiny tiny versions of the Platonic solids. For instance, fire was made of tetrahedrons, and it hurt because it was sharp. When things decayed, the reason they smelled strongly was that the elements were actually breaking up into little triangles (their faces), and those triangles were small, so they got into our noses easily.

      Plato's science wasn't very predictive at all. Pretty much purely descriptive. And yet it was a sterling example of early science.

      Quantum Field Theory in and of itself is barely predictive. Pretty much its only predictions are directly its assumptions, such as the Lorentz Invariance I mentioned previously. Perhaps it is not science (and if you say that QFT is not science, then I might well agree that string theory is not science either, but I would then argue that we certainly need QFT to get the SM, which is science), but most people agree it is.

      It is of course difficult to come up with decent examples of purely descriptive science, because of course purely descriptive science is very poor science indeed, and is rightly largely ignored.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    14. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science is the study of the disprovable. Man. Shouldn't have to explain this stuff....

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it?
      Yes, it is. But I do try to do my part to combat misconceptions, because public misconceptions about one part of science tend to hurt all of science in a small way.

      Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything.
      True. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community regards string theory as something which could very well be the most important thing since the relativities and QFT.

      Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not.
      As I tried to explain previously, but you obviously either didn't read or didn't grasp, you are comparing apples to oranges. The SM is a particular instance of QFT. Nobody has yet found a comparable particular instance of string theory. You would in fact have just as difficult of a time disproving QFT as you would string theory, perhaps even more difficult of a time. For instance, suppose we did our searches for extra dimensions (these are done regularly at HEP labs) and found that our data supported a universe with 15 extra dimensions! This would rule out string theory without drastic modifications, but wouldn't hurt QFT at all. Wouldn't even hurt the SM.

      Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.
      If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place. If you're intending to hide behind a shield of "I don't really know what I'm talking about," then actually behave as if you don't know what you are talking about. Keep your mouth shut unless you've really got something worthwhile to say.

      Most of the scientific community that I am familiar with (experimental HEP) doesn't really much care for string theory, but neither do they think it is not science and is a waste of time. In other words, they and I largely agree. Now which scientific community did you want me to take this up with again? (and don't forget the concept of a vocal (and book-writing) minority. Only a tiny minority of scientists ever write pop-science books. Their opinions should not necessarily be considered representative.) In my opinion, it is the amateur public, who is easily and immensely swayed by a few popular books, and then who reinforce each others misconceptions by such things as posting to slashdot and saying "yeah, string theory, sucks doesn't it. I really hate it.", who need to be addressed.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    16. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Large Extra Dimensions predate string theory by quite a bit. IIRC, LED originated with Kaluza-Klein gravity+E&M unification models.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    17. Re:Now wait a minute.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      String theory makes several predictions that are expected to be testable in the near future. String theory being untestable is a pop science myth that distorts the underlying truth -- string theory unfortunately has lots of parameters that need to be tuned.

    18. Re:Now wait a minute.. by radtea · · Score: 1

      String theory is already just as good, and arguably better than, QFT, except in that finding models in string theory seems to be much harder.

      This is like saying, "A Ferrari is just as good, and arguably better than, a school bus, except in that carrying large numbers of people in a Ferrari seems to be much harder."

      The M-theory family is beautiful and elegant and all that, but until it produces something as boringly useful as the SM it's not going to be well regarded. Really, a theoretical framework that is not fruitful with regard to models just isn't that interesting, which is one way of summarizing much of the criticism focussed on this family of theories.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    19. Re:Now wait a minute.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A couple of New York Times bestsellers does not the scientific community make....

      String theory has some serious criticisms leveled at it but "it's not science" is a pretty gross simplification, and an unfortunate one.

    20. Re:Now wait a minute.. by StarvingSE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it not science? I think what is called "string theory" should probably be renamed "String hypothesis" since that is what it really is IMHO. A science means following the scientific method, and the ideas proposed in string theory make up the hypothesis, and now researchers need to focus on experiments that test the theory. If the observable findings agree with the hypothesis on a regular basis, then we can call it a theory.

      But to call it "not science" is just ignorant. People used to laugh at individuals who thought the Earth was round you know..

      --
      I got nothin'
    21. Re:Now wait a minute.. by GeffDE · · Score: 0

      Dude. Man. Whoa. Science is the study of the testable. Evolution is not provable, and neither is the universal theory of gravitation. You can't even disprove the Universal Theory of Gravitation because it works (under certain conditions). But you can test it, and see when it does work...

      I wish you wouldn't try to explain this stuff.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    22. Re:Now wait a minute.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Purely descriptive science is an immature science, but not necessarily bad. It's a rare theory that springs fully formed, complete with easily falsifiable predictions. Usually you have a long period of making observations (a critical part of science) then various attempts to sort, classify and describe those observations (also a big part of science, and a stage that mainstream biology is just emerging from). Then you get to take some of those descriptive bits and make them more rigorous and predictive.

      Physics has an abundance of rigorous, mathematical theories at the moment, but, as you point out, it wasn't always that way. Chemistry is also doing pretty well currently, but it was very descriptive not very long ago. Biology is also maturing rapidly, but is still mostly descriptive. That doesn't make it non-science though.

    23. Re:Now wait a minute.. by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Disprovable. ~ Capable of being disproved or refuted.

      So what you're saying is that science is "the study of what is capable of being disproved or refuted."

      Sounds to me like you shouldn't be explaining this stuff.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    24. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      You may want to read about philosophy of science. Specifically, Karl Popper's contribution. So one of his claims would be that you are dead wrong when you claim , '"Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is." Such a theory would be absolutely right. It would even be science.' There would be no way for the data to not be as it is -- there is no way to falsify the theory, it isn't science.

      As an example, Einstein was able to predict not just that Newtonian physics would be an excellent approximation for almost all measurements made in his time, but also the behavior of a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse. This was a harsh test -- had he been wrong the star would not have been visible. Harsh tests is what makes a theory go from nothing to worth something.

      So now we come around to the central criticism of string theory--no harsh tests to date. Even the recently proposed test of string theory would only show that some assumptions would have to be changed in the words of the proposer. This implies that string theory is a "calibration model" which means that when new data is brought to light a correction is applied. So, it isn't a test of the theory, it's a calibration. When you have a theory like this, it can't ever be wrong and it's impossible to disprove (there is always a new know to "calibrate") and it isn't science.

    25. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      right, but it's just a calibration because the author points out that if the test rejects the null hypothesis then some assumptions have to be adjusted and string theory survives. If the test doesn't put the theory at serious risk, it isn't a test--it's a calibration.

    26. Re:Now wait a minute.. by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      Okay. I don't know jack shit really about quantum mechanics or any of that good mumbo-jumbo. Bear with me.

      How do we know the fourth dimension is time? Who decided this? How did they decide that? If they just said it, isn't it completely possible also that the fourth possible dimension is not time, but rather taste? Just wondering.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    27. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      which is one way of summarizing much of the criticism focussed on this family of theories.
      Indeed. This is what I would call a legitimate reason to dislike string theory. This is in fact one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, I'm not quite so sure anymore at 11pm after nyquil, that I dislike string theory. This is a thoroughly different argument than "It isn't science.".
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    28. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Discordantus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, the gp is right. H didn't say provable, he said disprovable. Huge difference. Evolution is probably not provable, but it is disprovable. This is also why creationism is not science: it is not disprovable (once an omnipotent God is in the picture, any disproof can be refuted).

    29. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you can test it, and see when it does work... Yes, that's what "disproving" means.. You only need one counter example to disprove. As for proving, I never said anything about "the provable".
      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    30. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that it's absurd to call QFT and string theory not science, but I think it might be justified to call both not physics. QFT is a very, very useful mathematical tool which physicists use, but it's a rather difficult tool to test directly (the results we get out are certainly physics).

      It's very odd that the math some physicists doubt can be seen as not science. According to an essay last week in Nature, some biologists reject the idea of mathematical laws entirely ("the data is as it is"). Yet despite that, there is no question that mathematical biology is science (before someone screams, it is).

      The public does not understand the basic ~100 year old theories we base our experiments on (which were at one point unproven and controversial...). You can even get a physics degree (in some places) without needing to learn QFT. Imagine explaining genomics to people who didn't know what a cell is. That is the situation we are in. Baby steps...

    31. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

      For one, Popper is not the only philosopher of science. He is the only one that ever gets any currency on slashdot, but he is far from the only one.

      Two, as I said to another reply making this same objection, the "The Data Is As It Is" theory could be understood to implicitly say "Under exactly the same conditions as we did our experiment, you will get exactly the same results as we did", which is dead easy to falsify.

      Three, a measurement which breaks lorentz invariance would destroy string theory (as well as much of the rest of the last century of physics). There is no "change the words of the proposer" here (although in general, if you change the assumptions of a theory, you pretty much have to change everything. They are assumptions because they are fundamental and necessary.). This is one regard in which string theory absolutely can be wrong, and lorentz invariance absolutely is testable and is frequently tested.

      Four, QFT is just as much, if not more so, of a "calibration model". QFT can describe a huge number of conceivable universes, probably more than string theory can. For instance, string theory nails down a number of dimensions. QFT does not. It is possible for us to do measurements on the number of dimensions. They are indirect, and they have a difficult time ruling out more dimensions than we have yet measured, but they can fairly easily rule out fewer dimensions than we have yet measured. So, it is conceivable that we might do LED analyses at the LHC and find that it looks like there are at least 3,972 dimensions. QFT would have no problem with this. String theory would. Yet another way in which string theory is definitely falsifiable.

      Five, even the SM, the baby of QFT and of string theory opponents, is very much a calibration model in all kinds of ways. In fact, that is one of the principal criticisms of the SM. It has far too many free parameters that can only be determined by experiment. Once a particular string model (and here I mean string model : string theory :: SM : QFT) is found that actually describes our universe, in theory it will have IIRC one free parameter. Much much less of a calibration model than the SM.

      Six, if we built a sufficiently powerful particle accelerator, we could probe down to string length scales (and no, I'm pretty sure that the string length scale is moderately fundamental, so the string theorists couldn't just say "well, ok, strings are smaller than that then."), and see whether we saw strings or point particles. QFT predicts points, string theory predicts (obviously) strings. This is a harsh test of string theory, which makes it falsifiable. The fact that today we do not have the technology to carry out such a test in no way affects the "scientificness" of string theory.

      Seven, as I've said above, string theory can be wrong, and it is science. It is not science that I personally like, but it is science.

      "It is not science" is the principle criticism of string theory coming from the non-physicist public. I have very rarely heard this criticism coming from physicists. Please keep in mind that pop-science-book-writing physicists are a tiny tiny minority of all physicists. Trust pop science no farther than you can throw it, as it is practically necessarily fraught with errors. If you wrote a pop-science book without errors in description, you would find that you had in fact written a science textbook, and it would not be very accessible to the pop-science reading public.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    32. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's absurd to call QFT and string theory not science,
      I don't. I think it is absurd to call QFT science but not call string theory science. But I don't have any real problem calling both of them not science, because a consistent (and useful) definition of science is (probably) still obtainable then. A somewhat non-standard definition perhaps, but consistency is more important.

      You can even get a physics degree (in some places) without needing to learn QFT.
      Indeed, in most cases, QFT is a graduate level course. Vanilla QM, even perhaps some relativistic QM (dirac and klein-gordon) is usually undergraduate level, but QFT is usually not.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    33. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      No, I'll judge my cynicism to be misplaced when I actually see string theorists agree on a falsifiable prediction. And that hasn't happened yet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not against people elaborating string theory, and I'm actually rooting for the empirical predictions that are thus far missing. I think that would be awesome for science. But the way the cynicism got there in the first place is the slipperiness of string theory. Let me put it this way: there is no conceivable observation that would make string theorists give up their theory. That's a state in which string theory cannot live indefinitely.

    34. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd call that sort of thing a 'constraint' rather than a 'calibration', but to each his or her own.

    35. Re:Now wait a minute.. by asavage · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted as a four-dimensional object with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a good deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

      Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

    36. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Troll

      String theory makes several predictions that are expected to be testable in the near future. Hehe, by that logic Christianity is science. Jesus is coming back real soon now, promise!
      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    37. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Plutonite · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you hear that sound? Really faint but high pitched? Thats Einstein screaming from 6 feet below :) j/k

      Your question makes no sense because "dimensions" aren't always just abstract ideas: when we say time is the fourth "dimension" it is because of the role time plays when you consider the coordinates of objects in good old 3D reality. I.e when you give the location of an object you need to specify the x, y, z and the WHEN. The wikipedia article on special relativity is a really good primer on this, check it out. As for other "dimensions", they are indeed mathematical abstractions used in equations that involve linear algebra where vector spaces can be 5 dimensional..etc even though that has nothing to do with Physical reality. There is no "extra dimension" from what I know, just matrices and equations used to model the dimensions we know by bringing in other abstractions.

      A lot of mathematics is needed to even begin looking at serious theoretical physics. Hilbert, Max Born and others are the legs that Einstein's later work stands on.

    38. Re:Now wait a minute.. by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      String theory isn't science it's physics, which is math... Math creates theories, science tests them. Actually, other things can create theories too, like the crazy bag lady who complains that there's ferns growing out of her ears, or millennia old books that say some old dude made everything in six days and then declared that all stores must close before 6 on Sundays. However, science is still the only thing that can test the theories, like that they're not ferns, per say, but a more sophisticated slime mold or that the old dude actually created the universe accidentally through a process known as the "Big Bang", had he remembered to take his Beano the universe may never have been created.

    39. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a way the standard theory is not disprovable or at least not taken to be. For example, quantum theory requires that gravitons exist yet seems to forbid it. I bet if string theory were to contain such an inconsistancy people would abandon it. There are many other examples. One of them is the mass of particles calculated by quantum chromotography. It's off by around 25% for most particles from what we measure. If we keep accepting the standard model despite these inconsistencies how are we at least not treating it as disprovable. The fact that string theory has time and again resolved it's inconsistencies I don't believe is something to hold against it. And there is another distinction to make I think. The fact that something is technologically untestable at the time is not the same as it being theoretically untestable. For example we once hypothesized that light had a speed. I can't remember who tried to measure it with lanterns but he failed and said it was just too fast. Was it not science to hypothosize light moved at a finite speed? The point is if we hold string theory to the same standards as the standard model it's at least as much a theory.

    40. Re:Now wait a minute.. by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      Now IANAP, but it seems to me that the reason string theory has not been disprovable is that it's in such constant flux that it can be molded around any issue that comes around. String theorists are attempting to explain the Universe, thus when something comes around that is outside their current explanation they adapt it to explain the anomaly. Maybe the problem is that it doesn't seem like string theory is really all that solid, perhaps once there are enough people who can fully understand what it's attempting to say then it can become science, until then it's still an evolving theory.

    41. Re:Now wait a minute.. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Kudos for the obscure T. Lehrer quote. :)

      My favorite is "sliding down the razor blade of life."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    42. Re:Now wait a minute.. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      For most guys, the 4th dimension is getting laid. Time is just the really annoying and overabundant packing material that separates such events.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    43. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      > It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it?

      Yes, and fun too!

    44. Re:Now wait a minute.. by dynamo52 · · Score: 1

      The article suggests a fourth spatial dimension would be necessary for the creation of these "Black Saturns". String theory predicts eleven dimensons; ten spatial and time.

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
    45. Re:Now wait a minute.. by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      QED is fine. However you missed the other bit that then wants to "ere demonstrandum"ed - a loop in time. We're perfectly happy with loops in normal 3D space; we're half-happy with being able to attempt to visualise a loop that goes through a fourth dimension. But a loop in time is time travel, which drives scientists to serious distraction, and many others to think of favorite Heinlein scenarios. Fourth spatial dimensions are very interesting for theories like bending space (fold it up, hyperjump), but manipulating time violates a good bunch of theories.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    46. Re:Now wait a minute.. by dzurn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude. Man. Whoa. Science is the study of the testable.
      You're both wrong. Science is the study of 4th Graders. It's not called Physics until 11th grade.
    47. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought strings were too small to be 'seen', no matter the size of your accelerator. From Wikipedia: "The basic idea behind all string theories is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 1035 m)"

    48. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Other "real world" tests might involve LIGO and other gravitational wave detectors, as it is believed theorized cosmic strings and domain walls would both emit gravitational waves, and both are involved in string theories. Kip Thorne has a good downloadable online lecture here, with slides as well as audio (you have to sync yourself with them manually ;-)): http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/thorne/

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    49. Re:Now wait a minute.. by msevior · · Score: 1

      Actually QFT has survived some pretty impressive tests. One of these is that the mass of a particle is precisely the same as the anti-particle of the same type.

      This has been validated to approximately one part in 10^18 in the neutral kaon system and is easily the most precise test of any theory in Science.

    50. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The scientific method" is a gross oversimplification used to teach children.

    51. Re:Now wait a minute.. by kettlechips · · Score: 1
      Science is the study of the disprovable. Man. Shouldn't have to explain this stuff....


      Sorry, but I think you should.


      If science is nothing but the study of the disprovable,

      what would happen should you stumble upon the ultimate descriptive theory?

      You would not be able to disprove that.

      Shame, the ultimate theory will be unscientific..



    52. Re:Now wait a minute.. by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Hang on so my understanding goes:
      A: Hey this string theory is really bizzare, and it predicts these things should happen.
      B: Cool, lets try that experiment.
      A: Oh bum well that wasn't what we expected at all. Oh I see the problem with the theory, try agin.
      B: Nope still wrong.
      A: ok, here's a new bunch of predictions then
      b: Ok that matches.
      A: Great well here's the next set of predictions.
      B: Cool experiment, we can't actually reach those energy levels yet, but we can indirectly test it by...
      etc etc

      In otherwords it's just like every other part of legitamate science. It makes predictions, some are consistent with experiment, some aren't where they aren't theory is refined. One way or they other it teaches us to think about new things and work in new ways.

      How is any of this a bad thing or in anyway reminiscent of bad science?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    53. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place. If you're intending to hide behind a shield of "I don't really know what I'm talking about," then actually behave as if you don't know what you are talking about. Keep your mouth shut unless you've really got something worthwhile to say.

      You sound like a hostile politician or CEO, "Now don't get yourself in a tizzy little lady! This is too complex an issue for the public to ever understand. Just be quiet and leave it to us." Please refrain from complaining about the federal government unless you are a Congressman and don't criticize a painting unless you are equal to Picasso.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    54. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      'calibration' is a term of art (jargon) it doesn't matter what you call it. The point is that "string theory" per se can't be disproved. Thus the test is not a harsh test, thus string theory is not science (yet).

    55. Re:Now wait a minute.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christianity might qualify as a pre-theory paradigm except for a couple of things. It's not based on verifiable observation (which is the major one) and it's not at all clear that there's any potential, or even wish, for it to eventually become a rigorous theory.

      Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. There's no reason Christianity couldn't be a scientific paradigm except for the methods by which it is developed.

      For a counter example, take a look at string theory. It predicts a bunch of things that we may or may not be able to see. The uncertainty about whether we'll be able to test it is mostly due to not knowing enough to properly set the parameters of the theory. So we make observations, to narrow down those parameters. Guess what, most of particle physics is just the same -- a new particle is predicted but we don't really know whether we can observe it with the equipment we have or not. So we try, and by doing so we narrow down the range of energies that it would be created at. Eventually we find it (or something else), but maybe not before building a bigger and better accelerator.

      Finished theories don't (usually) spring from their creator's head fully formed and ready to do battle.

    56. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      That is precisely what I've been trying to explain. String theory is an entire family of theories, like Quantum Field Theory. QFT is just as moldable as string theory. The important thing for QFT is the Standard Model, which is a particular quantum theory of fields. We don't yet have any particular string theory (which describes our universe very well at all) which one would compare to the standard model. My point is, if you consider QFT science, then you ought to consider string theory science as well. If you consider string theory not to be science, then you can't really consider QFT science either.

      I would further argue that there are in fact ways to falsify the entire framework of string theory, and that those measurements are in fact being done or attempted. One fairly simple test is Lorentz invariance, which string theory depends upon. We do check lorentz invariance on a regular basis, and such checks will very importantly be done at the new higher energies the LHC will allow us. Number of dimensions is another test. It is hard to rule out the possibility that there might be more dimensions than we have yet measured, but easy to rule out the possibility of fewer dimensions. So, if we do LED searches at the LHC and find evidence that there are 374 dimensions, string theory will be pretty much ruled out (although QFT certainly will not).

      As I've noted before, I don't care for string theory, but I do think it is science.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    57. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, half the point of science is that one can understand it with enough effort. But, as a corollary, it is fairly easy to say who does understand it and who doesn't.

      Anyway, QuantumG is the one who claimed to be an amateur in the first place. He further claimed that his status as an amateur meant that I should not correct his misunderstandings. This is ridiculous. If he knows he doesn't understand things, then he shouldn't be posting them unless he is asking for clarification. If he does understand things (or at least thinks he does), then he ought to be open to discussion and correction. Either way what he actually said makes no sense.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    58. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      Popper is the philosopher of science who gets currency everywhere because his theory hits the nail on the head. Everything since him has just faded away as the personality behind it fades away.

      Two (your convention), "The Data Is As It Is" theory is the ultimate calibration model: when it's disproved, you update to "The Data Is As It Is" theory (new and improved with new data) that's the problem.

      You need to take the long view of these things, i.e. lets say that for string theory you get it all right once you've got the assumptions right and one scalar measurement. To get the assumptions right, you may require just as many measurements as otherwise and then you're just pushing this data in the back door as modifying assumptions and pretending that you didn't need all these measurements to get them right.

      Three (again...), That's the point. Relativity wasn't tested on Newtonian physics, it wasn't seriously arguable that there were problems there at very low relative speeds--the harsh tests had been performed. Same thing for Lorentz invariance. String theory needs to make a new prediction that previous theories disagree strongly with and then go to the lab.

      Four and Five: See 2 regarding back-dooring constants.

      Six, and would this particle accelerator fit between here and Jupiter? It is an interesting question that you raise here. If we can't test it, and may never be able to test it -- but we can imagine testing it -- is it science? I think yes, but not for us.

      finally, I worked as a radiation physicist for several years, but I'm not qualified to talk about the finer points of quantum field theory. I left physics because it didn't look like there were many interesting questions left to answer. I think the popularity of string theory among academics results from a physics problem that (unlike other hard sciences) there are only so many interesting particles to study -- compare to biology and chemistry.

    59. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two (your convention), "The Data Is As It Is" theory is the ultimate calibration model: when it's disproved, you update to "The Data Is As It Is" theory (new and improved with new data) that's the problem.
      True, but once it is disproved, you do have to come up with a new theory. The framework still holds, but the instance of it is different. That's pretty much how science works.

      To get the assumptions right, you may require just as many measurements as otherwise and then you're just pushing this data in the back door as modifying assumptions and pretending that you didn't need all these measurements to get them right.
      Again, that sure sounds like science to me. Not the pretending you didn't need all these measurements, but the modification of hypotheses (or assumptions) based on data. Or did you think the Law of Universal Gravitation sprang fully formed from Newton's head without the extensive data gathering of Tycho Brahe and the analysis of Kepler? It turned out in that case that Newton really had all the data he needed before he started hypothesizing. But he still needed that data to form his hypotheses.

      Quite frankly, if the fundamental assumptions of string theory need to be changed, then nobody pushes it under the rug and pretends it didn't happen. Maybe it looks that way outside the field, but not inside.

      Again, testing the fundamental assumptions and rare predictions made by QFT is about as difficult as testing the assumptions and predictions of string theory. Testing the standard model OTOH is relatively easy. We don't have a string standard model yet.

      Three (again...), That's the point. Relativity wasn't tested on Newtonian physics, it wasn't seriously arguable that there were problems there at very low relative speeds--the harsh tests had been performed. Same thing for Lorentz invariance. String theory needs to make a new prediction that previous theories disagree strongly with and then go to the lab.
      So, backing up a couple centuries, suppose I came up with a theory which turned out to be exactly equivalent to the law of Universal Gravitation, but was an entirely different formulation. Just because Newton came up with his formulation first, that means mine isn't science? I think not. Even if no truly new predictions are made that differ from existing theories, we still might have a useful theory, and certainly one which is falsifiable. Doesn't matter that falsifying it would also falsify other things as well. It is still falsifiable, and therefore even your friend Karl would think it was science.

      Besides, you really can't say "the harsh tests have been performed" at any real point in time. Things still need to be tested in finer and finer detail. That's why we haven't stopped looking at Lorentz invariance, or even Newton's laws. These things are still measured often, and it is especially important to measure them at higher energies as they become accessible. Universal gravitation had its harsh tests done. It described the solar system exceedingly well.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    60. Re:Now wait a minute.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, you actually need five dimensions, four spatial and one timelike. In our usual four dimensional world (three spatial and one timelike dimensions), there's only the usual blackhole (the Kerr blackhole). I sat in on a talk on this. Didn't get much out of it aside from what I just mentioned except there's supposed to be even more complex shaped black holes possible in five dimensions.

    61. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Ashtead · · Score: 1

      What about something like the second law of thermodynamics? It is a statistical observation generalized to a hypothesis. However, as no experiment ever devised or performed has disproved it, that still doesn't make it disproveable and unscientific. On the contrary, it has been used to support further speculations, such as the one that Stephen Hawking made about black holes disintegrating and vanishing.

      It would seem that nothing can ever be proved to be disprovable ... at least as long as some kind of experiment can be devised, it would seem to fall within the realm of science. Shouldn't that "final descriptive theory", a hypothesis, become like the thermodynamic "laws" then? Not proven because that isn't the way science works, and not disproven just because no experiment ever performed gave results that falsified the hypothesis.

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
    62. Re:Now wait a minute.. by DrinkDr.Pepper · · Score: 1

      ...But Evolution is provable. Just ask God.

      Doesn't the bible say: ...and god created atom...

      Thus beginning the Hydrogen fusion cycle from which all heavier elements formed.

      --
      0xfeedface
    63. Re:Now wait a minute.. by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      Stephen Hawking made about black holes disintegrating and vanishing. OK tangent time. I have a BS in Physics ,and never took the optional 4th year general relativity course at my university. But, I do have some interest in this area, and I have some limited passing knowledge of this theory.

      Now, that new fangled Particle accelerator is supposed to be able to create black holes.
      And Baby Black holes are supposed to "evaporate" with hawking radiation.
      But like, what if they don't? what if hawking is wrong?
      what if the earth slowly gets sucked into the black hole?
      It seems to me like a rather large risk to be taking.
      don't you think?

      --
      --meh--
    64. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You must have been misinformed.

      Lorentz invariance. Could very conceivably be observed to not hold. Especially since we haven't studied it yet at the high energies the LHC will give us. If Lorentz invariance fails at any energy, string theory (along with most 20th century physics) fails completely.

      Number of dimensions. If we do extra dimension searches at LHC (and believe me, they will be done) and find that there are 7,342 dimensions, string theory will be ruled out. Interestingly, Quantum Field Theory will not.

      These are two conceivable observations which would rule out string theory, and make string theorists give up on string theory. There are many others. The fact that they coincide with predictions from other theories (for the most part, the number of dimensions doesn't coincide simply because QFT doesn't nail down a number of dimensions) doesn't make them any less predictions.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    65. Re:Now wait a minute.. by drjzzz · · Score: 1

      then they would just say "Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is."

      Oh no they wouldn't! Or at least they shouldn't. They should say: "The Data Are As They Are."

      But seriously, how could data ever constitute a theory?
      --
      to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
    66. Re:Now wait a minute.. by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      well, you have to admit it would be a large leap in science to find that out... (at least until we all get sucked in)

    67. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Fine. I will. One doesn't need to be able to perform an experiment that disproves the theory... One needs to be able to devise an experiment that, if the results disagree with the predictions made by the theory, would be accepted as a disproof of the theory. For example, if I have a theory that the only communication between bees is via dance, then I would accept my theory is invalid if you were to devise an exeriment where bees are shown to be communicating when they can't see each other. That's what makes my theory scientific: I can conceive of experiments that would disprove it, if they produced results that differ from the predictions made by the theory.

      So, in the case of string theory, which is what we were talking about, is there any experiment that one could do which would disprove the theory, if the results differed from the predictions made by string theory? I believe it has been found, time and again, that this not the case... String theorists always have some reason why they can't accept that the theory is wrong.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    68. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place.

      Basically you are saying if someone doesn't know what they are talking about then shut up or don't whine if you are corrected? It is about friggin' time some stated that. Thank you.

    69. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because it doesn't go like that. The way it goes is:

      A. Mr String Theory, can you give me some predictions so I can test this?
      B. Well, no, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle.
      C. No, seriously, give me some predictions already.
      D. Ok, here ya go, how about this?
      E. That's fine, I'll go test that... hey, turns out my experiment gave me different results to your predictions.
      F. Yes, that's right, String Theory doesn't just prediction what happens in the 4 spatial dimensions, it also has extra dimensions, which you can't observe, and my predictions are correct there.
      G. I can't observe your predictions, so they're right?
      H. That's correct.
      I. Uh huh... got any predictions that I can observe and if my experiment differs from you would agree your theory is wrong?
      J. No! All predictions come with this cavaete.
      K. Well that's just psuedoscience.
      L. No, it's descriptive.
      M. And pointless.
      N. Is not.
      O. Is so.
      P. Is not.
      Q. Is so.
      R. Is not infinity!
      S. Is not infinity + 1!
      T. You can't add one to infinity.
      U. Can so.
      V. Can not.
      W. Can so.
      X. Can not.
      Y. Can so.
      Z. If you don't mind, I'm busy working out complicated equations that can't reliably predict anything you can observe.. good day.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    70. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Actually, Creationism and even God, is disprovable.

      The experiment runs the entirety of your lifetime. All of your experiences and thoughts contribute to your particular hypothesis. The only problem is the results come in just after you die.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    71. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Drat! I try to be particularly conscientious about using "data" as the plural it is. But this one slipped by me. Thanks for the correction.

      The theory I was thinking of would more thoroughly be stated "If you do experiments just like the ones we did, same exact conditions, then your data will all come out looking exactly like ours. Furthermore, no other experiments could ever be done." This is clearly not a very good theory at all.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    72. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I have a BS in Physics
      Then you must have heard of cosmic rays. Think about them for a little while, and then ask about the risk of black holes capable of swallowing the earth again.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    73. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      I wrote, '"The Data Is As It Is" theory is the ultimate calibration model: when it's disproved, you update to "The Data Is As It Is" theory (new and improved with new data) that's the problem.' and you responded, "True, but once it is disproved, you do have to come up with a new theory. The framework still holds, but the instance of it is different. That's pretty much how science works." This is the centeral issue and I guess we just come at this from different angles. The way I see it, what you are describing is more the day to day activities of a scientist. What I'm trying to describe is not what we call science today or what kinds of claims one can make and be called a scientist (this is a valid angle and is Kuhn's approach). What I'm describing is the system by which theories that people have are translated into something with currency well in the future. I would argue that most scientists are too close to the day in and day out process of being employed as a scientist to see it, but then again, most scientists contribute almost nothing that lasts even until the 80th anniversary of their birth.

      Look, I'm not arguing that there isn't value in string theorists spending time on these things. I don't know if there is or isn't. What I'm arguing is that unless they can come up with a harsh test -- a test that has some probability of making them sigh and admit they have to move on to something that is not string theory -- the idea won't be seriously regarded in 30 or 40 years.

    74. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      What I'm arguing is that unless they can come up with a harsh test
      And I'm trying to get the idea across to you and everyone else that there are harsh tests, and they are being experimentally examined. Lorentz invariance and number of dimensions are the ones I keep harping on. There are others. Unitarity is one. Supersymmetry is another. Sufficiently high energy scattering can tell us whether what we are scattering is string-like or point-like. These are all harsh tests for the entire framework of all string theories.

      Oh, and like I said before, Lorentz invariance does count as a harsh test. It is also a harsh test for all kinds of other things, like special relativity. It has been tested, but nothing is ever tested completely. As I tried to say before, but I don't think I said very well, Newtonian gravity was quite well tested, and passed every test, until somebody came up with some new tests of the same things that had been tested before, and it failed them.

      "The Data Is As It Is" theory is the ultimate calibration model: when it's disproved, you update to "The Data Is As It Is" theory (new and improved with new data) that's the problem.
      I guess I don't see the problem with that. That is science. That is refinement of hypotheses based on data. One day you have a theory. You get some new data. Now that theory is falsified, so you come up with a new theory. An instance of my example "The Data Is As It Is" fits that quite well.

      Perhaps that is the problem. I have not been careful to distinguish between an instance of this example and the description itself. There are any number of theories which could be described as "The Data Is As It Is", depending upon the data at hand. However, that collection of theories is not itself a theory. Certainly you can never falsify the collection of theories, because it is not a theory itself, but merely a description. A particular instance, on the other hand, is dead easy to falsify and discard.

      Now, I will say that I don't see any problem at all with discarding a theory, and replacing it with another theory which could be described in a similar fashion. I say similar and not identical, because a complete description of a theory is never identical to a complete description of another theory unless the two are the same theory.

      Please also keep in mind that I have said that I don't think that my example is an example of good science. It is not good science because it is just as complex as (or perhaps more complex than) the data it is trying to describe and predict. Good science is simple (for a given definition of simple). The simpler the better. The less it takes you to completely specify your theory, coupled with its power to describe and predict, the better. My example is exceedingly complex, because it includes a complete specification of all the data to date.

      What I'm describing is the system by which theories that people have are translated into something with currency well in the future. I would argue that most scientists are too close to the day in and day out process of being employed as a scientist to see it, but then again, most scientists contribute almost nothing that lasts even until the 80th anniversary of their birth.
      Alright. Fair enough. Start describing it then. You seem to be claiming that you have seen "it", but you have not yet presented a clear picture of what you have seen. If you've really got something here, it would be very much worth my while to have it explained to me. What is this "system"? What makes one theory valued 80 years down the road and another theory not valued after 3? Oh, and by theory, do you mean a theoretical framework like QFT or string theory, or do you mean a specific instance of such a framework, like the standard model? One more question: if you've seen "it", why aren't you in the field, making theories that will last for 80 years?
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    75. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1
      Certainly QFT has passed some impressive tests. And if string theory predicts the same results of those tests, then it can really be considered to have passed them as well.

      This has been validated to approximately one part in 10^18
      Could you provide a reference for this? Perhaps something in the arXiv. I was under the impression that QED was the most precisely tested theory, and that only to one part in 10^12. One part in 10^18 is certainly an incredible achievement.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    76. Re:Now wait a minute.. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "This is also why creationism is not science: it is not disprovable (once an omnipotent God is in the picture, any disproof can be refuted)."

      Creationism is not just about omnipotent gods of sacred holy texts, our future creations will have creation theories of their origins, certainly you don't believe our future AI's and artificial life forms will not have been created? Creationism gets a bad wrap because it's comingled with relgiuos dogma, the idea of design is sound, the idea that its an omnipotent being of one of the ancient holy texts is what is false.

      There very well could be a secular theory of god / creationism / intelligent design. Slashdot has a heavy anti-creationism bias because of their mixed up thought processes on the issue and their limited scope of thinking about the topic in general.

      In every instance we know technology is created by intelligence, there was and is nothing wrong with people inferring intelligent causation as a very preliminary way as a scientific approach to explaining the causes behind life. Our future progenitors will do it for the history of our own future creations if/when/etc they go extinct.

      Creationism will definitely have a resurgence as a scientific enterprise and it won't be chained to silly holy texts of ancient human ancestors. As humanity expands it is inevitable, what do you do when you find other races, or others races living creations? At some point science will have to grapple with the issue of intelligent creative causes in the universe. It is only cultural bias and religious poisoning of an idea that has made the idea of intelligent causation stigmatized.

    77. Re:Now wait a minute.. by msevior · · Score: 1

      Sure, straight from the PDG, tests of CPT invariance.

      http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/tables/conlaw.pdf

      As you say, very impressive indeed.

      Cheers

      Martin

    78. Re:Now wait a minute.. by slim · · Score: 1

      Actually, Creationism and even God, is disprovable.

      The experiment runs the entirety of your lifetime. All of your experiences and thoughts contribute to your particular hypothesis. The only problem is the results come in just after you die. Not really, because one can hypothesise a universe created by a divine being, in which there is no afterlife.

    79. Re:Now wait a minute.. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      In my last post I was trying to say that we have argued into a place where I know what I'm saying and you know what you're saying, we both know what the other is saying and we're both happy with where we are. The way I see it, your saying something along the lines "science is what scientists do." and I'm saying "science is the diamond in the rough," it's the theory that was put to a test that was so harsh that the critics of the theory were smiling as it happened because they knew that the test was going to prove them right and the theory wrong.

      What I mean by theory is a claim, a prediction, that something obeys a set of rules. Consider the following claim:

      any two spherical masses will attract each other with a force proportional to the product of thier masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. There will be a proportionality constant for this too, and this proprotionality constant will be the same regardless of location, time, distance, and the object in play.

      In response to, "why aren't you in the field" the answer is, I am, but the field I chose is a social science. So little is known, there is lots of room for great science.

    80. Re:Now wait a minute.. by aybiss · · Score: 0

      For an amateur you make some bold sweeping statements. :-)

      I understand the point of view that string theory isn't disprovable but it's kind of like saying magnetic field theory isn't disprovable because it seems to be able to describe a physical process but noone can discover the value of mu or epsilon.

      Clearly when you're dealing with as many unknowns as there are in string theory it would seem you could model almost anything while you don't know the values of your constants. However, a whole heap of research and thinking by people much smarter than you or I has lead to some percentage of them agreeing this *might* be the way to model the universe. I can't dismiss it just because it seems contrived not to fail. I do realise it could still fail.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    81. Re:Now wait a minute.. by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      Ok, sure so the same energy levels are reached in cosmic rays.
      But does that really imply the the same forms of matter are created in the collisions?
      Its an honest question I have never looked at the math that would be required.
      Aren't there other things involved like Angle of Impact, rate of collisions, type of original matter, length of the experiment....
      Are these black holes predicted to form from cosmic rays?
      Have these black holes ever actually been detected?
      These are questions that should be asked, and I am sure they have been answered by some body.
      But me and the general population, have never been given adequate answers.

      I am sure the particle physics community has. but I have not.

      --
      --meh--
    82. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      The rate at which cosmics strike not only the earth, but pretty much all other astronomical bodies at least in our own galaxy and likely in the entire universe, is staggering. The length of the experiment is also immense. These two things more than compensate for the fact that cosmic ray energies are much more spread out, the fact that some cosmics are not protons (as in the LHC), and the fact that the distribution of impact parameters (related to angle of impact) includes a larger proportion of larger impact parameters (less direct collisions).

      I'm not sure of the actual rate of cosmic impacts with earth's atmosphere, but I would make the educated guess that it is immensely higher than the collision rate at LHC, simply because the surface area of the earth is large. Now divide that by the earth's surface area, and multiply it by the sum of the surface areas of all astronomical bodies. You get a collision rate that is just absolutely ridiculously huge. The LHC will run for a length of time on the order of a decade. Cosmics have been around for billions of years.

      We have not looked for, and have therefore not observed, the creation of any micro black holes (too small to swallow the earth) in the earth's atmosphere. However, the simple fact that the earth has not yet been swallowed by a cosmic ray induced black hole is quite encouraging. Even more encouraging is the fact that the sky isn't just chock full of black holes. If we could reasonably expect that the LHC might create an earth swallowing black hole, then we would also expect most of the sky to be black holes.

      As far as the math involved, it is not much more complicated than what I did above. Any proton-proton collision is just like any other proton-proton collision. The probability of producing some particular reaction when the center of mass energy is E is the same whether the collision occurs in the LHC or in the interstellar medium. So suppose the LHC in its entire runtime had a 0.01% chance of producing an earth swallowing black hole. Knowing (or rather estimating, since it hasn't run yet) the total integrated luminosity (a measure of how much colliding has been done, incorporating collision rate, number of particles in the accelerator at once, tightness of the beam, and running time), and the distribution of total center of mass (CM) energy in LHC collisions, we can figure out the probability that a given energy collision would produce an earth swallowing black hole (ESBH) per integrated luminosity. Then we can estimate the total integrated luminosity of cosmic rays in the universe, or even just in our galaxy, or even just on the earth, and we can estimate the CM energy distribution of cosmic ray collisions, and then we quite easily have an expected number of ESBHs produced on earth or in the galaxy, or in the universe. If this expected number doesn't really match up with the number that we observe (zero in the case of the earth), then we know that the chance of the LHC producing an ESBH is not actually 0.01%. Just on some really rough educated guessing, I'd say that any non-negligible chance at the LHC results in a ridiculously huge expected number of black holes, much more than we actually see.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    83. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I may go and edit the QED entry on wikipedia to reflect that it is not the best tested theory anymore.

      I did a bit of a doubletake there, because one of our grad students is named Martin, and I thought you might be him. (I say "one of our grad students" and it makes me sound like I'm a postdoc or a professor... I'm about to be a grad student.)

      Regards,
      Jon

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  4. Ringed black hole by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't read the fine article because CyberSitter blocks it. However, I did remember an article a while back that changed the way black holes were perceived to operate.

    Hm. Maybe google will help me to remember what it was. Oh yes. There it is. Darn. CyberSitter blocks loading that page. I know, user prefs, threshold 5. There we go. Now I can at least see the summary. Click, read, yep, that's the one I remember. Now, Samir Mathur, I remember a very nice .pdf showing his original hand-drawn representation along with some of the mathematical principles behind the whole "there is no true event horizon" hypothesis. Where was that? Ah. There we go.

    Someone please tell me how the current article lines up with these from years past. Please try to do so without profanity so that I can click my comment and read the reply without CyberSitter dumping the page.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Ringed black hole by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 1

      I hate to burst your bubble, but the article was IMO poorly written. It makes wild assumptions without much meat to back it up. Not only that, but they don't have any working models to help develop the theory. I don't mean to be hating, but the amount of applicable date in the article is about the same level as every story from an 8 yr old starting with "Wouldn't it be cool if ..."

      from TFA: "The black Saturn can only exist in a space with four dimensions, rather than the three we inhabit. In 3D, a black ring is impossible, so there are no big black saturns out there for astronomers to spot - but at a microscopic level, they might really exist.

      This statement annoyed me the most. Either it does or does not exist, not both. There might be properties we can't observe in a 3D model, but that doen't negate the existance of it; nor does the difference of "out there" and "the microscopic level" have a relation to something really existing... but maybe you don't want to hear me rant, so basically, I don't feel the actual article was worth the read.

      --
      "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
    2. Re:Ringed black hole by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude, you're posting on slashdot about black holes and you can't defeat cybersitter? ...I didn't know they were teaching string theory to kindergarteners these days! Wow, elementary school has gotten a lot better since I left...

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    3. Re:Ringed black hole by tftp · · Score: 1
      This statement annoyed me the most. Either it does or does not exist, not both.

      From flatlander's point of view, a sphere does not exist anywhere in his 2D universe; however a projection of it does (a circle or a point.) The article is correct to say that a certain 4D object can not exist (such as being fully contained) within a 3D space, just as a 3D billiard ball can not be contained within a 2D sheet of paper. Even a flatlander can't deny existence of billiard balls if he can conjecture the possibility, even if he can't directly observe them.

    4. Re:Ringed black hole by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      I have this strange feeling that the prev parent is using an internet cafe. I cant imagine why i would think this.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    5. Re:Ringed black hole by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I have this strange feeling that the prev parent is using an internet cafe. I cant imagine why i would think this.

      An interesting theory . . . if only we could find a way to test it . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re:Ringed black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if you're over 18, and you're in a library (perhaps I assume too much?), you can usually get the librarian to turn CyberSitter and the like off.

    7. Re:Ringed black hole by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      This statement annoyed me the most. Either it does or does not exist, not both.

      We're talking about quantum mechanics, here. It's entirely possible that something both does and does not exist until or unless the something is actually observed.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    8. Re:Ringed black hole by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Your comment is mainly correct, with one slight error. The whole concept that the book Flatland was trying to point out, was the perception of other dimensions. It wasn't that a sphere didn't exist in a 2D world; it was more that in a 2D world, they couldn't perceive a sphere, thus only observed a circle. A 4D object exists in a 3D world the same as a 3D object exists in a 2D world. The limiting factor is that the whole of the object can't be observed, or be totally captured in the lower dimension. A true circle in a 2D world will have different properties than a sphere observed as a circle would under the same factors.

      Now, we can fight about word usage and semantics of the statement; however, to simplify my point, If a 4D object can't exist in space, then focusing purely on a smaller scale doesn't then allow it to exist. You can't use two separate criteria to define existence on two different scales and expect the relation to be equal.

      --
      "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
    9. Re:Ringed black hole by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That isn't correct, there physics of >3D space is not the same as the physics of 3D space, for example life as we know it could not exist in 4D space. It is very possible that the math that allows for black rings only works in 4 dimensions.

      And regarding the difference between "out there" and "the microscopic level", the article isn't saying there are no black rings out there, it says their are no big black rings out there. That much is true, and so much as they are too small to be observed their theoretical existence can't be used to prove or disprove any theories.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Ringed black hole by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point: they were contrasting the macroscopic universe with the subatomic. Ignoring time for the moment (because it acts somewhat differently), the macroscopic universe has 3 spatial dimensions. Several theories, including string theory, believe there are additional spatial dimensions, but they are so small they are only noticeable at the subatomic level.

      The point that they're making is a a black hole with a black ring around it can't exist in *only* 3 spatial dimensions, so you won't see any big ones through your telescope. But if there are in fact additional spatial dimensions that only are noticeable at the very small scale, then there could be very small black holes with very small black rings. Such a creation may leave a distinctive decay pattern, so if we analyze the decay patterns from the new collider, we may be able to determine that we must have made something that decayed much like such a black hole would make, and thus, infer that there are in fact additional small spatial dimensions.

      Bruce

    11. Re:Ringed black hole by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most theories involving extra dimensions (extra meaning more than our normal 3-space, 1-time) explain our non-observance of them (to date) by saying that the total size of them is very small. Now, size of a dimension is a weird concept, I know.

      Suppose you had a rectangular prism-shaped room with 2 doors, exactly opposite each other on the North and South walls, respectively. Actually, better yet, suppose that the entire North wall and the entire South wall are completely taken up by their doors. Now, suppose that when you walk out the North door, you are simultaneously walking in the South door. This doesn't happen normally (obviously), but with a sufficiently weird topology of space, it could. It is certainly imaginable. The North door and the South door are actually the same place. Now, of course, you can measure this room, length height and width. You might say "but North to South it would be infinitely big!", but it isn't. Take meter sticks, and lay them end to end, starting in the middle of the room, with them oriented N-S. Eventually, because the North and South doors are the same place, you'll wrap back around, and find yourself laying the last meter stick on top of the first one. The number of sticks that you laid down is the length of the room N-S in meters.

      Now imagine that your room is that trash dump in Star Wars, where the walls start closing in. Move the North wall closer and closer to the South wall, so that you can only lay down two meter sticks before they start overlapping, and then one meter stick, and then your one meter stick starts overlapping itself, so you switch to centimeter sticks. The size of your N-S dimension has decreased, say to 50 cm. The East-West and Up-Down dimensions are still plenty big, say 5 meters, and they have hard walls, ceilings, and floors, none of this wrapping around nonsense.

      Now, suppose that you have a stick 25 cm long. You can orient it in whatever direction you like in this space. It has no trouble existing. Now take one of those meter sticks you had before. You can't orient it however you want, because if you try to turn it to point exactly N-S, it will run into itself. Now suppose you have a 25 cm diameter beach ball. It has no problem existing. But try to imagine a 1 meter diameter beach ball. It can't happen. No way no how. No matter how you turn the thing (unless you deflate it, of course), it will run into itself.

      So, an essentially 1-d object, the meter stick, can exist in this space, but only if you turn it certain ways. It can exist even though it is larger than the smallest dimension. However, the 3-d object, the beach ball, can only exist in this space if it is smaller than the smallest dimension, otherwise it runs into itself.

      This is precisely how the "black saturn" can only exist at microscopic scales. It is a 4-d object, and all our theories of extra dimensions (at least all of them that have any real following) have no more than 3 dimensions which are actually macroscopic. So if you have an object which is roughly 4-spherical, that is the same size in 4 dimensions, it can only exist if it is smaller than the 4th largest dimension (the three largest being our normal 3 space).

      Another way to look at the room I described is that at scales above 50cm, it is actually a 2-d space. Only at small scales (< 50cm) is it really 3-d. Only at really really tiny scales is our space 4 (or more) dimensional (in most extra dimension theories), at any larger scales, it is 3-d. (Of course, I'm not counting time here. Only spacial dimensions.)

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    12. Re:Ringed black hole by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      ...and I know a cat that's pretty pissed-off about the situation...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    13. Re:Ringed black hole by cryptoluddite · · Score: 1

      Seriously, as a C coder I can think of any number of times when a variable's value depended on who (which function) observed it. With some very carefully constructed test cases and of course gdb macros is was even possible to alter the contents of this variable to cause information to seem to appear in other places far away. I even found through this 'spooky sigaction at a distance' that I was able to affect computations in other functions entirely.

      Of course it wasn't magic. The whole theory of quantum mechanics is based on a bug in the universe.

      Then again, my black hole dumped core.

    14. Re:Ringed black hole by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      ...and I know a cat that's pretty pissed-off about the situation...

      ...or not...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:Ringed black hole by n00kie · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious, how does a 2D observer perceive a circle if they're both on the same plane ?

    16. Re:Ringed black hole by Sproggit · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously, become a teacher.
      Thats the best lay description of the problems with macroscopic detetection of higher dimensions I've ever read.

      I would mod you up if I had points.

      Damn.

    17. Re:Ringed black hole by HvitRavn · · Score: 1

      Imagine a citizen of Flatville finding a circle. He proceeds to move around its circumference, constantly measuring his position (for example with the gps on his openmoko). After a while, he can understand that it is a circle even though he can't actually see it.

    18. Re:Ringed black hole by elucido · · Score: 1

      What if the 5th dimension is self aware matter (life)?
      The 4th is obviously space.

    19. Re:Ringed black hole by Inda · · Score: 1

      He lost me at "rectangular prism" :)

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    20. Re:Ringed black hole by viking2000 · · Score: 1

      Its a fun description of a topology, and maybe not too relevant to string theory (Which I think is screwed up anyway)

      I would suggest thinking of space as seen by a photon. The x-dimension is rolled up to nothing (since it is moving at c) and it moves from its creation to its destruction in zero time (relative to the photon), so the t-dimansion is "rolled up" too.

      So basically it sees a static two dimensional Y,Z universe. The other dimensions x,t, are huge and real,(take a photon travelling for 13 billion years through space) but to the photon, they are rolled up tightly into nonexistence.

    21. Re:Ringed black hole by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      Beach balls are fun at the beach.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    22. Re:Ringed black hole by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1
      A 2D person can perceive a circle just fine, for a circle is a 2D structure. If you imagine him as a stick figure with a round head, he can perceive his own heads roundness. What I think you are after is how does a 2D person perceive a 3D Ball. How he does that is he sits in his 2D world and watch as the ball passes through his plain. It starts as a point, then a tiny tiny circle and then larger and larger, until you reach the middle (thickest part) of the ball then smaller as it passes through. Mind you, you *can* involve time if you want to, but you don't *have* to, it really matters naught to Mr 2D how fast the ball passes if he has no concept of time. If he *does* have a time reference then it becomes very important how fast it goes and if its passage is variable in speed or direction.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    23. Re:Ringed black hole by Valdez · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the meter stick be a 2d object?

    24. Re:Ringed black hole by ardle · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are wrong - a metre stick is a 3-D object ;-)

    25. Re:Ringed black hole by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      The meter stick is like a 1-d object. Really it is 3d, but for the purposes of discussion, you might consider its width and height to be zero. Then you would have a real 1-d meter stick. However, that is not really necessary. Since it is much longer than it is wide or high, it is sufficiently like a 1-d object to illustrate what it needs to illustrate.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    26. Re:Ringed black hole by Valdez · · Score: 1

      Well of course it is =P, but for the purposes of his argument he only cared about the length... which requires 2 dimensions to contain. ;)

    27. Re:Ringed black hole by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      <rant>

      Sometimes I regret being an atheist, because otherwise I'd pray to God and ask him to smite the New Agers who prattle off physics words with no concept of what they mean.

      A "dimension" (in mathematics/physics) is a direction you can go, and most importantly a direction in which you can measure a distance between two places using numbers. In dimensions of space, we use units like "inches" and "miles" and "wavelengths of Cesium-133". In dimensions of time, we use units like "seconds" and "months" and "hyperfine transitions of Cesium-133".

      What's more, despite the apparent differences between a "space" dimension and a "time" dimension, they're fairly similar when you sit down and try to measure them, since they're both dimensions. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is, by definition, the fastest speed possible, one light-second of distance in space is equal to one second of distance in time. Use the right units, and c is equal to 1.

      Let's suppose "self aware matter" dimensions exist. What, pray tell, is an appropriate unit of measurement in a "self aware matter" dimension? How do you know how far you've traveled in a "self aware matter" dimension? Which units correspond to c, allowing you to ignore them? Supposing a "self aware matter" dimension is measured in millisouls (defined as, say, the length of a dung beetle in this mysterious self-awareness direction), how many millisouls per second does light travel through a "self aware matter" dimension?

      </rant>

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  5. We shouldn't be messing with black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, the Romulans use them as power supplies for their ships, and we all know how interdimentional aliens just love those damn engines to store their eggs. We don't want that now do we? /posting as AC due to shame.

  6. Mmmmmmm universe! by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait, so Homer was right about the donut shaped universe? Damn Hawking, always taking credit for other people's ideas!

    1. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      physicists will make a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut

      Let's be a little more scientifically precise here, shall we? Are we speaking of a black dough nut or a chocolate one?

    2. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      perhaps more of a soylent green?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      The Hawkman, the Quakemaster, the Mighty Steven Hawking don't needs to gives no props to no bitches

    4. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Chess+Piece+Face · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hawking: I call it a Hawking Hole.

      Fry: No fair! I saw it first!

      Hawking: Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?

    5. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do-not write donut, Homer prefer do'h!-nuts when doughnuts are unavailable.

    6. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      That's preposterous... Stephen Hawking in a pizzeria.

      (additionally, you bastard! The Hawking Hole was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this story)

      Anyway, remember to carry your dice with you when they get this thing working. We might be forced to play DnD for the next million years.

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    7. Re:Mmmmmmm universe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking: Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?

      That's "Whom is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?

      I can't believe a man with an IQ of 327 would make such an elementary mistake.

  7. You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The ones that occur without warning, last only a short time, and emit enough energy to wipe out entire solar systems?

    What if every time we see one of those gamma-ray bursts, we're watching a civilization gain the necessary technology to do something like this?

    Things that make you go "Hmm."

  8. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then suddenly global warming won't seem like such a big deal?

  9. Re:Saturnian black holes? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    haha i'm so gld i looked at the address of that link before i clicked it. that's nasty fucker.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  10. Dangerous mini-black-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth? That they're trying this kind of stuff is pretty scary. What about doing it on the moon or on mars instead? Sheesh..

    1. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by GFree · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suppose it would be funny to see the Moon or Mars get sucked into nothingness after a catastrophic black hole test. Would be even funnier if one made a "sluuuuuup!" noise as one watched it suck up on itself.

      Then the Cyberdemons would invade. Doom had black holes on Mars didn't they? My memory is fuzzy.

    2. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Skidge · · Score: 1

      Nah, if the Earth gets destroyed, you'll either get to spend eternity in paradise with whatever god you believe in, or we'll all just blink into nothingness and nobody will be around to even care anymore. It's win-win!

    3. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by David_Shultz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth?

      You're not the only one worrying, but trust me, there's no danger of this whatsoever. First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else. Remember, on an atomic scale there is mostly space. And these things are not just small -they are so small its hard to fathom. They are formed by smashing together protons moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. A black hole (might) be formed, if, during the collision, the resultant density of the object is greater than the density required to form a black hole. The gravity will be no greater than the mass of the objects combining it, so you don't need to worry about it sucking things in. Let me jsut give you an example. A basketball could, theoretically, become a black hole, so long as you compressed its mass into a small enough area -but it would still have the gravitational pull of a basketball. And here, we are talking about turning protons into blackholes! In short, nothing to worry about chap!

    4. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      How does one go about disposing of a black hole?

      I guess it could be used to safely store radio active waste.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    5. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth? That they're trying this kind of stuff is pretty scary. What about doing it on the moon or on mars instead? Sheesh..

      Heh, the premise of Roger MacBride Allen's science-fiction novel The Ring of Charon (first volume of The Hunted Earth) is that an experiment out near Pluto ends up swallowing the Earth into a wormhole leading to a far-off part of the universe. One can't seem to get far enough away from the Earth to tinker with creation fearlessly.

    6. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      David brin talked about man made miniature black holes eating the earth in EARTH in 1990 or so... And I don't think he was the first, or even close.

    7. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Dude, nothing bad ever happens in Switzerland, its fucking paradise on earth. Plus the swiss military would kick any upstart black holes ass.

      --
      You mad
    8. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by jklappenbach · · Score: 1

      IIRC, particles from space, so-called "cosmic rays", strike the upper atmosphere with more energy than even the LHC will be able to manage. Therefore, if it's possible to make singularities on the quantum scale, it's already happening several miles above your head.

    9. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't worry. If the LHC were going to make Earth-swallowing black holes, if there were any real chance at all of it happening, then cosmic rays would have done it long long ago.

      Earth-cosmic ray collisions occur at an absolutely fantastic rate, higher than the LHC would ever even dream of. The energies of cosmic rays are distributed across an extremely broad spectrum, extending both above and below LHC energies. If there is any chance of the LHC making an Earth swallowing black hole, then there is precious little chance of the earth being outside of a black hole by tomorrow morning, much less any chance of the earth having survived 4.5 billion years.

      Furthermore, pretty much everything in the galaxy, and presumably in the universe, experiences a cosmic ray flux comparable to what the earth sees. If the LHC were going to make planet or star swallowing black holes, then the sky would be mostly nothing but black holes.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    10. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by monopole · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always wondered why they added the event horizon nullifier in swiss army knives!

    11. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Penguinshit · · Score: 1
      Plus the swiss military would kick any upstart black holes ass.

      Their knives are teh r0xorz!!!

    12. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere are performing essentially this exact experiment right now, and have been since the planet formed. If there were any chance of a black hole forming and destroying the earth on a geological time scale, it would've happened already.

      Besides, the resultant black hole would be absolutely minute - much much smaller than a proton. At that scale, even the densest of earthly materials is just so much empty space. The mean free path of any such hole would be absolutely huge, meaning that the chances of it getting close enough to even a small handful of atoms to swallow them as it passes through the planet are absolutely tiny.

      Dan Simmons called this "The Big Mistake"

      Dan Simmons writes science fiction. Perhaps you should try reading a little less sci-fi and a little more real science before yelling at people.

    13. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation.

      Since you know about Hawking radiation, then you also know that it is of an entirely theoretical nature. Hawking radiation has never been observed.

      The problem with any argument to start making tiny black holes is that assuming that your explanation is correct and everything is already explained by existing scientific theories, then there would be no need to engage in 'research'. If, on the other hand, we admit that current theories do not explain everything, then it is clearly too dangerous to go around doing dangerous stuff like creating tiny black holes.

    14. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Oligonicella · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation."

      Theoretical Hawking radiation.

    15. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by BagMan2 · · Score: 1

      So why don't we just get a weather balloon and check out the black holes forming naturally in the atmosphere?

    16. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by value_added · · Score: 1

      How does one go about disposing of a black hole?

      Easy. You just roll it up and take it with you.

      I doubt many Slashdotters are old enough to remember (or otherwise spend their days watching old Looney Toons cartoons), but the Calvin Calculus guy who invented the portable hole I thought was brilliant, but his invention gave me nightmares throughout most of my childhoold. No fear of the dark, fear of strangers, or fear of monsters under my bed -- just a fear of black holes, and before they became fashionable to talk about.

      At least that's my excuse for not growing up to be a theoretical physicist.

    17. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because the black holes (if they are formed at all) are not what we are interested in. Additionally, the detectors that we use at LHC weigh on the order of thousands of tons. That'd be an awful big weather balloon to lift them. Furthermore, the detectors we use are very narrowly focused. If a collision doesn't take place nearly exactly at the center of the detector, with the two particles involved having pretty much exactly equal speeds in opposite directions, then our measurements will not be on, or at any rate, the detector will be immensely more difficult to calibrate so that we get some kind of meaningful results from it. Also, having the detector underground, we can shield it from a lot of noise that adds uncertainty to our measurements. Finally, the results are immensely easier to study (in some ways, possible to study) if the particles involved always have nearly the same energies as in every other collision we are studying.

      Cosmics have energies spread out over an absolutely huge range of energies. Their timing and location are nigh unto impossible to predict. We don't get anything like a 0 net momentum collision between a cosmic ray and an atmospheric atom. The upper atmosphere is an incredibly noisy place, primarily because of cosmics. We would have an awful hard time telling the difference between a particle that originated from a cosmic-atmosphere collision we were interested in and a stray particle that came from the hadron shower of some other cosmic-atmosphere collision.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    18. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course everyone has forgot to add, they dont really know if that is correct either. they just hope it is ;)
      yes deny that all you want but really this is a field where theres always something else and something is always wrong.
      they have even said themselves, well it could destroy the world but we're pretty sure we are right. ..

      damn them, i dont want to die a virgin
      *slowly steps away from the pc, thinking to myself, "now where do i find this mythical creature called a "girl" if so said creature really exists?" i know ill look it up on the internet*

    19. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry - this thing is a collider and not a plot device.

    20. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by notnAP · · Score: 1
      Someone on /. wrote trust me, there's no danger of this whatsoever.
      Well, that's a relief. I saw it on /., so it must be true.

      All joking aside... good explanation, with a nice real world artifact thrown in to help Joe Q. American understand the scope involved.

    21. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by FrankBH · · Score: 1

      I agree that these black holes are not a problem. Another argument that may convince some of you is the following:

      Cosmic rays of MUCH higher energy than the LHC hit the earth's atmosphere all the time. If the LHC does create a black hole you can be absolutely sure that MANY MANY black holes have been created over the 4.5 billion years since the earth formed. So if a black hole is at all dangerous, the earth would have been already experience the black hole disaster. So since the earth is still here after 4.5 billion years that is proof that any black holes that the LHC could create will not be at all dangerous.

      Even if the theory that these sub-microscopic black holes quickly evaporate is wrong. the previous argument still holds - they cannot be dangerous since otherwise the cosmic rays would have already created many of these holes and the earth would already have been destroyed. Basically these black holes would be so much smaller than a proton that it would easily pass through even a proton with only a extremely small chance it would absorb a quark from the proton.

      So don't worry - be happy!

    22. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by BerntB · · Score: 1

      But you should agree with this?

      It would be a neat solution to Fermi's Paradox if some interesting high energy physics experiment (with e.g. really heavy isotopes which aren't in cosmic radiation?) destroyed the planets it were done on?

      :-) (I hope)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    23. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      How does one go about disposing of a black hole?

      You hope Hawking was right about the Hawking radiation and then wait for 10^70 years or so for it to evaporate. ;-) Hey, at least you can be all lazy about it and don't have to worry about "disposing" anything. It will handle that on its own perfectly fine, given enough time! Yet another nice advantage with black holes.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    24. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately science is so far past the politicians that any effort to regulate their ethical misbehavior (an understatement in this case) is lost. It was one thing when they were hooking animal heads up to human bodies, subjecting humans to extreme cold until death, exposing prisoners to exotic diseases, performing bizarre and sickening operations on retarded children and other ethical problems that were identifiable by anyone with the smallest sense of empathy. But this kind of research is so exotic that no politician dares challenge it for fear of being made a fool of.
      Sorry, but if I have an option between them and politicians I'll give the planet in scientists' hands anyday.
    25. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is %99.99999 percent accurate with regards to place values? Or is it really just a fancy way of saying "almost lightspeed"?

    26. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by slim · · Score: 1

      Dude, nothing bad ever happens in Switzerland, its fucking paradise on earth. I got charged $12 for a beer in Zurich. Repeatedly.
    27. Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole by cbacba · · Score: 1

      Kudos on recognizing and admitting that microblack holes might not be formed at all (and a possible inference that maybe they're somebody's wet dream rather than an actual part of the universe). It seems such things get overhyped and are often related to acquiring pubicity (fame and fortune) rather than serious attempts at explainations.

      I've also wondered for a good while now just how biased the experiments have become and when. After all, detection equipment and data processing are designed based on expectations and interpretations from earlier experiences. It appears that such complexities have been around for quite some time now where so much is pretty much beyond the researcher's ability to do so without the assistance of rather sophisticated and perhaps biased tools.

      As for the cosmic rays - the vast majority of those are very low power compared to what is being done now under controlled environments. However, there are plenty of higher energy ones impacting the atmosphere at rates pretty much dependent on just how high the energy is. The highest ones are quite rare but contain substantially more energy than anything an earth based or human controlled experiment could ever produce. Even in sci-fi land, the notion of building and controlling a device the size of the inner solar system composed of all of the mass of a rather decent sized globular cluster is well beyond the pale.

      If it's possible to form a micro black hole with human attainable energy levels, then cosmic rays must be doing so quite regularly in our atmosphere on a random basis. Since nothing has ever been seen - if you discount the publicity activities many years ago by that UT guy suggesting the Tunguska event was one, then it's pretty well assured that the latest member of the disaster pantheon is another paper tiger.

      Btw, please describe what a prism shape is. A prism generally refers to an optical device, often made of glass, and prism are available in a variety of shapes. Hence a prism shape is at best very ambiguous if not meaningless.

      As for the example of the partial meter stick, if you're talking about the stretching or compacting of space preferentially in a direction, then why wouldn't the meter stick be subject to the expansion or contraction as well?

      Also, your earlier reference to what you referred to as the star wars trash dump has a name. It's called a trash compactor. They're actually available in much bigger sizes than those that fit in the kitchen cabinet.

  11. Oblig by drachenstern · · Score: 0

    Finally John Titor will be proven correct!!! Yay for the tinfoil hats!!!!

    (no flames on the efficacy of tinfoil hats or spelling, m'kay?)

    --
    2^3 * 31 * 647
    1. Re:Oblig by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Remember, if there is no 2008 Olympics: we're all fucked.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Oblig by pcnetworx1 · · Score: 1

      Yea, and this Iran stuff just isn't helping me either...

  12. No you big wuss! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    You just watch safely from another dimesion.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  13. Um..... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does anyone else think that creating a black hole on earth might be a bad idea? I mean, when you talk about hazardous waste, a black hole is about as hazardous as things get. Could you even theoretically shoot it far enough away from Earth for it to not be dangerous? It just seems that um... Something that naturally grows larger and larger while sucking everything in it into oblivion is something that we should, say, not create on the surface of a planet. At least, not where I live.

    1. Re:Um..... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Meh. Probably not a bad way to go.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:Um..... by Normal+Dan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In theory, such a small black hole will not have enough gravitational pull to keep itself together for very long, much less pull in other matter. Such a black hole should only last a few nanoseconds (if even that), then dissipate... in theory.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    3. Re:Um..... by Lithdren · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah yeah, typical "not in my back yard!" argument!

      Look, buddy! SOMEONE has to get sucked into this black hole, why not you? Huh? Are you too good to get pulled into a string of spegetti and your date erradicated from all exsistance? What makes you so important?

      My grandfather was abducted by aliens, the least you could do is get devowered by a massive black hole.

    4. Re:Um..... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      This is covered in the other /. story, linked below the main one. Here's one of the answers.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    5. Re:Um..... by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Any black hole that could be created by any of these experiments would be so tiny that it would radiate away all of its energy before being able to do anything besides exist and vanish a split-second later. It will not, and can not, eat the planet.

    6. Re:Um..... by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Theoretically speaking, of course. ;)

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    7. Re:Um..... by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      Well, theoretically, it is incredibly unlikely to last longer than a tiny fraction of a second. Also, these things have very little mass, so they would not be able to attract much of anything. Of course, part of the reason they are trying to form them is to verify their theory.

      On the other hand, it would be incredibly cool. The thing would fall right down to the center of the earth and "suck the insides" right out. I don't know how fast death would be for a tiny black hole like that, but it would be fun to see how everyone would behave if they knew the end of the world was inevitable. And unlike a nuclear war, there would be no hope for survivors unless they escaped into space.

    8. Re:Um..... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      How about experimental verification? Let's suppose that we threw gillions upon gillions of extremely high energy particles at every astronomical body in the universe all the time. Energies across a wide spectrum, both higher and lower than those at the LHC. If we should expect to see any planet or star swallowing black holes created by the LHC, we would certainly expect that this program of hurling high energy particles all around the universe would also create a very very large number of similar black holes (since we're throwing a lot more particles at a lot more targets than the LHC could even dream of).

      Oh wait. We don't need to do that experiment, because it has been done for billions of years, and is being done even as I type. It's called cosmic rays. If the LHC had any real chance of producing a black hole capable of swallowing the earth, cosmic rays would have already done it millions (probably much higher than millions) of times over.

      Ain't gonna happen.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    9. Re:Um..... by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Eureka!!! You've done it! Now we have a place to stash the nuclear waste. You should get some cred for that one!

      --
      .
    10. Re:Um..... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else think that creating a black hole on earth might be a bad idea?

      Apparently nature doesn't because if the LHC can produce black holes the Cosmic rays do too so were they that dangerous we would not be here to debate the point.

    11. Re:Um..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, the practice should be the same as theory. In practice, however...

    12. Re:Um..... by w_lighter · · Score: 1

      Agreed.... which part of the word "black hole" that seems safe?? Cant they do further up "north" like say... on the moon or mars or something.. coz if something screws up... we all are screw... raise ur hand if you hav a space ship!!?? No one rite !! They should really make a petition before running this kind of shit. Coz this is just a lil more dangerous then say... a nuke.. at least a nuke u just burn ur own background (assuming cloud not included). They should like send a questionaire or something.... DEAR WORLD... CAN I MAKE A BLACK HOLE IN A TUNNEL UP IN SWITZERLAND?? I PROMISE IT WILL ME A TINY WINNY ONE... PROOOMIISSEEE~~~ PLZZZZ~~~~~ CAN I~~~~?? wUT.... err...NO NO~... IT DOESNT GROW... HOPEFULLY~

    13. Re:Um..... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Notice you say in theory.

      Still it does make me uncomfortable about the thought of making the most destructable thing the universe has right here at home.

    14. Re:Um..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAP, but for some reason I'm doubtful a non-gravitational singularity would be self sustaining. It'd take a whole lot of energy to keep it collapsed, and as soon as it's turned off it's likely to spit back out whatever was collapsed. Probably for the same reasons that sustainable fusion without using gravity and a whole lot of matter isn't exactly easy to do.

      Still this doesn't rule out that some funny stuff might happen with frame dragging along the event horizon. Maybe time travel or wormholes aren't as half-baked as they sound?

    15. Re:Um..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone hugs EVERYONE in the black hole singularity that used to be Earth. Might be fun, it is Valentine's Day.

    16. Re:Um..... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      the least you could do is get devowered by a massive black hole.

      Look, it's bad enough that you want him to get devoweled by a black hole...

      (And why would a black hole only take his vowels, anyway? Is it a conspiracy by the Balkan states, to get us all on an even linguistic footing? But I digress...)

      But you have to insult people of Chinese heritage, too?

      Geez, At least you didn't say he should be "devowerd by a massive black hore", which would insult another whole group of poeple.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    17. Re:Um..... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Just how much destructive power do you think the gravity of two protons could possibly have?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    18. Re:Um..... by tftp · · Score: 2

      Enough to become N+1 protons, recursively?

    19. Re:Um..... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I mean, when you talk about hazardous waste, a black hole is about as hazardous as things get.

      On the other hand, once you have that black hole anyway, might as well toss all the hazardous waste we already have into it to keep it busy.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    20. Re:Um..... by FrankBH · · Score: 1

      This is NOT a problem. Cosmic rays of MUCH higher energy than the LHC hit the earth's atmosphere all the time. If the LHC does create a black hole you can be absolutely sure that MANY MANY black holes have been created over the 4.5 billion years since the earth formed. So if a black hole is at all dangerous, the earth would have been already experience the black hole disaster. So since the earth is still here after 4.5 billion years that is proof that any black holes that the LHC could create will not be at all dangerous.

      True, it is "only" a theory that these sub-microscopic black holes will evaporate in a very short time - since they have never been observed - but it is a very well accepted theory. Even if the theory is wrong, and these sub-microscopic black holes do not evaporate, the previous argument still holds - they cannot be dangerous since otherwise the cosmic rays would have already created many of these holes and the earth would have been destroyed. Basically these black holes would be so much smaller than a proton that it would easily pass through even a proton with only a extremely small chance it would absorb a quark from the proton.

      So don't worry - be happy!

    21. Re:Um..... by evilgiu · · Score: 1

      Y'all forgets the one truest and greatest principle which rules our Universe: Murphy's Law.
      Nuff said.

      --
      It's not easy being green.
    22. Re:Um..... by Magada · · Score: 1

      What if they don't? What if they just pass through, for instance, and go on to constitute much of the "missing mass" of this universe? What if you manage to place such a hole in the very close company of a lot of real particles which have almost the same velocity as itself (such as an accelerator)? How big are those cross-sections then?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    23. Re:Um..... by FrankBH · · Score: 1

      Here are a few calculations:

      The proton rest mass of about 1GeV is 1.67x10^-27 kg the Schwarzschild Radius (Rs) of a black hole of a proton mass is then 2.48x10^-54 m. Now the total center of mass energy in the LHC is 14 TeV = 14,000 Gev so if ALL the center of mass rest energy were to enter the black hole (which is NOT possible - only a small fraction of the energy would go into the black hole), then the Rs of the 14TeV Black Hole would be 14,000 x 2.48 x 10^-54 m = 3.47 x 10^-50 m. Now for a quark to enter into the black hole, it would need to hit it almost head on -- so to be generous let's increase the radius by a factor of 10 to give Rs = 2.47 x 10^-49 m. But the radius of proton is 1.53 x 10^-18 m and there are only 3 quarks in a proton and maybe an average of 3 gluons. So the probability that this black hole would absorb one quark or gluon from a proton that it passes through would be Pr = (3 quarks + 3 glouns) * R(BH) ^ 2 / R(Proton) ^ 2 = 1.5 x 10^-61. Now there are only something like 10^+79 protons and neutrons in the entire observable universe and a measly 10^+51 protons and neutrons in the entire earth, so this black hole would have to pass through all the protons and neutrons in 10 billion earth masses before it would absorb one quark on average.

      Indeed, since these tiny black holes hardly ever interact with matter, they could constitute the dark matter needed in cosmology - but ONLY if they do not evaporate.

      So, once again, don't worry...

  14. Been there, done that by Scud · · Score: 1
    --
    I dream in binary.
  15. Re:Saturnian black holes? by daeg · · Score: 1

    You do have to admit that was a brilliant setup with the given contents of the link.

  16. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, with all these black holes around, there goes the neighborhood!

  17. Even more dangerous, the LHC could create... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the dreaded Black Uranus.

    That is something you don't want anywhere near you.

    1. Re:Even more dangerous, the LHC could create... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least it's not the Black Adder. Although I have a cunning plan regarding destruction of the Earth. It involves turnips.

    2. Re:Even more dangerous, the LHC could create... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe the a black hole in the middle of a black uranus

    3. Re:Even more dangerous, the LHC could create... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I've had those near me so often merely by browsing Slashdot at -1 by now that I think I'm immune to their effects.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  18. Re:mmmm by billsoxs · · Score: 1

    Not that I disagree with the mod here but why is this modded funny and the first post modded off topic - when they make the SAME JOKE!

    --
    This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
  19. Or, we might be eaten by strangelets... by amper · · Score: 1

    And then we'd never know, would we? Where's that History Eraser Button when you need it most?

  20. Questions from the Peanut Gallery by NetSettler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    ... a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut ...

    I get the impression that the "small size" thing is supposed to be reassuring. But aren't all black holes comparatively small, compared to what they've had for lunch? How big would a black hole be that, say, had accidentally swallowed the Earth? And I suppose mass should also reassure me. But the thing is, my gradeschool science oversimplification of black holes said their defining characteristic was not their mass but their insatiable, chain-reaction-like desire to swallow more mass ... like a rolling snowball.

    And it's all well and good to say some theoretical rays we've never seen before will magically swing in at the end and save us, but... Since this is testing an unproven theory and not applying a well-understood theory, what are the procedures for evaluating the level of risk?

    And what is the recourse of those who don't agree? Science has ethical guidelines for not experimenting on humans because of risk. Does the fact that humans are in the next room ... or the next building ... or the next city, "safely away" from the black hole being created, mean that there is no ethical obligation for informed consent? It would seem like there are more rules governing putting make-up on a rat than there are on this kind of experimentation...

    I don't know the details of this kind of thing. I just have to trust someone doing them does. But I wonder exactly what I'm trusting. Anyone know?

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    1. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Servo · · Score: 1

      What if it were a white hole? Would you be so quick to start this kind of fear mongering? Not all scientists are racists, ya know!

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by kebes · · Score: 4, Informative

      The short answer is: don't worry.

      All black holes emit "Hawking radiation", which causes them to slowly lose mass. For black holes below a certain size, this evaporation due to Hawking radiation will be so fast that they won't even have a chance to grow through matter accumulation before they evaporate into nothing. I know this doesn't match up with the pop-science description of black holes--where they consume all matter around them until nothing is left--but suffice it to say that the pop-science explanation leaves out many of the important details.

      So, again, the creation of micro-black-holes is nothing to worry about. Remember that although the energies in the LHC are really massive, there are other similarly high-energy natural events occuring throughout the universe, and they appear not to routinely form micro-black-holes that consume everything around them. Creating stable (i.e.: big) black holes appears to be a comparatively rare event.

      Some people are not appeased by the above arguments and point out that our current theory of particle physics may be lacking in some unforseen way, and we will destroy ourselves. Then again, the only reason to think a black hole will form at all is because of the current theory of particle physics. If that theory is wrong, it's more likely that... well... no black hole will form at all. (Again, look around the universe and notice the distinct lack of universe-consuming mega-black-holes.)

    3. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by tftp · · Score: 1
      Black holes are theorized to evaporate, and the smaller they get the faster they evaporate. However this is an unproven theory, and if it is seriously incorrect then we may have a problem.

      On the other hand, if the scientists accidentally produce a constantly growing black hole that orbits above and through the planet and makes holes in everything then at least these scientists' theories will be proven wrong, and they will be ashamed of their stupidity for the rest of their lives.

    4. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      The short answer is: don't worry

      Oh, ok. Since you ask so nicely. (Thanks for the explanations, btw.)

      Creating stable (i.e.: big) black holes appears to be a comparatively rare event.

      Right. Happening only once per evolved civilization. Hardly woth mentioning in the grand scheme of things...

      look around the universe and notice the distinct lack of universe-consuming mega-black-holes

      Well, maybe they're there and they just explain Olber's Paradox.

      ;)

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    5. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Some people are not appeased by the above arguments and point out that our current theory of particle physics may be lacking in some unforseen way, and we will destroy ourselves." ... leading me to postulate a new theory on why, to date, we've found no evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. There is an unavoidable technology track where civilizations start playing with high energy physics and figure they can in fact produce a micro black hole and that it will be safe. Each time they are proved wrong. If my theory is correct you can look to the stars, and every place there is a black hole there was once intelligent life....snuffed out by hubris.

      --
      @de_machina
    6. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      From a theoretical perspective, you are referring to Quasars. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, any scientists present) is that you would NOT want to be near one of these either, as they do the opposite of black holes in that they spew energy (fatal radiation it is). Theoretically. I don't recall if they've proved anything regarding quasars past their existence.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by bacon55 · · Score: 1

      It only takes one universe consuming black hole to suck in the universe. How do you know you're not living in what will become that.

    8. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      don't worry. All black holes emit "Hawking radiation", which causes them to slowly lose mass.

      But H.R. is just a theory. I don't think it is a good idea to gamble the planet's fate on a theory which may be wrong. Earth may be about to win the Intergalactic Darwin Award.

    9. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by bacon55 · · Score: 1

      Basically we probably shouldn't be screwing with high energy physics involving micro-singularities on a quantum scale. Replicate positive things in the universe - not the nasty things. Suffice it to say it's obviously harder to build a star than a black hole. Like it's easier to build bombs than buildings.

    10. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      It's a black hole consisting of two subatomic particles. Whatever its properties, it's not going to have greater mass than two subatomic particles. Might as well worry about getting eaten by an oxygen molecule. Heck, an oxygen molecule is several orders of magnitude more dangerous, gravitationally speaking.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    11. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't believe all the theoretical arguments in the world, no matter how good the evidence for them, there's one absolutely devastating argument against any accelerator we can dream of building creating something that will eat the planet. Cosmic rays with far higher energies than we'll be able to create for a LONG time hit the Earth and moon all the time, yet they're both still here.

    12. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Suffice it to say it's obviously harder to build a star than a black hole. Like it's easier to build bombs than buildings.

      If that were true, I would be living inside of a bomb instead of a building.

      ...checking...

      Nope. Turns out there's way more buildings than bombs in the world. Even if you count something like a maltov cocktail, the flammible liquid is still harder to acquire than a lean-to.

    13. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Quasars are believed to be the result of BIG black holes sucking in matter, some of which misses the hole and gets concentrated into jets. NOT white holes, which are pretty much a fictional concept.

    14. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Except that the Earth is and always has been sitting in the particle beams from lots and lots of cosmic sized particle accelerators. Since it's still here, our dinky little ten or twenty kilometre toys aren't going to hurt it.

    15. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      It's a black hole consisting of two subatomic particles.

      It sounds less scary when you put it that way. Kinda like the Military's advertising catch phrase "An Army of One"--which, charming as it sounds, wouldn't be spin, would it? (Sorry, just a bit of atomic subhumor.)

      But maybe we're making progress. In what sense can two subatomic particles be said to be a black hole? What is the qualifying characteristic for being a black hole?

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    16. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking radiation hasn't been proven, although it's a fairly convincing reason why the universe hasn't been consumed by hordes of picoscopic black holes.

      The most convincing argument why the LHC experiments (and the Brookhaven experiments before that) are safe is because the Earth is routinely bombarded with cosmic rays with energies that make the LHC look like an atom tapper. If something bad was going to happen, it already would have.

      We can't go beyond the empirical evidence, because the LHC is, after all, designed to seek out new physics, or at least confirm our current theories (which would be a disappointment, but not inconceivable). The only thing that can be completely reassuring is the empirical evidence. Fortunately, it comes down on the planet's survival on this one. :-)

    17. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by kievit · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase the observational argument.

      The energy spectrum of cosmic rays reaches energies much higher than we will ever achieve in man-made particle accelerators. High energy particle collisions happen all the time right above us in the atmosphere when those cosmic rays collide with air molecules. So even if microscopic black holes can indeed be created with particle collisions in the lab, then this has happened already very many times in the Earth's atmosphere, and in five billion years Earth never got "eaten" by such a black hole. So either microscopic black holes cannot be created that way, or they can be created that way but they always evaporate.

      (Why is the argument better this way: because everybody -- except maybe some philosophers -- can verify that Earth still exists, but only a few people can truly convince themselves that cosmic rays did not create black holes elsewhere in the Universe.)

    18. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by bacon55 · · Score: 1

      So we always do the easiest, most destructive thing? Are you telling me its easier to build a lean-to than it is to break it down? Simple concept - its easier to build something that destroys than it is to build the thing itself. Sure we can LEARN a lot from nuclear testing - but is it really a good idea?

    19. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Hmmm but how's this for a flaw. All (nearly) the super high energy impacts between cosmic rays and our atmosphere happen out in the thermosphere, which is thousands of times less dense than the atmosphere where we are, and even less dense than all the tables, ground etc. Since the perceived safety of these black holes comes from the fact that mass/energy emitted through hawking radiation > mass/energy consumed from surroundings, wouldn't changing the amount of mass in the hole's surroundings be significant? IANAPP, but it's not entirely honest to pretend that conditions are the same where the collider is and at the edge of our atmosphere. Although I suppose the shear number of (assumed) natural interactions would imply that ones with similar conditions had occurred... but I don't actually know the answer to that. Either way, I can't help but get the impression that we're really putting our balls on the table with this one.

      Isn't scientific shortsitedness a frequent complain on slashdot? I just don't feel like there's enough skepticism directed at the claims of safety. Not because I neccassarily thing they're wrong, but because big claims require big evidence, and these are big claims (Black hole, safe?).

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    20. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me its easier to build a lean-to than it is to break it down?

      No, I'm refuting your comment that it's easier to build bombs than buildings. Destroying something is not the same as creating a device of destruction. Weapons-grade plutonium is harder to acquire than whatever gets used in power plants because the technology has more requirements for success. If it seems easier, it's only because of our unfortunate destructive tendencies.

    21. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      All black holes emit "Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org]", which causes them to slowly lose mass. For black holes below a certain size, this evaporation due to Hawking radiation will be so fast that they won't even have a chance to grow through matter accumulation before they evaporate into nothing. I know this doesn't match up with the pop-science description of black holes--where they consume all matter around them until nothing is left--but suffice it to say that the pop-science explanation leaves out many of the important details.

      To get a little more pop-sci, it's like coffee (black coffee, I suppose). A drop of coffee evaporates really fast. A cup of coffee evaporates really slowly. Similarly, a TeV black hole evaporates really fast, while a black hole of 10 million solar masses evaporates really slowly.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone know?

      Yes. Very high energy cosmic rays having velocities approaching the speed of light smash into our atmosphere continuously. This is fact; we can't explain where they are coming from but we can detect them. Since the LHC is governed by the same laws of physics that govern natural cosmic rays it follows that you have no more to worry about regarding LHC operation than you do from high speed particles that have been routinely impacting the solar system for its entire existence.

      If that isn't convincing enough consider this; the LHC crosses the borders of France and Sweden multiple times. You can rely on the fact that if the French or Swedes believed there was any real danger they would have absolutely nothing to do with it; they'd just let the US build it and yell about it the whole time.

    23. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Mass is important. Black holes are affected by gravity just as well as their gravity affects their environment. If there will be a new Lake Swizerland, then it won't be because the hole ate a part of Earth, but because of the explosion.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    24. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I will admit that the idea makes me a bit nervous as well. Probably because I have seen too many movies. Anyway it worried me enough that I looked into it a bit awhile back, also keep in mind that I am by no means an authority on this subject. Anyway it is my understanding that black holes need to be of a certain size in order to be able to consume enough material to stay in existace let alone grow. This tells me that there is some threshold where a blackhold become self sustaining and beyond that would be various degrees of increasing growth. From what I read the black holes that are created by these colliders are so small that they only exist for a fraction of a second, and poof they are gone. Now when scientists decide to try and "approch" that unknown theshold, then I will start to get worried. One consolation that I take into consideration is despite all of are advances the Universe is larger than we can really comprehend. The only known black holes thought to exist are those created by an imploding STAR. The amount of mass and energy contained within a star, is far beyond what we can recreate. Even if we postulate that the dangerous threshold is many many mangnitudes less, it would 'probably' still be at a threshold well beyond our capability, at least anytime soon (say within out lifetimes). I seem to remember that it was thought that the stars that do turn into blackholes were thought to be red giant class stars that imploded rather than turned nova. If this is correct then even all the energy and mass contained within our own sun would be many magintudes too small to produce the effect. If that is compared to say if every atom on earth was turned into an atomic reaction, which then imploded upon itself, it would not be enough to create a blackhole by so many magnitudes as to be silly, though one may be created for a specifed time before it disapeared. Anyway, a lot of if's, but I think I have said the word "magnitude" so many times as to get the idea across. I would try to offer some comparison, but the values are so large as to make my brain hurt trying to think of an analogy. Anyway interesting stuff, and definatly something I think should be approched with caution, but probably most scientists that work with the stuff and that are in the know, would probably laugh pretty hard at the concern.

      Anyway I may be totally wrong, this is all just off the top of my head and it was more of a casual interest more than anything else. David Brin has a book (fiction) called "Earth" with explores this very subject, and is kind of freaky, though as I said probably not very plausable.

    25. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosmic rays hit the moon, too. It is dense and has yet to be turned into a black hole from these collisions.

    26. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Alioth · · Score: 1

      AC pointed out the continued existence of the moon, but no. When you get down to subatomic scale, everything is pretty sparse. Secondly, these miniscule black holes are so small that the event horizon is a fraction of the size of a proton.

      Just like a 10kg lump of uranium doesn't suddenly turn into a nuclear explosion all by itself, the lack of density of anything else around the micro black hole with its smaller-than-a-proton event horizon means that the chances of even one other particle hitting it before it evaporates (let alone the several solar masses of stuff needed to make it dangerous) are billions to one against.

    27. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      The LHC cannot produce a dangerous black hole. To do that they'd need to recreate the conditions at the centre of a red giant - a few orders of magnitude more energy than the entire planet can output, and gravity measured in km/s^2.

    28. Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Question: Has anyone speculated what would happen to a black hole that ran out of infalling material?

      Could it eventually decay to the point of no longer being a black hole? If so, would the decaying black hole transition smoothly into another state or would Bad Things happen?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  21. Alway with the bloody String Theory by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    """
    This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough.
    """

    Why is it that every single time that something suggests something that string theory "predicts" but has many many other explanations, it's touted as a victory for evidence of string theory? (btw this is similar thinking to that of "Intelligent Design" folks) In this case, there are many other theories that have more dimensions.

    Basically, IF this is happens, it is only a HINT that some theory that has extra dimensions is valid. And String Theory is far from the only one. Until String Theory is able to make an experimentally verifiable prediction, that /only/ String Theory predicts, it'll continue to be just a bunch of math and hand waving.

    1. Re:Alway with the bloody String Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You have it backwards... string theory is not accumulating a long list of predictions (that can also be predicted by other theories), it is struggling to find a single prediction that appears in an experiment. (To be precise, it is looking for an experimental verification of a prediction that string theory makes but which doesn't appear in standard theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity.)

      If experimental results start supporting string theory, then it will move from the realm of 'speculative' to 'possible.' If the experimental result also supports other (higher-dimensional) theories, then we can start tuning the experiments to show which theory is correct...

      But at present we don't even have concrete experimental evidence that these higher-dimensions exist, so verification of that postulate would be huge. It would make all of these alternate theories (of which string theory is one) finally falsifiable.

    2. Re:Alway with the bloody String Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, there are many other theories that have more dimensions.
      And here I was thinking that string theory had a lot more dimensions than the rest.

  22. Oh Noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but what if they make a tiny black hole that does manage to stay together long enough to begin consuming enough surrounding matter to sustain itself and keep growing?

    If that happens, I think I'll be very glad that I've already handed my life over to Jesus!

  23. Re: your sig by dolphinling · · Score: 1

    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>

    Your markup is invalid. Any element or attribute name beginning with the string "xml" is reserved by the spec.

    (This is actually a simplification of the truth, see http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-name for details.)

    --
    There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
  24. This sounds like a 70's Blaxploitian Movie by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 2, Funny

    Black Saturn, the street tough PI that got kicked off the force for refusing to go along with some crooked cops. Now, he dispenses his own brand of street justice, but has a heart of gold that melts all the ladies.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:This sounds like a 70's Blaxploitian Movie by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1
      Deadlier than Dracula...

      Black Saturn!

    2. Re:This sounds like a 70's Blaxploitian Movie by xLittleP · · Score: 0

      More like the name of some Emo band. Notable Singles: Nothing to see here Weak Forces are a Dark Matter Sleep yourself to cry So long and thanks for all the freaks They say I'm before my 4th dimension Traveling at the lead of spite

      --
      When is Slashdot going to add a -1 moderation option for people who actually RTFA?
  25. Resonance Cascade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh god it's Black Mesa all over again...

  26. "Thrice Upon A Time" by tftp · · Score: 2, Informative

    This had been discussed here, and the plan to create microscopic black holes on Earth is something to be wary of.

    1. Re:"Thrice Upon A Time" by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Let me guess... James P. Hogan is not an established scientist? :-P

      *checks biography online*

      Right... Science fiction author...

      Most scientists have assured the LHC won't create micro black holes, and CERN has actually made a full fledged study on "exotic" events that could occur. But of course, we can't be 100% sure of our theories and that nothing will happen. I trust these guys more than a sci-fi author though.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  27. Re:mmmm by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has to do with quantum moderation - a post can be in multiple states at once (offtopic/funny) until you look at it, then it takes assumes one and only one.

  28. Third of all... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else.

    Third of all: The kind of (and energy of) collision in question occurs with non-trivial frequency when cosmic rays hit atoms in the atmosphere. If it created a long-lived black hole that could suck down a planet in a geologically short time we would have been down the drain LONG ago.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Third of all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference since the cosmic ray collision would create a moving black hole that escapes fast enough before it gets too big. Such a thing could have happened 100 years ago in Sibera (exit hole, entrance on the other side of Earth was still too small to notice).

      The supercollider would give you a blackhole at rest, ready to engorge (and what if Hawking is wrong? I mean, if the Americans are still not sure about Evolution, then how can they trust this shit from one guy? Time to bomb France to protect our freedoms!)

    2. Re:Third of all... by David_Shultz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fourth of all, all of this is theoretical so far since we haven't done it. Maybe our models are all wrong and this will in fact create a black hole capable of consuming everything around it and eventually the Earth and solar system. Probably not, but you can't really rule anything out completely.

      This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.

      Second, the only reason we have to believe in black holes is because of our scientific models, and now you are jumping up and down warning us that our models might be wrong? You would be standing on firmer philosophical ground by rejecting the notion that a black hole will be created at all (there you are just being a skeptic about theoretical entities). But your position as it stands is contradictory -you claim our models might be wrong and black holes might eat the planet, but yet you trust those theories in predicting the appearance of a black hole.

    3. Re:Third of all... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      There is a difference since the cosmic ray collision would create a moving black hole that escapes fast enough before it gets too big.

      Granted such collisions create moving black holes.

      But the bulk of them would be aimed at the earth. If they have a significant cross-section for absorbing matter they eat enough to be slowed down below orbital velocity before they exit.

      Such a thing could have happened 100 years ago in Sibera (exit hole, entrance on the other side of Earth was still too small to notice).

      The maximum possible energy available to such an "exit event" would be the mass-energy equivalent of the cosmic ray, the nucleus it hit to form the black hole, and the nuclei they ate on their way through WITHOUT being slowed below surface-level orbital velocity.

      The Tunguska event was estimated at 10 to 20 Megatons. That's equivalent to the total conversion of 1 to 2 POUNDS of matter to energy.

      Given that Avogadro's number is about 6e23, I think it's just a TAD too big to be the result of a black hole with the mass of a couple nuclei at even cosmic ray velocity chewing their way through the planet on a diet that doesn't make them fall back before breaking out the far side. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Third of all... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Such a thing could have happened 100 years ago in Sibera (exit hole, entrance on the other side of Earth was still too small to notice).

      The maximum possible energy available to such an "exit event" ...


      Of course this doesn't eliminate the possibility of the event being the exit wound from a black hole of non-trivial mass arriving from space. But IMHO the ones that might be made in an accelerator or from a cosmic ray collision are too light to qualify.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Third of all... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Such a thing could have happened 100 years ago in Sibera (exit hole, entrance on the other side of Earth was still too small to notice).

      In addition to what the other posters have said: there were eyewitnesses of the Tunguska event. They saw a brilliant trail of blue-white fire come across the sky and strike the forest. It therefore could not have been an exit hole, and its velocity was too low and its energy too high to be the entrance (from a cosmic ray).

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    6. Re:Third of all... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Fourth of all, all of this is theoretical so far since we haven't done it. Maybe our models are all wrong and this will in fact create a black hole capable of consuming everything around it and eventually the Earth and solar system. Probably not, but you can't really rule anything out completely.

      This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.


      Or believing that catastrophic (in the mass extinction sense, fuelled by some kind of positive feedback) global warming will occur unless we cut down on C02 emissions ;-) Before you mod me down, I can accept that the world will get warmer in the next 100 years by the same amount it did in the last 100.

      With the black holes, I think I'm convinced by the cosmic ray argument, personally - the idea is that a tiny percentage of cosmic rays have an energy far higher than any conceivable accelerator can produce. And since the upper atmosphere has been bombarded with these for billions of years without the earth being swallowed, either micro black holes can't be produced this way, or they can't grow.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Third of all... by dave_mcmillen · · Score: 1

      This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.

      Fair enough, and a very good point. Still, if the Earth does get swallowed, even once, I just hope it lasts long enough for us to get an extremely abject apology from physicists.

      They've checked their calculations more than once, right? With several brands of calculator?

    8. Re:Third of all... by Pedrito · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Geez, you guys need to relax. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm not even saying it's got even a .001% chance of happening. But to be so brazen as to say we absolutely KNOW what won't happen in something like this is simply arrogance. You're right... All the science currently points to the idea that it won't happen and it very likely won't. But to say that it absolutely won't is just stupid.

    9. Re:Third of all... by cluckshot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well it is plain to see that the moderators on this site don't like any opposing points of view to their physics beliefs. They moderate what was obviously a logical and a bit touched with humor point or two that obviously touched a nerve. They don't like the reality of someone who knows their arguments and their logic and sees through it. I just hope that somebody sees this and mods the parent up fixing this assault on free speech and decent thinking. Good science should be better than that.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    10. Re:Third of all... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Increased CO2 emissions increase ocean acidity as the ocean is in chemical equilibrium with the air. Shelled organisms can't live above a critical pH. So CO2 emissions will cause mass extinction, even without feedback.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    11. Re:Third of all... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      What a load of bull.

      It has been a while, but IIRC:

      Maxwell equations cannot even explain thermodynamics properly. If you start from Maxwell's original equations you cannot get to the ideal gas equations and the second law of thermodynamics without inventing an unexplainable "provided by god" constant. At the same time the same second law and the ideal gas equation can be trivially derived from the Shroedinger's equation applied for a "black" box. You do not even need to look into more complex cases and even if you do so the result does not change fundamentally.

      By the way, for a variety of reasons (stupidity and hubris notwithstanding) I ended up learning modern statistical physics before Maxwellian. As a result I could never male myself digest the utter bull generated by Maxwell (it just did not make sense mathematically in many places). So I actually did this exact derivation starting from Shroedinger on my supposedly Maxwell physics exam in physical chemistry 1. The prof looked at me, looked at the exam sheet, looked at me again and said: My dear, I am supposed to give you an F for not knowing the subject. I will give you an A+ instead for not having to unlearn the next semester the loads of bull I have been forced to teach the students this semester for historical reasons. After that he threw me out of the examination room

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  29. But it does answer the question... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    But it does answer a question once asked by a headline, when another planetary ring system had been tentatively identified:

    "Is there a Ring of Debris around Uranus?"

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  30. Mini-Black Holes Mini-Black Saturns by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 0

    How about we create Mini-Stars and use them to collect energy they put out in order to take ourselves off of fossil fuels?

    If you can create a Mini-Black Saturn, you have a stillborn star, which is what the real Saturn is, a gas giant that did not turn into a star for some reason.

    This could be the ultimate weapon if you can make a Mini-Black Hole large enough to take out a city or something before the Hawking radiation causes it to shrink into almost nothingness.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Mini-Black Holes Mini-Black Saturns by iMySti · · Score: 1

      RTFM please. Its blackholes that look like Saturn, not a tiny gaseous planet with enough gravity to keep a tiny ring around it.

    2. Re:Mini-Black Holes Mini-Black Saturns by Zephyr14z · · Score: 1

      Now, I know /. has a strict policy on not RTFA, but at least glance over the summary.

    3. Re:Mini-Black Holes Mini-Black Saturns by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      I cannot because my proxy blocks the site. It is marked as a bad IP that might install malware on my system. Must be their advertising or something.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Mini-Black Holes Mini-Black Saturns by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      I would love to, but my proxy says it is a bad IP and blocks it. So I cannot read it at all.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  31. Could this have happened already? by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

    Just a thought: maybe this could already have happened. How would you detect a particle smaller than a proton which presumably has no charge?

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    1. Re:Could this have happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By using a piece of string. good ole string.

    2. Re:Could this have happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      like this or like this or like this or with this if you want to go low tech (light has no charge and is smaller than a proton).

      Okay sorry for the flippant answer, basically in particle physics, protons are huge, very large (but not massive) objects. Finding something smaller than them is pretty easy because size doesnt matter. What matters is the strength of its interaction with the rest of the universe. So we find small objects via their interactions with other objects which we can detect in our detectors. No charge makes things a little more tricky but objects can also carry colour charge and weak isospin and thats how we would find an electrically neutral object. Neutrinos, the hardest particles to detector only interact via the weak force and they are almost impossible to see but we do detect them. Also we can detect things like neutrinos by the absence of things, they carry away energy from the collision and we can detect that theres not all the energy there should be.

    3. Re:Could this have happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it's possible, people have been able to detect nutrinos. And yes, it certainly could have happened, but in the upper atmosphere, where cosmic rays are raining down at intensities magnitudes larger than what will be produced at the LHC.

    4. Re:Could this have happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because size doesnt matter.

      Yeah, keep telling yourself that...

  32. Theories based on theories.... by Der+Huhn+Teufel · · Score: 1

    I predict the universe is made up of tiny ice breathing dragons. After all, nothing invalidates it so far. Theories are great, especially theories based on facts. Theorizing on unproved theories based on knowledge we don't really understand nor have the technology to adequately gather is setting yourself up for failure, though. Basically, don't jump the gun.

    1. Re:Theories based on theories.... by smellotron · · Score: 1

      I predict the universe is made up of tiny ice breathing dragons.

      Actually, the ice-dragon postulate has been proven already, but it's kept secret by the Templar. Didn't you see that part of the DaVinci Code?

  33. Re:mmmm by kypper · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel my chances of getting laid drop with every chuckle at this joke.

  34. There is a very low chance of a much larger hole by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you think Lake Geneva and Lake Constance are large, wait until you see Lake Switzerland.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  35. e-mail by Ardipithecus · · Score: 2, Funny
    to: s.hawking@oxford.edu.uk

    priority: highest

    re: micro saturn black holes

    1. Formation confirmed

    2. Evaporation confirmed not!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:e-mail by notnAP · · Score: 1

      I want to know the connection you're using to send this port 25 traffic out from within the event horizon. Now that's some serious technology.

    2. Re:e-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he has zombied a satellite and is now using it to send his intergalactic spam. Here is an example:

      ATTN:
      Dear Sir/M,
      I am Mr.David Mark. an Auditor of a Galaxy Milky Way (GMW). I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that you will never let me down either now or in the future. Some years ago, a LHC made a "tiny black saturn". On maturity, there was a notification sent to the location of the LHC which was never replied to. Since the LHC's death, the Federation is now in possession of the Black Saturn. They will not release it due to LHC's untimely death or until it is claimed by a member of the family. This is the situation, and my proposal is that I am looking for a foreigner who will stand in as the next of kin to beneficiary, and OPEN abroad to facilitate the transfer of this black saturn. This is simple, all you have to do is to OPEN an account anywhere in the world and send me its detail for me to arrange the proper transfer paperwork, and facilitate the transfer. The black saturn will then be provided to you There is no risk at all, and all the paper work for this transaction will be done by me using my position and connections in the Federation. This business transaction is guaranteed. If you are
      interested, please reply immediately through my personal email sending the
      following details:
      (1) Your Full Name/Address
      (2) Your Private Telephone/fax Number.
      Please observe the utmost confidentiality, and be rest assured that this transaction would be most profitable for both of us. I look forward to your earliest reply.
      Yours,
      Mr.David
      Mark.

    3. Re:e-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) s. hawking is at cambridge
      2) .edu domain in UK is .ac.uk not .edu.uk

      Also sad to point out that we have already confirmed that either a) we will produce micro black holes which will decay away by hawking radiation or b) we will not produce any black holes which if they were produced may or may not decay by hawking radiation. We know this because we exist and every day (approx) the earth gets hit by a cosmic ray with the energy in the range of the LHC. So if the LHC was to produce anything bad (ie micro black holes which dont decay by hawking radation or similar mechanism), we would long ago have been swallowed up by one. (sorry I'm in a pedantic bastard mood tonight)

    4. Re:e-mail by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be:

      to: s.hawking@oxford.edu.uk
      priority: highest


      re: micro saturn black holes


      1. Formation confirmed
      #"^[]NO_CARRIER

    5. Re:e-mail by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Sigh!
      I know this is a joke, but in the interests of the people on here who care (geeks are allowed to be pedantic after all)
      Stephen Hawking is based at Cambridge, not Oxford
      Uk university email addresses are .ac.uk so he would be his_name@college_name.cam.ac.uk
      By what I hear you're more likely to find him in one of the local pubs. A place called B-bar is reputed to be one of his favorites, though I've only ever been there and a Friday/Saturday night when it is one of the explicitly trendy places with people packed in tight...

      There, I feel all anally retentive and nerdy now...

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  36. Hey! That's the name of my new band by aibrahim · · Score: 1

    The Black Saturn's.

    We're really small. Our music sucks you in, and we're growing.

    --

    Don't post innacurate information
    If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
  37. Multiple Dimensions by dl_zero · · Score: 1

    Finally maybe we can put to rest that crap about there being more than 3 dimensions.

    1. Re:Multiple Dimensions by sankyuu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally maybe we can put to rest that crap about there being more than 3 dimensions.
      "Finally" implies a temporal dimension, leaving only 2 dimensions for "crap." but for "crap" to be manifest, it must pass through a hole, which necessarily implies at least n + 1 dimensions! Congratulations, you have established the existence of *gasp* the 4th dimension, which we refer to as the "anal dimension."
      (My silly comment got me wondering, if a "hole" exists and is orthogonal to the 3 spatial dimensions, then the curvature of spacetime does constitute a 4th spatial (5th spacetime) dimension, right? As a fitting mnemonic, I shall refer to it as the "hyper-anal" dimension!)
    2. Re:Multiple Dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally maybe we can put to rest that crap about there being more than 3 dimensions.


      To be pedantic:

      There are as many dimensions as I choose to define in my model or extract from my data set, for whatever natural or unnatural phenomenon I am studying.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_a nalysis
  38. What about Black Vulcans? by halovaa · · Score: 1

    "I have a black hole...in my pants!" Um, nevermind.

    1. Re:What about Black Vulcans? by planetfinder · · Score: 1

      me too. Its a nice thing.

  39. Re:mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Aren't females wonderful? Keep it up, girls, the gene pool is just too damn smart right now!

  40. Wow! Finally an experiment to validate string ... by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    Until now, String Theory has been that, a theory. It has been endless multidimensional mathmetics, on might cynically say to generate Phd's. Now an experiment is on the horizon which could be used to prove/disprove string theory. This should be interesting, especially if the extra dimensions are not observed.

    Get a brane! -- String theory humor

  41. Spinning in which direction? by necro81 · · Score: 1

    FTFA: The spinning ring would also drag space-time around with it, making the central black hole spin as well.

    Perhaps I'm too Newtonian in my thinking here but, in order to conserve the angular momentum (presumably zero) of the particles that went into the collision, wouldn't the central black hole have to spin in the opposite direction of the ring? In that case, since we've got two objects dragging space-time in opposite directions, what happens to space-time in the space between?

    Or, since we are talking about colliding protons, are we conserving spin instead of classical angular momentum? What happens then? If the protons are aligned, is the net spin of the black hole 1 (assuming that the exclusion principle has been overcome by gravity)? If they are anti-aligned, is the resulting spin zero?

    Or do we throw things completely out the window because we're talking about higher spatial dimensions?

    Argh! The Fermions are attacking my brain!

    [These aren't really serious questions that I expect serious answers to. I know just enough physics to have those weird questions jump into my head, but not enough to intelligently explore the possibilities.]

    1. Re:Spinning in which direction? by TheSuperlative · · Score: 1

      Too newtonian. IANAS, but as far as I know, those laws do not even begin to apply to what happens on the scale in question here.

      --
      "In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
    2. Re:Spinning in which direction? by planetfinder · · Score: 2, Funny

      no no no you iggorant fool The strings are dangling into the hole and through the process of reverse obfusification the angular momentus is transparently reversified to nullify the boolshiteicus component according to the theory of string-a-lingus-bodingus.

  42. "Black Saturns"? by 3on3 · · Score: 1

    Saturn isn't a ring its a planet,geniuses.

    1. Re:"Black Saturns"? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Huh? The article isn't just talking about a ring, but a black hole with a ring around it.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  43. f\/@k string theory by planetfinder · · Score: 1

    All viable physical theories predict extra dimensions because as a matter of fact we've observed extra dimensions for a long time now.
    Long before the string religion began we knew about electric charge and other internal quantum
    numbers.

    The sky is blue and my penis gets stiff when I look at high quality porn. Are those validation of string theory too
    or should I look to an even higher level theory/religion like intelligent design ?

  44. I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Black Saturn" would be a killer name for a band. I mean, totally.

  45. Re:mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    hahaha, women are dumb! haha! take that gender equality!

  46. Ouch!!! by starnix · · Score: 1

    Believe me, I'm gonna stay away from that "Large Hardon Collider". I learned my lesson last time.....

    1. Re:Ouch!!! by Edis+Krad · · Score: 1

      Well, at least I'm not the only one pervert that read Hardon at first...

  47. Re:mmmm by billsoxs · · Score: 1

    Yes but this is ann article about string theory - wait I get it - never mind

    --
    This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
  48. Re:Wow! Finally an experiment to validate string . by planetfinder · · Score: 1

    It doesn't need further confirmation.
    It has successfully generated many Phd's

    On a more serious note:
    Extra dimensions were observed long before string theory was a fad.
    Just like all of its predecessors it will never be more than a theory.
    The question is : is it a useful theory that gets us leverage on our
    world and a leg up on the next useful theory. Physical theories can be
    tested or disproven but never proven.

  49. Not that easy by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it was that easy to make black holes, then cosmic rays could cause black holes...

    I think Prof Hawking said that a collider capable of making black holes, would be the size of the solar system.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  50. Re:mmmm by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    It's not that, really. It's actually just that a lot of women (who want to have shitloads of children) seem to like being smarter than the guy they're with... so it's a lot easier for them to go for the big dumb type.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  51. will this prove that by planetfinder · · Score: 1

    nothing sucks bigger and harder than string theory

    1. Re:will this prove that by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      nothing sucks bigger and harder than string theory

      Poster's scientific qualifications - Bought a copy of New Scientist once. Quite liked some of the pictures.

      Are you saying that because you have gained a detailed understanding of string theory and found it flawed or because you've seen other people saying it and would like to be accepted as one of the gang?

      Personally, I'm not educated enough to have come to any kind of opinion about string theory that I would dare to argue in public. However, I am realistic enough to suspect that every single scientist involved in string theory is more intelligent and objective than some frustrated little prick shouting glib lines from the peanut gallery.

      Finally, since this will get modded down anyway and you seem to lose it in a most amusing manner whenever you perceive someone to be attacking Apple, I will close by saying that Steve Jobs is a cocksucker.

    2. Re:will this prove that by planetfinder · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not.
      I have Phd in Physics from a kickass graduate physics department.
      I did some graduate work on string charge exchange.

      BTW You don't need to have a Phd in Physics to understand why
      string theory has been a bad thing for physics. Just read a good basic text on the philosophy and history
      of physics then read what the leading proponents of string theory have been
      saying for a long time now and then think about it for yourself.
      There are also a couple of recent books written by reputable physicists on the subject of the negative effects of string mania.
      They shouldn't be hard to find.
      String theory might be a viable theory someday but taken in context it has
      been a destructive force in physics.

      Hatred lowers a persons effective intellectual capacity no matter how
      good their brain is.

  52. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if every time we see one of those gamma-ray bursts, we're watching a civilization gain the necessary technology to do something like this?

    No, no, no....
    Everyone knows that gamma rays can't wipe out civilizations.
    They do, however, cause a civilization's inhabitants to periodically transform into angry, hulking, green monsters.
  53. proving once again that big science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really knows how to suck

  54. Re:mmmm by ccarson · · Score: 0, Funny

    This thread is funny as hell.

  55. Fine explination by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    That is a fine explanation. Very easy for us non particle physicists to understand, and completely fits into our high school level understanding of physics. Thanks.

  56. Re:Saturnian black holes? by scoot80 · · Score: 1

    Arggghhh! Dammit. I actually clicked on that!!!!!!

  57. Re:Questions from the Peanuts Gallery by greenguy · · Score: 1

    Don't you trust me, Charlie Brown?

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
  58. Uhm...Black hole...in atmo. Smart move? by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shouldn't this kinda thing be done off-planet?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  59. Creating black holes is always a bad idea. by jonfr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Creating black holes, even the smallest one in the universe is a bad, bad idea. Since even a small black hole carries more weight then our planet and the moon combined. It is simple to draw that conclusion from the fact that black holes are nothing more then a matter that has gone so heavy that is pulls everything into it. It also takes a black holes billion and billions of years to vanish, a microscopic one might take millions if years to vanish. But there wouldn't be anything left of the solar system by that time, and the black hole would have grown in that time.

    This is just my humble opinion on this. In short, it's stupid and that is a dangerous mix.

    1. Re:Creating black holes is always a bad idea. by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      Since even a small black hole carries more weight then our planet and the moon combined. If your statement is true that black hole has more weight (being the forces that apply between two objects with mass) than the earth and moon combined, then it stands to reason that any black hole requires more mass than the earth and moon combined, and hence it is impossible to create a black hole on earth as we lack sufficient mass, and therefore have nothing to worry about :).
      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
    2. Re:Creating black holes is always a bad idea. by teebob21 · · Score: 1

      Good god, did you even take a physics class?

      A small black hole carries more weight than the earth and moon? Firstly, it carries mass, not weight. Secondly, ignoring the visible event horizon, black holes do not have "size". They are zero-dimensional singularities. The result is that any mass, even say the mass of a proton, can collapse into black-hole density if you manage to compress it to point-size.

      Black holes created during the experiments at the LHC would be of such low mass, they would evaporate due to Hawking radiation long before even reaching the interior wall off the collision chamber.

      --
      khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
    3. Re:Creating black holes is always a bad idea. by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK, time for Physics 101: The mass of the original object collapsing will decide the mass of the black hole. Weight != Mass.
      A larger star collapsing will form a larger black hole of the SAME mass.
      A molecule collapsing to form a black hole[forced to] will form a black hole of the same mass of the molecule.
      The smaller the black hole [smaller mass], the faster it will evaporate due to Hawkins Radiation.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    4. Re:Creating black holes is always a bad idea. by periodontist · · Score: 1

      How does this information apply to dark matter? It was reported on the science show Futurama that "dark matter is so dense that every pound of dark matter weighs 10,000 pounds."

  60. Obligatory Joke..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, the Black Hole makes YOU.

    (Moderator: It is O.K. to mod this post as Flamebait, as it is a bad joke.)

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  61. Timecubers Unite! by LiquidEdge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ignorance of 4 days is evil, Evil educators teach 1 day. 1 day will destroy humans.

    --
    Saving the World: One Drink at a Time
  62. Atom Smashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burns' Grandfather: Come on, men! Smash those atoms! You there, turn out your pockets.
    [Two goons seize a waifish worker and turn out his pockets]
    Burns' Grandfather: Aha - atoms! One, two, three, four... SIX of them! Take him away!
    Waif: You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
    Burns' Grandfather: The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimflaw!
    Mr. Burns: Oh, if only we'd listened to that young man, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.

  63. Re:Uhm...Black hole...in atmo. Smart move? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Don't worry - at worst we'll all suddenly grow goatees and think evil thoughts.

    To be serious it would be very difficult to get enough energy to sustain such a thing - hence black holes being collapsed stars.

  64. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things that make you go "Hmm."

    Nah, not me. I tend to respect what precious little science knowledge I have by not using it to make up random shit.

    --

    Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  65. Oooh Oooh, Scientific elitism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place."

    Your reasoning is such that I'll bet you couldn't win an argument with a creationist.

    Honestly, I'm so freakin' smart on this stuff that I won't even argue with you, just mock you mercilessly until you admit you're narro ex vestri ass.

    I'd like to say this gives me no pleasure, but I don't lie. As a gung fu master has said before:

    Teach yourself everything there is to know. Teach others everything you have learned.

    1. Re:Oooh Oooh, Scientific elitism! by MrZilla · · Score: 1

      You can't win an argument with ANYONE who has a "don't discuss this with me I know I'm right" attitude, because they don't argue. They state their beliefs, put their fingers in their ears, and just sit there.

      --
      mov ax, 4c00h
      int 21h
  66. I knew Atom... by bebing · · Score: 1

    from the punk scene at CBGBs. I never thought he'd start a new band though.

  67. "Data as it is" preicts? Re:Now wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is.' Such a theory would be absolutely right. It would even be science. It would be pretty poor science, but it would be science nonetheless."

    Oh, really? And what does "The Data Is As It Is" PREDICT?

    Without prediction, how can this be science?

    This is not the place to split hairs about retrodiction.

    -- Prof. Jonathan Vos Post

  68. Aw crap. by MrNougat · · Score: 1

    That's really gonna bring down the resale value of my 2002 Saturn L200, if they can just go around making the things using atom smashers. I wonder what General Motors has to say about this.

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
  69. Photographic proof! by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy_M104

    I might be joking, but you never know! The centres of galaxies do contain them!

  70. Sun Ra by antonyb · · Score: 1
    Look, enough is enough. I have suspected for a while now that String Theory is something that someone came up with while stoned, listening to Sun Ra. Now Black Saturn too? I predict that before the year is out someone will discover a connection between String Theory and the Ancient Egyptians, then its game over.


    ant.

  71. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gamma ray bursts represent the release of hundreds of times Earth's mass converted into pure energy. Do the math.

  72. In Soviet Pittsburgh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    String Theory tests YOU!

  73. Agreed. by FallOfDay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree. If the maths is rigorous & good, then give it breathing space until it's testable - what's the hurry? Why should String theories be bad, even if wrong? If they're wrong, then we'll have those fewer paths to have to choose between. In the meantime, let the equations be what they are. The maths will serve a use (simply by sitting on the shelf, for now) to somebody in the future - if the miseries will allow us, all, to go forth & multiply into that future!

    Any of the nay-sayers got a better, with equally conscise maths, idea for pre-'Big Bang'?
    [n.b. Forget a 'Matrix' - it discounts Occam's Razor.] ;)

    1. Re:Agreed. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Well before we had Eisenburg or Einstein it seemed we couldn't continue making progress.
      Considering that reports are coming out that String Theory is being disproven it looks like we may need another genius to move our understanding forward :( Meanwhile people will stop wanting to go into the field (because it's not progressing) and if we're really unlucky the genius will never become interested in the field and it'll be a dead subset of science. Like Alchemy.

  74. Twisting Meanings: Foul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both this and the following reply intentionally misconstrue the OP's statement to imply only "disprovable facts being tested" are science, when it's obvious he meant disprovable hypotheses are the object of a test and the basis of good science.

  75. Re:mmmm by ozphx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats the quantum wave-function of your sex life actualizing.

    I, for one, am glad it's not me observing it to collapse the wave function.

    --
    3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  76. Old news! by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Public Enemy reported on this already, back in 1990.

  77. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what if it's some giant invisible entity blowing his load on his favorite playboy? Wow, this shit is fuckin deep.

  78. Wait... by Jainith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please refrain from creating black holes until I have left the solar system...

    Uhm...thanks.

  79. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I think he was pointing that we should be "cautious" about how we use this technology. We're not talking about blowing up a city here. We're talking about the potential (maybe large, maybe small) to wipe out our planet and even the star system via tapping into the great "unknown" of the universe.

    Unlike a video game, we don't have any Continues to call on. Make it last...

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  80. February is Black Hole Awareness Month? by monkeyboythom · · Score: 1

    Just asking...

  81. Re:Questions from the Peanuts Gallery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth: WAAUUUUUUGHH!

  82. don't worry, K-9 will fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be a wierd reason for him not to appear on the show, but he'll fix the black hole and Sarah can talk to him through the safe in her wall when he orbits around periodically(Sarah Jane Adventures :-)

  83. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    Well, you know quantum uncertainty and quantum tunneling? Because of these phenomenon (if spelling is incorrect, please read "things") there is a very small but non-zero chance that unzipping your pants will release enough energy to vaporize the planet. So please stop risking our lives.

  84. What's wrong McFly? Chicken?! by slaida1 · · Score: 1

    As long as it doesn't create manure, I'm all for it. I hate manure.

    So what if it sucks us all, we're going to die anyway. What are you afraid of? At least it'd be much more spectacular than the ordinary death awaiting most of us. I'd choose Death by A Black Hole at level 55 over Ripe Old Age anyday.

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  85. Re:Uhm...Black hole...in atmo. Smart move? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    It's just the steps science takes, thinking itself perfect.

    Remember the GM corn, and how the scientist told the farmers how, "It's ok, just plant it 200 yards away from other corn." Meanwhile the most common honeybee in America can fly five miles a _day_ to it's polination chores.

    If black holes are the size of strawberries, and we're dealing with microscopic attempts, that's not a huge distance to be wrong; consider the "strawberry" being powerful enough to move a _galaxy_; it wouldn't seem much to move a building...power source, or other dangerous thing, no?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  86. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by jd · · Score: 1, Interesting
    To give the AC a chance (a small one, true, but a chance nonetheless), it is technically possible to manufacture a quantum state that is so violently unstable that it will literally explode, generating far more energy than was put in.

    Yeah, yeah, violates the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Homer's going to hate this. It's called "Inflation Theory" and involves generating a bubble that grows fast enough that the quantum foam inside cannot recombine. As the quantum foam switches from being virtual to being physical, the probability of a particle being matter is greater than that of it being antimatter, which results in a net positive increase in the total matter/energy in the system.

    Is this likely to happen? No. Is this likely to happen within the next couple of hundred years, even if we build a supercollider the diameter of the planet? No. The energy density required are stupendous. I recall seeing it put at the same as the total energy released from a hydrogen bomb packed into a cubic centimeter. Supernovae that produce neutron stars or magnetars do not produce high enough energy densities to kick in inflationary effects.

    Would it matter if it did happen? Probably not. The only known strong candidate for an inflationary event was the Big Bang (and even that has been disputed). It has been suggested that when a supermassive Black Hole forms, the required energy density is reached, creating a "blister" or "bubble universe" attached to this one via the singularity. If that does indeed happen, the massive blast of energy would never reach this universe and therefore have zero impact on anything in it. Once the Black Hole evaporates, the bridge no longer exists (since it requires the singularity) and still nothing can cross.

    The kind of Black Hole that the LHC could churn out - quantum black holes - barely qualify as black holes at all. Singularities have to have spin, but the net energy of a virtual particle (which a quantum black hole is) must be zero. I think it is most unlikely, then, that a qbh is even in the same class of objects as those formed from sufficiently large supernovae. There are other criteria for black holes (one of the oddest, IMHO, is that all black holes have an internal resistance of 33 ohms) and it would be extremely odd if any of them were satisfied by a qbh. As qbh's continuously form and unform throughout all quantum foam, and as we're not seeing any background Hawking Radiation, I would have to say that these are totally different animals and that they are not Black Holes at all in the same sense as their supermassive cousins.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  87. Re:mmmm by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I stared into her deep, dark eyes.
    assume the superposition, she whispered.
    Ok, I told her, but don't look at me until I tell you I've already come, OK?
    Last time, I didn't get to finish.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  88. Meanwhile at Black Mesa... by Solo-Malee · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_Research_F acility/ ...In addition to this legitimate research, several secret projects are also carried out at Black Mesa, which are deliberately left vague. A large amount of classified research is carried out, including the development of high-tech weapons and defense systems, research into extra-dimensional travel

    --
    "If it's lost, it'll turn up. Things always do" "I love it when a plan comes together"
  89. "This could happen..... by superash · · Score: 1

    ..... if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough."

    So, string theorists still have a way out if black holes are not formed. They will just claim it wasn't large enough for us to detect or notice it and more analysis or experiments are needeed to arrive at any conclusion.
    When it is said they would be extremely small, if they ever form by colliding the protons, I don't think the labs are equipped enough to identify/notice the formation of microscopic black holes when information related to the macrospoic ones are very basic.

  90. Black Uranus by merikari · · Score: 1

    There's always one on the "other side".

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
  91. But could it create... by shotgunefx · · Score: 2, Funny

    But could it create a Black Venus (NWS)?

    Funny how some childhood skinemax memories can stick in your brain.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  92. Re:mmmm by raverman · · Score: 0

    C'mon man, get a wife! :)

  93. Re:mmmm by josiebgoode · · Score: 1

    That's what I thought first, now I'm not so sure. Though I loved the first post by Kipper. His was truly funny, even for a girl.

  94. Re:mmmm by josiebgoode · · Score: 1

    If I could, I would mod you up to 10 as funny. Kypper's post and your answer made my day. Thanks.

  95. I'm all for science, but by v1 · · Score: 1

    ...there is an outside chance that in a few years in a tunnel near Geneva, physicists will make a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut.

    do we really need one of those?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  96. I for one welcome our new ringed black hole overlo by Eudial · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new ringed black hole overlords...

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  97. four-dimensional black doughnut by harry666t · · Score: 1

    "four-dimensional black doughnut".

    Hypertorus.

  98. John Titor Anyone?? by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If youre new to John Titor, heres the complete archive of his texts:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/the_john_titor _project.html

    An interesting interview with Larry Flynt:
    http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=95

    I have my fair deal of scepticism against John Titor and the claims he has traveled from the future to fetch an old IBM machine besides testing the time-machine, but so much that he wrote about in 2000-2001 thereabouts, has in fact come true. These are just the broad ones:
    http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/

    This is yet another drop in this mans pretty hefty prediction bucket. At the time of this link, there were no mentions of black holes being generated in the new smasher, but now it seems that this too will come true (if possible), and very much in the same timeframe as predicted too!
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread124980/p g1

    This is the person who even told Hawking was wrong, and later Hawkin conceded he was wrong on the subject!
    http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum. cgi?noframes;read=165532

    Time Traveller The Movie. John Titor doesnt HAVE to be proven correct. WE can DO something about it, starting with ourselves!
    http://www.fasttrackproductions.biz/TimeTravel_0.h tml

    A site that is covering news in the media and corelating it with Titors predictions:
    http://www.johntitor.com/

    I dont claim any of this is true, in whatever what you regard as truth, but when reading this, it is startling how accurate the person who wrote those messages in 2000-2001, is describing the trends of our society, problems of the US, Mac Cow Disease, CERN beginning to experiment with mini-black holes, and much more.. For the sake of our planet, and our future, it is worth considering living as THOUGH weve already been through this, than not. He describes a more primitive, but also a more enlightened society if you read the archives from the first link.

    1. Re:John Titor Anyone?? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Dude, Titor also said there would be no Olympics after 2004, one of the more easily verifiably wrong "predictions".

    2. Re:John Titor Anyone?? by sparr0w · · Score: 1

      Or it could all be a hoax

  99. Scared.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To anyone who knows what a Black Hole is and what it can do!

    I am SOOO against this thing, I mean what do we gain from creating this THING! we prove/disprove a theory so what!?
    who even remotely understands the theories 'they' wan't to check maybe a few theoretical physisists.

    What can we loose? like Frigin' EVERYTHING, the whole Planet goind down a bottomless pit(And I mean bottomless)!

    Ever heard of mad scientists, now this thing is REALLY MAD!

    I say stop this before its TOO LATE!

    1. Re:Scared.. by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 1

      I wondered that same thing :)

      Apparently the black hole would be so small that it would only last for a fraction of a second. But then that is just a theoretical outcome, based on unproven theories - who knows what will actually happen?

      I guess that since the only way to prove a theory is through experimentation, the only way to find out what will happen is to try. We're a curious species, but I can't help thinking that curiosity killed the cat, and we're getting pretty close to killing the whole planet - maybe not with black holes, but one way or another.

    2. Re:Scared.. by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      It's a helluva way to ruin a date. I mean, noone wants to kiss a guy who's been infinitely diminished.

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

      I was thinking the same thing when I started reading this. Yeah, we think it will disapear but lets all find out together! ...

      Forget nukes we will just produce real black holes.

    4. Re:Scared.. by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Black holes are not magical things that suck everything into them. Its gravitational field is a property of its mass, and there is no more mass in "mini" black holes than there is put into them.

  100. More Titor quotes and predictions by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Heres some of the most convicing quotes. Attributes goes to crims on scienceforums.net.
    Remember these quotes were made in the early 2000-2001s, before 9/11, Patriot Act, Iraq-war, etc: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/archive/index.p hp/t-19841.html
    These following predictions by John Titor were the most convincing and made me think he could be real:

    "Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency."

    "In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause." [This was posted in November 2000]

    "I'm glad to see it's so easy for [you] to dismiss the Middle East. Yes, I suppose it is a no brainer but pretty soon it will be a "no armer" and a "no legger". [Nov 2000]

    "I believe they [China] are pretty close to putting a man in orbit. It shouldn't surprise you if they do that soon." [Late 2000/Early 2001 - China put a man into orbit in Oct 2003]

    "Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?" [Late 2000/Early 2001]

    Plus he said there would be a woman president in 2008 (Condi Rice or Hillary?)... which would make sense for Condi, since she's an expert on Russia/USSR and John Titor predicted Russia would nuke USA in 2015...

    My most memorable Titor-quote is:

    "Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?" [Late 2000/Early 2001]

    How could he know that so early, even before 9/11?

    Heres more predictions from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6345407
    Besides the American civil conflict and a third World War Titor made a number of other significant predictions:

            *

                America will wage war on Iraq, claiming Iraq has nuclear weapons. Titor made this statement years before a war with Iraq was considered. He also claimed no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
            *

                War will erupt between Israel and its Arab neighbours, and weapons of mass destruction will be used.
            *

                Korea, Taiwan and Japan will be annexed by China as the West becomes unstable.
            *

                In the early 2000's CERN will lay the foundations for time travel. In the autumn of 2001 after Titor had left, CERN released a statement indicating the creation of mini black holes was possible.
            *

                Mad cow disease will be a health issue in America but it will be under-played.
            *

                Genetically modified food will be used to produce hybrid seeds that will have detrimental effects on the population's health.
            *

                Titor made a number of statements about constitutional and civil rights in America. He also said the American government will assume its citizens will prefer security over certain personal freedoms.
            *

                The future will judge the present harshly.

    Maybe not all will come to pass, but his way of writing is very convincing. We CAN do more than just hope though. We can start with ourselves, and raise the global spiritual awareness. Service to one another is the greatest thing any human can do in her lifetime.

    1. Re:More Titor quotes and predictions by geekoid · · Score: 1

      He said nothing about the middle east that couldn't have been said in the last 50 years.

      He mentiuoned that some current hot topics will cause problems.

      HIs writing isd not convincing, the 'technicakl manual' doesn't look like a technical manual at all.

      Jeez, you're a vintim of this guy's hoax, just like the countless victims on Sylvia Brown or JOhn Edward

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:More Titor quotes and predictions by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      Its just your mind that is incapable of holding two possibilities in the head at the same time.
      Your mind is closed, so you only see what you believe is possible, but that is limiting your own mind.

      Your mind can be free, and keep many possibilities, and then you rule them out as you see new evidence.
      That is the scientific way to study the world. Without it, theories like relativity, quantum theory, string theory etc. would be put off by centuries. But they came, before we had any evidence, because of great minds.

      I am not of victim, but you are the victim of your own mind.

  101. We all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that strings always hide black holes.

  102. Our universe by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

    IANAQP, but this could mean our universe is just a huge black hole with a 4-dimensional hypertorus surrounding it. That could account for why our universe will collapse one day.

  103. Big Mistake of '08 by KiviPall · · Score: 1

    Locate the TechnoCore!

  104. More String Theory Hype!! Re:4D black donut? by Einstein45 · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56

    Tied Up & Strung Out: Hollywood String Theory Movie!!! Looking For Extras!!!

    http://revver.com/video/48391/ (WATCH IT!)

    ALL TIED UP & STRUNG ALONG, a movie about String Theorists and their expansive theories which extend human ignorance, pomposity, and frailty into higher dimensions, is set to start filming this fall. Jessica Alba, John Cleese, Eugene Levie, Jackie Chan, and David Duchovney of X-files fame have all signed on to the $700 million Hollywood project, which is still cheaper than String Theory itself, and will likely displace less physicists from the academy.

    "As contemporary physics is about money, hype, mythology, and chicks," Ed Witten explained from his offices at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, "The next logical step was Hollywood, although I thought Burt Reynolds should play me instead of Eugene Levy."

    Brian Greene, the famous String Theorist who will be played by David "the truth is out there" Duchovney, explained the plot: "String theory's muddled, contorted theories that lack postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations have Einstein spinning so fast in his grave that it creates a black hole. In order to save the world, we String Theorists have to stop reformulating String Theory faster than the speed of light. We are called upon to stop violating the conservation of energy by mining higher dimensions to publish more BS than can accounted for with the Big Bang alone, and I win the Nobel prize for showing that M-Theory is in fact the dark matter it has been searching for."

    Greene continues: "At first my character is reluctant to stop theorizing and start postulating, but when my love interest Jessica Alba is sucked into the black hole, I search my soul and find Paul Davies there, played by John Cleese. I ask him what he's doing in my soul, and he explains that the answer is contained in the mind of God, which only he is privy too, but for a small fee, some tax and tuition dollars, a couple grants here and there, and an all-expense-paid book tour with stops in Zurich and Honolulu, he can let me in on it. And he shows me God in all her greater glory, as he points out that we can make more money in Hollywood than writing coffee-table books that recycle Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, and Wheeler. I am quickly converted, and I agree to turn my back on String Theory's hoax and save Jessica Alba."

    But it's not that easy, as standing in Greene's way is Michio "king of pop-theory-hipster-irony-the-theory-of-everything- or-anything-made-
    you-read-this" Kaku, played by Jackie Chan. Kaku beats the crap out of Greene for alomst blowing the "ironic" pretense his salary, benefits, and all-expense paid trips depend on. "WE MUST HOLD BACK THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS WITH OUR NON-THEORIES!! WE MUST FILL THE ACADEMY WITH THE POMO DARK MATTER THAT IS STRING THEORY TO KEEP OUR UNIVERSE FROM FLYING APART, OUR PYRAMID SCHEMES FROM TOPPLING, AND OUR PERPETUAL-MOTION NSF MONEY MACHINE FROM STOPPING!!" Kaku argues as he delivers a flying back-kick, "There can be ony ONE! I WILL be String Theory's GODFATHER as referenced on my web page!! I have better hair!"

    But Greene fights back as he signs his seventeenth book deal to make the hand-waving incoherence of String Theory accessible to the South Park generation, senior citizens, and starving chirldren around the world. "Kaku! Kaku! (pronounced Ka-Kaw! Ka-Kaw! like Owen Wilson did in Bottle Rocket)," Greene shouts. "It is theoretically impossible to build a coffee tables strong enough to support any more coffee-table physics books!!!"

    "Time travel is also theoretically impossible, but there's a helluva lot more money for us in flushing physics down a wormhole. Nobody knows what the #&#%&$ M stands for in M theory ya hand-waving, TV-hogging crank!!! Get it?? Ha Ha Ha! We're laughing at the public! We're the inside

  105. Beyond Sting Theory Hype: Moving Dimensions Theory by Einstein45 · · Score: 0

    http://physicsmathforums.com/

    I find Moving Dimensiosn Theory highly imaginative and plausible.

    Reasoned debate would be fun--let's stay away from the namecalling.

    Moving Dimensions Theory: MDT
    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
    dimensions. Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for the aetherless aether.

    This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying:

    RELATIVITY:

    1) length contraction
    2) time dilation
    3) the equivalence of mass and energy
    4) the constant velocity of light
    5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source

    QUANTUMN MECHANICS
    1) action at a distance
    2) wave-particle duality
    3) interference phenomena
    4) EPR paradox

    THERMODYNAMICS
    1) Time's arrow
    2) Entropy

    STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY
    1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands

    THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES
    1) wave/particle duality
    2) time/space duality
    3) energy/mass duality
    4) E/B duality

    GENERAL RELATIVITY
    1) Gravitational redshift
    2) Gravity waves
    3) Gravitational attraction

    THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND
    1) quantum foam
    2) the smearing of space and time at small distances
    3) Hawking's imaginary time

    PARADOXES
    1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe
    2) MDT unfreezes time
    3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox

    ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE:

    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
    dimensions in a sphereically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c.

    This means that every point in three dimnesional space is always expanding into a fourth dimensional sphere with a radius of the plank length. A photon is matter caught on the surface of this quantized expansion, and thus energy is quantized. The expansion of the fourth dimension occurs at the rate of c, and thus the velocity of all photons is c.

    Check out the t-shirt with a simple proof of MDT:

    http://www.cafepress.com/autumnrangers.72464949 [cafepress.com]

    "The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimenions."

    How sad it is that when truth stares modern physicists in the face, they must close their eyes so as to get a postdoc or raise more funds for String Theory.

    Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all
    experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

    Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor
    Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

    Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies
    formerly disparate phenomena within

  106. hmmmm by jkiol · · Score: 1

    Isn't there some theory that says once a civilization reaches a certain technological point in their development they wipe themselves out?

  107. mod +2 sarcastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get your panties in a bunch. A black hole that size would have the gravitational field less intense than a helium balloon, by a factor of, like, 2.4x10^21

  108. Luckily, the USA can't do this yet...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we haven't told them that the experiment is being funded bt Al-Quaeda and the Liberal Socialists of Germany.

    Once they have the technique perfected, we are going to fire black holes through the Earth and take out New York, Washington, the Pentagon....

  109. I can dig it! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Sure it wasn't a movie starring Richard Roundtree?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  110. If an idiot posts on /., does it make a noise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is more likely, that there is a conspiracy to moderator your brilliant "theories" down, or that you are so much of an idiot that no one is going to waste their time replying to you? Before you answer, let me remind you that idiots are often too stupid to realize how entirely dumb they sound. What anyone with a 90 IQ can tell is complete claptrap, the idiot mistakes for a good idea.

    Bonus points if you compare yourself favorably to Einstein or another famous physicist in your answer.

  111. Physicists are always so depressing. by AMindLost · · Score: 0

    Everything with them has to be so dark - black holes, dark matter, black saturns........ Lighten up guys!

  112. good choice of planet metaphor by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    According to a new theory, any black hole that pops out of the Large Hadron Collider under construction in Switzerland might be surrounded by a black ring -- forming a microscopic 'black Saturn'.

    I'm happy as long as the collider doesn't start emitting blue-ringed uranuses.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  113. Re:Wow! Finally an experiment to validate string . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    String theory humor


    Finally something falsifiable!
  114. What will happen with the 4th dimension by Maxxwvu · · Score: 1

    I am not that versed with the 4th dimension. If the black saturn is in the 4th dimension, is it possible for it to move in the 4th dimension ie. though time (in general not just the black saturn). If it is possible then what would happen??

    1. Re:What will happen with the 4th dimension by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      Read Flatland.

  115. Yeah, but.... by Gerocrack · · Score: 1

    .... what about making golden Kia's?

  116. But will it be... by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    ... a caffeinated black 4D donut?

  117. Just because YOU'RE dumb doesn't mean I am... by TheJOsh!(tm) · · Score: 1

    I think scientists as a whole need to come up with a different argument strategy.

    People who shout "ZOMG!!1!one! The fizzy-sists are going to destroy teh w0rld, and then there'll be no more intarw3b!!" are NOT the same people who respond to sentences starting with "Our observations of the phsyical anomaly..."

    I propose a method of name-calling, in which the educated get off their intellectual high-horses just long enough to say "STFU, n00b! Just because you're a retarded zealot doesn't mean I haven't done my homework. You remember homework, right? That stuff you thought was t3h ghey in highschool?".

    --
    Rise up in the cafeteria and STAB them with your plastic forks!
  118. Re:Beyond Sting Theory Hype: Moving Dimensions The by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

    You don't understand the Time Cube, do you?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  119. Not in the literature by symbolset · · Score: 1
    Everybody familiar with the literature knows that dimensionality itself is a farce, but that if you must interpret the world in that way the system that works best is six directional dimensions, six time dimensions and six for plausibility, yielding 6^6^6 potential major universes, a truly beastly number (although many are too implausible to exist I think). Since dimensionality really is a farce (the multiverses are non-euclidian and since there can be no "right angle" there can be no dimensionality) and one dimension blends continuously into another, the manifold goes unbounded.

    Which is ok, because it's all really a joke we're making up between ourselves and the indivisible unit of space / time / energy / matter is a "ficton".

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  120. Uhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks that creating a mini black hole on Earth is a bad idea? I mean, they think that these things will break up after a very short period of time... but why do they need to test it in my backyard?

  121. Only on slashdot... by The+Notorious+ASP · · Score: 1

    ...could this be modded "informative"

    1. Re:Only on slashdot... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      i'm amazed too. i was going for funny.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  122. Particle in a box by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

    Particle in a 1D box of width n where n approximates the width of 90% probability of the box (usually an observed atomic radius). The KE of the particle is 1/2 mv^2, the total energy of the particle is mc^2. Use the Hamiltonian, the Eigenfunction, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Compute a field of 90% probability for the particle at any given time. It takes about two blackboards per iteration. High powered computer programs crunch the numbers for us in molecular m0deling software.

    The complexity of the box can be increased to incorporate all three dimensions. This accounts for the different shapes of the different electron orbitals (s, p, d, and f) and their hybrids (eg. sp3) for atoms of increasing numbers of protons and energy levels.

    This is typically employed to characterize electrons though the same principles are seen, in various forms, when dealing with photons and subatomic particles. The ring being proposed for a black hole created in Switzerland results from the mathematical computations used to support quantum and string theories.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  123. who?? the swiss by ryepnt · · Score: 1

    I always new it would be the swiss who created the first man-made earthsucking black lexus/saturn whatever of death... Neutral! Ha! yeah right. they have been lying low, creating the ultimate thing of destruction that may or may not do some stuff and destroy earth!

  124. 8472 by dlhm · · Score: 1

    Until we are ready to deal with Species 8472 I don't think we should attempt this...

    --
    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
  125. In the Future? by FallOfDay · · Score: 1

    Like the light wave that exits the caesium tube before it went in; the future already exists* (just as the past does) - the boffins've just got to learn to work on it & patiently wait for it to show itself - whatever 'it' turns out to be! As it stands, we've still, yet, to get a decent hold on mastering Time - we don't know how to move backwards & forwards in it, only that we move forwards at 1x Planck Time.

    Away from classical mechanics, what I see with QT is that if we can, somehow, create a decoy observer, then a real observer might be able to 'backdoor' any observations. i.e. Create a crossfire & make the Superposition pay attention to something that isn't actually it's 'hunter' (although it might 'think'/spooky-action so). This has the potential to flush it out, break it open, etc., particularly with regard to any temporal implications, I suspect.

    If there are higher dimensions, than spacetime, I would expect even any most observable one to be beyond any scale we've actually, humanly entered, so far - likely superuniversal (at least, several experimental craft to followup the Pioneer anomaly?) rather than subatomic. As we're well aware, at the moment, the practitioners are much too far behind the thinkers. The thinkers can afford to slow down, for a while, until we have practical results to build the next ideas upon.

    *I understand the idea of 'free will' to be a smokescreen to our worldly circumstances - as we each take the path of least resistance (most economic) for each of our own specific circumstances (including during a person's conflicts of self-interest); like a raindrop down a window, apple falling from a tree, etc.

  126. Caught you, you liar! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "he detectors that we use at LHC weigh on the order of thousands of tons."

    I've been to the movies, no detector is bigger then a small laptop and can be easily removed when running from the bad guys!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  127. Aw, frak by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      I'm still waiting for someone to prove that reality isn't disproveable. At that point we can give up all this silly shenanigans and get on with building better propulsion systems and colonizing the universe ;-)

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  128. That page got it all wrong by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Even if it is a hoax, debunking it should be done with an open mind. All his assertions are either empty assumptions or misunderstandings of the era in Titors story. I wrote a reply to it:

    You are too intelligent for your own good, which is limiting your mind. You set out with some assumptions, and then try to prove why the story must be a hoax. As you will see, this limits your perspective and understanding, so you create assumptions and then break these straw-men away. But they are your own creations and misunderstandings, not Titors.

    Firstly, you have to remember the Titor posts were written in the early 2000-2001, BEFORE 9/11, BEFORE the costly iraq war, BEFORE Mac Cow Disease broke out, BEFORE CERN decided to test mini-black holes and was then downplayed, BEFORE China put a man into orbit. These are predictions Titor made, and came true (except the atom smasher to test mini-black holes have not finished yet but will be within 2007 - well within Titors timeframe). THIS is what is startling people, but I wont go into "proving" the predictions positive, since this is about debunking a hoax, it gets meaningless. I just want to show that these predictions were NO WAY common sense at the time, or expected behaviour of the world.

    Your first assumption is that the economy is communism-based, because it is based on labour. This is patently a misunderstanding. The society is more capitlist than ever, but it is a COMMUNAL-based society. People DEPEND on each other for survival. However, those who cannot labour, is weak, handicapped, whatever, THEY DIE. Simply, the society has no resources to feed the weak, so you have to labour for your food, wether you get it from friends, relatives, through the money-system or whatever. If you dont take care of your own health and body, theres no hospital or complex surgeries that can save you. It is a much more chaotic economic system, but communism is just a straw-man and a loaded/meaningless word set up by you.

    You then assume how economics would be in a surviving USA after nuclear war, civil war and pandemic. How can you predict? People will still want to survive. If old paper money makes a means to barter, people may just decide to use it, or make new money. Somehow, something will survive, and maybe GE has other sites, where they actually produce stuff and you know, it may even sound plausible since GE still has factories in the USA. This is just one more empty assumption, proving nothing.

    You then attempt to "debunk" the Many Worlds theory, which is a sound variation of one of the string theories physicists are arguing over. Of course this is impossible to discuss since we dont know the parameters of our own universe yet, but importantly, nobody has yet to come up with inconsistencies in Titors claim. In fact, Titor made the claims of the Many Worlds theory, and later Stephen Hawking himself said that he had been wrong and the Many Worlds theory indeed will solve the grandfather-paradox. (However, keep in mind MW-theory came before Titor.)

    So, you wish this is a hoax, and then create a few arguments that doesnt have any weight why it is a hoax. This is the best example of how our own mind can fool ourselves, and we can believe our dogma without objective evidence. You are the victim of your own limitations of your mind.

    At least you could have done a bit of research. On the wiki-page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

    There seems a good contradiction against Titors claims is that the Olympics would end in 2004, but Winter Olympics were held in 2006. However, some people claims he meant the summer olympics (being from USA his worldview is statistically narrower), or that his worldline is different from ours already so it may not even happen here. Many others of his claims came true however.

    The relevant Titor-quote is: "As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004. However, it appears they may be revived in in 2040."

    So y

    1. Re:That page got it all wrong by sparr0w · · Score: 1

      1. Mad cow disease "broke out" after 2000-2001? Umm... no... we've had people sick with vCJD well before the new millenium. And there hasn't been a wide-spread breakout of vCJD - so his predictions are meaningless.

      2. Before 9/11? When does JT predict 9/11?

      3. The Iraq war? He predicted that? Hell, anyone could have predicted that. Since 1998 Washington's been buzzing about invading, WMD, etc. 9/11 gave Bush the clout to execute it, but he didn't predict anything. The mere fact he eluded to it makes him no different from any other person talking about it since the late 90's.

      4. Using the "we're on different worldlines" argument as to why the Olympics didn't happen is a cop-out. You could then use that to claim ANYTHING about why his predictions don't come true, or why something happens that he didn't predict. If we're on a different "worldline", then perhaps everything he said was full of sh*t.

      5. How's that US civil war doing? Oh wait, he didn't mean an ACTUAL war yet (even though he predicted 2005) - what he meant was we'll have large disagreements which will LEAD to a civil war, right? Isn't it great when you can manipulate open-ended discussions into your own frame of mind?

      I find it interesting that I'm the closed-minded person when I don't believe in your dogma. Wake up - you're the one living in a fantasy land. I predict in 2008 we'll be invaded by Martians. You better start preparing - after all, you have to have an open mind, right?

      Sometimes opening your mind too much allows crap like JT to fill in otherwise useful places for information.

  129. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

    Ok, great post, but I have to know - why 33 ohms? Why constant at all?

  130. Billions of years, and you want another minute... by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1
    (heh!) I'm gonna have to disagree with you there bobbo - it's stigmatized because intelligent creative causes aren't NECISSARY. Evolution happens, and we understand a great deal about how it works. Evolution is supported by the minutia in every scientific discipline from chemistry, geology, and astronomy to biology and physics. For every question intelligent design raises about the validity of a particular test, real science has an answer; Sometimes, perhaps even often, the answer is "I don't know", but it's never "something smarter than me must have made it that way". That answer doesn't get you any closer to understand the process that you're looking at, and invariably a NATURAL process can be found to explain it, even understand it, and that natural explanation NEVER involves a 'intelligent creator'. The oft-cited 'if you find a watch, who created it' is a perfect example - a watch-maker made it - the watch maker evolved from a single celled ancestor with a biology that gave it the intelligence to create the watch. Point being - the watch maker isn't the product of a intelligent designer, he's the product of evolution - and there's absolutely nothing in the natural world that we know of that would REQUIRE the manipulation of an 'intelligence' rather than of a natural process to exist.

    Evolution is clearly and without a doubt a natural process limited by the natural world and the fundamental laws of the universe. Intelligent design tries to name the author of the laws of the universe. That's an exercise in cosmic gossip, not science.

  131. Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts by jd · · Score: 1
    To this day, I have never been able to understand the proof, first presented at the 300 Years of Gravity conference at Cambridge University in the mid 1980s. But apparently all Black Holes - regardless of mass, regardless of angular momentum, regardless of whether the singularity is a point or ring, regardless of any conditions whatsoever - have identical internal resistance, and if this resistance is calculated, it is fixed at 33 ohms.

    If anyone can actually provide an explanation (not merely a proof), I'd love to see it myself.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  132. Interesting by elucido · · Score: 1

    So the new word for thiests is new agers?
    Can I call athiests satanists just to be fair?

    1. Re:Interesting by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      So the new word for thiests is new agers?

      Noooo. "Theist" doesn't imply "abuser of physics vocabulary".

      Theistic philosophy has its own vocabulary, and a long tradition stretching back to St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's, Greek scholars before that, Jewish scholars before that, Hindu scholars before that, and so on. However, any actual theistic philosopher -- a philosopher of any stripe, I should say -- knows better than to borrow physics jargon and pass it off as their own, especially without actually understanding what the physics jargon means. (After all, explaining a position with the jargon of philosophy is hard enough without throwing physics jargon into the mix.) That's not to say that I actually find the theist position compelling -- if that were so, I wouldn't be an atheist, would I? -- but I do acknowledge that the theist position is compatible with reality, and I respect their well-reasoned beliefs.

      The New Age movement, on the other hand, presumably started off when some people read too much pulp sci-fi without the critical, skeptical perspective required to appreciate the "sci" part. "Energy", for instance, is probably the single most abused physics word by New Agers. I'm not "projecting hostile energy" right now. I'm tapping on a keyboard. What little energy I'm using to type is transformed into heat and remains in the room with me, and no amount of hugging a piece of quartz will make that fact not so.

      The most frustrating part of the New Age mindset is that it's not entirely bogus. It takes some kernels of truth from philosophy and psychology, distills them into a system of folk wisdom, then wraps it all up in physics jargon so that it sounds "scientific". People see little glimpses of truth, and they conclude that the belief system as a whole is Truth, allowing the New Age mindset to perpetuate itself. Rather than encouraging people to question and probe the belief system, groupthink is enforced using the traditional means (ostracizing anyone who dares question it). In that manner, it shares some disturbing similarities with Fundamentalism, and -- just as with Fundamentalism -- I don't respect any system of belief that falls apart when a little bit of reason is applied to it.

      If you're not actually a New Ager, that sucks for you, because you're using their vocabulary and perpetuating their abuses of science. I'd suggest you go read an actual physics book.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters