Slashdot Mirror
Tiny Black Holes Could Trigger Collapse of Universe—Except That They Don't
sciencehabit writes: If you like classic two-for-one monster movies such as King Kong vs. Godzilla, then a new paper combining two bêtes noires of pseudoscientific scaremongers—mini black holes and the collapse of the vacuum—may appeal to you. Physicists working with the world's biggest atom-smasher—Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC)—have had to reassure the public that, even if they can make them, mini black holes, infinitesimal version of the ones that form when jumbo stars implode, won't consume the planet. They've also had to dispel fears that blasting out a particle called the Higgs boson will cause the vacuum of empty space to collapse. Now, however, three theorists calculate that in a chain reaction, a mini black hole could trigger such collapse after all.
That barrier is so big that it would likely take many, many times the age of the universe for the transition to occur.
No, it will take exactly one "age of the Universe" to tunnel and cause the collapse.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
... destroy it due to local laws of physics would be destroyed at the moment of their formation when the energies tend to infinity. This may well have happened in the past (if you believe in the eternal inflation-collapse universe theory) or be happening (if you believe the multiverse theory) but since our universe is still here after 14 billion years I think its a safe bet that the laws of physics here don't allow it.
You know, and I know, that people who immediately trot out some scorn for those "believing" in so far unobserved things like Hawking radiation/black hole evaporation will sometimes equate that willingness to (for now) accept such things as plausible working theories... with being the same as having faith in anthropomorphic deities. My point is that it's a crappy analogy, and the GP to which I was responding was basically trolling. But because there seem to be a large number of people who actually don't understand the the difference, it's worth contrasting the two things, as opposed to conflating them, as was trollishly done.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
the GP to which I was responding was basically trolling.
No, the GP was making a joke. You saw the word "God" and immediately threw an off-topic temper tantrum.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I am not a theologian
Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trotting out the much more polished responses that trained theologians use to try to explain the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, but unspeakably mean and petty God scenario. Professional theologians and similar shamans have a lot more practice and selling that concept than you do. Clearly:
Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it ... agent orange. Did God create cancer?
Are you sticking with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god model? Well, since you're sticking with pure invented fantasy, that's actually a trick question, isn't it? But since that god is involved in every aspect of creation, then: yes. And even if you don't like that answer, there's the fact that despite is apparently boundless mercy and his ability to make otherwise physically impossible things happen (including bringing people back from the dead during publicity stunts), he really doesn't are if pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent infants (and millions of other people) die in agony after months of suffering. Who cares if man is capable of inducing cancer. Are you proposing that ALL such horrible fates, including every way in which a toddler can be made ill and prematurely die in misery is the result of human action? No? I see.
Or put it in another way, "God allows evil, because without a choice, there is no chance to choose"
I see. So, things like childhood bone cancer, or being born with a major heart defect, etc., is just people choosing. OK.
ON the other hand, you being human and being your own god have to answer for the evil you allow to exist. Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists.
You really are new at this, aren't you? Are you actually saying that the only measuring stick for evil is that which a particular bronze-age desert tribe or two jotted down, and had re-hashed by people centuries later for political reasons? That only people who follow that recipe are allowed to objectively weigh someone's actions as evil? Hint: it's possible to objectively define a value system (which then allows you to separate things into good and evil) without even once having to invoke magical invisible all-powerful but part-time and petty gods. In fact, it's a lot EASIER to define a rational code of ethics/morals if you're NOT using made of fairly tales as the basis for them, philosophically. Why? Because that way you don't have to paint over all of the BS mixed premises, loopholes, and please-don't-look-behind-the-curtain nonsense that comes with basing your value system on imaginary magic.
And don't lie to me saying you don't allow evil, even by your own standards, you allow it. Which makes you pretty hypocritical.
Have you poured your nice strawman a cup of coffee yet this morning? He's probably getting tired.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Right. So we're back to God being a deliberately cruel SOB, since he allows another (less powerful than him) supernatural being to kill children as part of his little laboratory experiment. Pretty cool.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists.
Not sure where you got that idea. Bigotry aside, evil exists in the same way beauty exists.
Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it ... agent orange. Did God create cancer?
All those "carcinogenic" substances you hear about don't cause cancer -- they increase the rate of mutation, which wouldn't ever cause cancer if the cells were better designed. To put it another way, if people didn't naturally get cancer it would be almost impossible to design a substance that would give them cancer. If an engineer had designed human DNA, then that engineer would be blamed if random mutagens would routinely cause cancer -- that's why we have fail-safes and error-correcting code. Human cells also have fail-safes and error correcting code, but they're poorly designed.
Just as an example, the naked mole rat has additional fail-safes and so is almost immune to cancer.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways