You can either give a sigh of relief at not needing to deal with such assholes, or install a Firefox plugin that will have them exclaiming "Hot damn! It's Paris Hilton!"
> If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black > hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the > mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge > of +2.
Well no, because the mass available for the formation of the hole would include the mass of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles, which is much larger than the rest masses.
However, you suggest an interesting possibility. If the hole was charged it might interact with an appropriate number of electrons to form a bizarre kind of atom which might even be stable, preventing the hole from acquiring more mass.
A negatively charged hole might acquire a "halo" of "orbiting" protons, forming an even more bizarre "atom".
Wild, baseless speculation (wilder than the above, I mean): could such bizarre "atoms" suppress Hawking radiation and thus stablize the hole?
> A computer is a tool for doing complex mathematics...
Yes. In this case, the complex mathematics involved in rigorously establishing that standard theory does indeed predict that particle collisions could create black holes. This was generally believed to be true, but previous analysis had involved substantial approximations that simplified the math.
> The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes...
I don't think that it has been established that it can. This result establishes that particle collisions can create black holes but the energies required could still be out of the reach of the LHC.
A more correct sentence would read "Now a computer model shows conclusively that theory predicts...". This prediction had been made previously but using approximations to get around the complexity of the math.
> The accretion rate is going to be proportionate to its surface area, and > therefore to the square of its mass.
I don't think it's that easy. An LHC black hole is going to be much, much, much smaller than a baryon but it cannot swallow just one quark or just one colored gluon.
> Does anyone think this is a valid explanation for "dark matter"?
> How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only > start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic > calculations based on that input?
What "completely new physics"? This is a prediction of the standard model. The calculations had been done before but only by making some pretty large assumptions in order to simplify the math. These guys worked it out much more rigorously and showed that the prediction still stands.
Slashdot Mirror
> Many residential homes in the US have 100 amp service.
Most have 200. 400 is usually available at extra cost.
> Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively
> clean energy generation schemes.
It isn't density that matters there. It's cost.
> They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of
> explosive cars out on the highways...
Anything that packs enough energy to run a car 300 miles into the volume of a gas tank is going to be potentially dangerous. There's no way around it.
> ...and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to
> put the flames out at accidents.
Whereas water works real well on gasoline fires.
You can either give a sigh of relief at not needing to deal with such assholes, or install a Firefox plugin that will have them exclaiming "Hot damn! It's Paris Hilton!"
> It is still a lot harder to change than a cookie or a dynamic IP, and
> impractical to do so each day.
Proxies.
> ...do we have to install or remove some fonts every day, or change screen
> resolution...
No. You just have change what you report, not what you actually do.
n/t
And just how far is that?
Problem: incoming mail is 99% spam and 1% ham. Filter 99% of the spam and what gets through is still 50% spam.
> If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black
> hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the
> mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge
> of +2.
Well no, because the mass available for the formation of the hole would include the mass of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles, which is much larger than the rest masses.
However, you suggest an interesting possibility. If the hole was charged it might interact with an appropriate number of electrons to form a bizarre kind of atom which might even be stable, preventing the hole from acquiring more mass.
A negatively charged hole might acquire a "halo" of "orbiting" protons, forming an even more bizarre "atom".
Wild, baseless speculation (wilder than the above, I mean): could such bizarre "atoms" suppress Hawking radiation and thus stablize the hole?
> A computer is a tool for doing complex mathematics...
Yes. In this case, the complex mathematics involved in rigorously establishing that standard theory does indeed predict that particle collisions could create black holes. This was generally believed to be true, but previous analysis had involved substantial approximations that simplified the math.
> Of course I'm OK if that software isn't particularly Mac compatible ;)
So you wouldn't mind being required to switch to Microsoft Windows 7? Because that is what your proposal would lead to.
> The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be
> able to "fix the problem".
Unplugging the computer fixes the problem.
> ...an electrostatic field must emanate...
Fields don't "emanate".
> If you have a /8 would you give it back with out a fight?
For enough money, yes. I agree that it isn't worth the effort, though.
> The rest could be handled through NAT with 1:100 mappings or so.
Sure, but would you want to be the one managing the transition? They might as well go directly to IPv6 internally.
> However ... There is absolutely 0 proof that it will go either way. The ...
> physics you speak of regarding this are discussions about THEORY.
Precisely the same theory that you must assume to be correct in order to predict the creation of black holes at all.
Though I don't think mdenham has the collision cross section correct the article certainly deserves a score of more than one.
> The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes...
I don't think that it has been established that it can. This result establishes that particle collisions can create black holes but the energies required could still be out of the reach of the LHC.
A more correct sentence would read "Now a computer model shows conclusively that theory predicts...". This prediction had been made previously but using approximations to get around the complexity of the math.
> The accretion rate is going to be proportionate to its surface area, and
> therefore to the square of its mass.
I don't think it's that easy. An LHC black hole is going to be much, much, much smaller than a baryon but it cannot swallow just one quark or just one colored gluon.
> Does anyone think this is a valid explanation for "dark matter"?
I'm sure someone does.
> How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only
> start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic
> calculations based on that input?
What "completely new physics"? This is a prediction of the standard model. The calculations had been done before but only by making some pretty large assumptions in order to simplify the math. These guys worked it out much more rigorously and showed that the prediction still stands.
> Even in this scenario, we have a few million years before things become
> problematic, I think.
Closer to a quintillion years, I suspect.
> The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government
> for years.
For values of "in bed" near "Shut up and do as you are told or we will put you out of business."
> I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because
> they want to sell stock.
They want to depress the price just before they start selling? Sure. That makes a lot of sense.