right, but MySQL just replicates when I hookup my laptop to the wireless. I do nothing, this is completely different from shutting down both servers and rsyncing.
you can get some serious luminescence in the eye from x-rays. How do you think they used to find the beam at the old accelerators? (until everyone got cataracts that is.)
Does Postgres have good mirroring? I use MySQL's cluster ability on my desktop and laptop so that I'm not constantly shutting down both and rsyncing, but have my data with me everywhere. Yes, this is way outside a production environment, but it is where I am.
Yes, almost all of them would be, but because of how colliders are built (two beams moving in the opposite direction) some would have less than escape velocity.
For this to be a problem you have to have no Hawking radiation, (unlikely) and not have the thing process that created it uncreate it almost instantly (unlikely), and have the thing stick around (unlikely, but enough would be created that some wold). Finally, the mini-black holes would be created all the time when super-high E particles rain down on stars, and these would have to be exceedingly unlikely to interact when still moving at the speed of light, but much more likely when not moving at the speed of light (I think likely, others disagree).
Look, I'm not loosing sleep over it, but I'm not sure why we started doing this in the first place. Why not wait a few thousand years until we could potentially just trash Mars or the moon?
No, he really doesn't. If the Earth (for example) were to become a black hole, it would continue in the same orbit as it previously had. Knocking a plants off its course would require (approximately) the same amount of junk hitting after it was a black hole as before it was a black hole--which is to say not bloody likely.
Okay, you got the KE right, now what is the velocity of something with KE/rest-mass >> 1? The rest mass of a neutron is about 1 GeV.
No, a neutron is unlikely to pass through the earth without interacting (not that I know cross sections at those energies, more of a guess). But the question is about if it makes a microscopic black hole that does not evaporate.
I'd point out that there are lots of ifs, and I'd say the probability of us turning the Earth into a black hole is vanishingly small. My main point was to lay out the objection clearly since I happen to have read some of the letters by these people. That said, I'm not sure CERN has any real value, so why put what can only be described as all of our chips on the table for no real gain?
For me, what the urlbar should suggest is painfully obvious: only things I've previously typed in! I type in maybe 10 addresses, why make me look at the rest of my browser history every time I type a key. Plus, on my older computers, it can take 2 or 5 seconds for it to refresh, meaning it is faster to just type in the entire address--so why was there suggestions in the first place?
This is a big old regression, it's too bad, because FF2 was a good browser that didn't try to copy M$'s "I know what you want" strategy of annoying the living heck out of me. But FF3 is a better browser that has either no urlbar suggestions, or really lame urlbar suggestions.
And how do you know about all of these low cross section particles? Is there some sort experiment that has been done to find particles that have even lower cross sections than neutrinos?
as far as the momentum conservation argument, run this calculation for me, since you are a physicist, what is the velocity of the byproduct of a collision between a neutron with 1 TeV of kinetic energy and a stationary proton, assuming that the pair react to form one product and that an inconsequential amount of energy was required for this conversion. IWAP (I was a physicist) specifically, I spent a lot of time measuring cosmic radiation.
You wrote, "I'm not sure what you're talking about with escape velocity." Okay, let me break it down. In order for a cosmic ray event to generate a black hole in, i.e. our atmosphere, it would have to be moving at almost exactly c and then hit something--think of kinetic energy in the tens of J/particle range). If the particle were a proton and it hit a proton, the product would still be moving at almost exactly c after the collision. The small black hole could then pass through the earth/sun in no time and not interact (again, this is assuming that there is no cross section at high speeds). Now, CERN will be sending two beams of high energy particles at each other so that the center of mass frame is almost stopped (for obvious reasons, if you can figure out how to get this to work, you get a stronger collider when you do this). Now almost all of the reactions don't happen exactly at a stationary center of mass (earth frame), but every year, a few will happen at close enough to not have escape velocity.
As far as knowing the cross sections of these miniscule black holes, I can't find the black hole cross sections in the figures you linked to--because we don't know them. Look, I'm not saying that this is probably, I'd say at the most one in a billion integrated over all the colliders we are likely to build on Earth. But CERN is a facility without value other than as a jobs project for physicists/philosophers, why risk anything for it? In particular, when you dig into their claims about what they will be able to discover about string theory, there is no experiment that they say would be able to reject string theory, just rule out a whole variety of string theories. As such, the whole idea of string theory is not yet to the state of being scientific in that it is not falsifiable.
Setting aside the GPs odd comments.... While these black holes would have to be created all the time by cosmic radiation in objects the size of the sun, they would continue to move at near light-speed. At these speeds, nearly everything has zero cross-section for reaction, so that only tells us not to worry about the ones that will leave earth at about these speeds (most of them). But, CERN will generate several of these particles per year that do not have escape velocity and so might (if there is no Hawking radiation) just hang out in the planet. While their reaction cross-sections couldn't be huge, given a few hundred of these and a few decades, one might just be able to take off and make the real thing--that's why serious physicists are worried about this.
Where did I reference power distribution? I learned about this stuff when using an NMR. Before you can make a superconductor into a high strength magnetic field, guess what, you need to be able to make it into something other than a blob, and it need to be able to carry more than a few mA and remain a superconductor.
Slashdot Mirror
right, but MySQL just replicates when I hookup my laptop to the wireless. I do nothing, this is completely different from shutting down both servers and rsyncing.
Is there good mirroring of databases? I use a laptop and desktop and appreciate that MYSQL lets my have my wiki with me when I travel because I mirror
Have you tested this with a black hole and a wicker basket, or is this just idle speculation?
you can get some serious luminescence in the eye from x-rays. How do you think they used to find the beam at the old accelerators? (until everyone got cataracts that is.)
Black holes are made that way with a very dark green or blue die. Or was that fabric?
good luck with that one in court.
Does Postgres have good mirroring? I use MySQL's cluster ability on my desktop and laptop so that I'm not constantly shutting down both and rsyncing, but have my data with me everywhere. Yes, this is way outside a production environment, but it is where I am.
Mission critical = required for firm to make maximum profit. What planet are you from?
Wow, I think you are the first person to every reply to me and agree. I think this is why I don't read or post much on slashdot.
Oh, just got it--proton. sorry, nothing to see here--move along.
What exactly would a photon decay into?
Never. Even a single solar mass would output far far less than just the cosmic radiation it would absorb.
For this to be a problem you have to have no Hawking radiation, (unlikely) and not have the thing process that created it uncreate it almost instantly (unlikely), and have the thing stick around (unlikely, but enough would be created that some wold). Finally, the mini-black holes would be created all the time when super-high E particles rain down on stars, and these would have to be exceedingly unlikely to interact when still moving at the speed of light, but much more likely when not moving at the speed of light (I think likely, others disagree).
Look, I'm not loosing sleep over it, but I'm not sure why we started doing this in the first place. Why not wait a few thousand years until we could potentially just trash Mars or the moon?
No, he really doesn't. If the Earth (for example) were to become a black hole, it would continue in the same orbit as it previously had. Knocking a plants off its course would require (approximately) the same amount of junk hitting after it was a black hole as before it was a black hole--which is to say not bloody likely.
Dennis Hastert resigned and he was (R-IL).
No, a neutron is unlikely to pass through the earth without interacting (not that I know cross sections at those energies, more of a guess). But the question is about if it makes a microscopic black hole that does not evaporate.
I'd point out that there are lots of ifs, and I'd say the probability of us turning the Earth into a black hole is vanishingly small. My main point was to lay out the objection clearly since I happen to have read some of the letters by these people. That said, I'm not sure CERN has any real value, so why put what can only be described as all of our chips on the table for no real gain?
This is a big old regression, it's too bad, because FF2 was a good browser that didn't try to copy M$'s "I know what you want" strategy of annoying the living heck out of me. But FF3 is a better browser that has either no urlbar suggestions, or really lame urlbar suggestions.
Uh, the linked page (I think correctly) says you really can't get the old one back. Sigh, I like everything else about FF3.
as far as the momentum conservation argument, run this calculation for me, since you are a physicist, what is the velocity of the byproduct of a collision between a neutron with 1 TeV of kinetic energy and a stationary proton, assuming that the pair react to form one product and that an inconsequential amount of energy was required for this conversion. IWAP (I was a physicist) specifically, I spent a lot of time measuring cosmic radiation.
As far as knowing the cross sections of these miniscule black holes, I can't find the black hole cross sections in the figures you linked to--because we don't know them. Look, I'm not saying that this is probably, I'd say at the most one in a billion integrated over all the colliders we are likely to build on Earth. But CERN is a facility without value other than as a jobs project for physicists/philosophers, why risk anything for it? In particular, when you dig into their claims about what they will be able to discover about string theory, there is no experiment that they say would be able to reject string theory, just rule out a whole variety of string theories. As such, the whole idea of string theory is not yet to the state of being scientific in that it is not falsifiable.
Setting aside the GPs odd comments.... While these black holes would have to be created all the time by cosmic radiation in objects the size of the sun, they would continue to move at near light-speed. At these speeds, nearly everything has zero cross-section for reaction, so that only tells us not to worry about the ones that will leave earth at about these speeds (most of them). But, CERN will generate several of these particles per year that do not have escape velocity and so might (if there is no Hawking radiation) just hang out in the planet. While their reaction cross-sections couldn't be huge, given a few hundred of these and a few decades, one might just be able to take off and make the real thing--that's why serious physicists are worried about this.
No matter what the use, it needs to be able to carry a reasonable amount of current per cross-sectional area so that you can actually use it.
Where did I reference power distribution? I learned about this stuff when using an NMR. Before you can make a superconductor into a high strength magnetic field, guess what, you need to be able to make it into something other than a blob, and it need to be able to carry more than a few mA and remain a superconductor.
The real question is, is it suitable for stretching into cables that can carry a reasonable amount of current. Without that, it's just a parlor trick.