Will the world end in a fortnight? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jagg

2008-06-10, 12:34 AM

Dun Dun DUNNNNNN.

Large Hadron Collider

Question: COULD THIS BE THE MOST DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND?

It is certainly the largest. It is a 17 mile underground tunnel that was begun in 1983 and forms a circle under two countries, France and Switzerland. And it is about to be part of the most anticipated scientific experiment ever created by man.
The European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) is just weeks away from firing up the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is the most powerful particle collider ever created and it will accelerate trillions of heavy lead particles to almost the speed of light and then smash them together head on. These head-on collisions at a combined rate of two times the speed of light (relative to the observer) will create an enormous concentrated energy of 1,150 TeV, tera (trillion) electronvolts, or 1.15 Quadrillion electronvolts of energy. This is expected to create conditions that haven’t existed since the big bang.
This experiment is being carried out by some of the world’s top scientists, including Nobel Prize winners. Their hope is to smash atoms into smaller pieces than ever before possible so that they can verify the veracity of several theories which have never been proven. If they can do this, they will win more Nobel Prizes and receive other great rewards.
The problem is that at this energy, at this scale of physics, almost all we know is based on theories, the very theories they are trying to prove. And some of these theories predict that when those atoms smash together at such a high energy, the conversion of energy to mass (E=mc2) could create miniature black holes or worse. These MBH’s could possibly be captured by the earth’s gravity and begin gathering matter from the center of the earth. If this were to happen, our entire beautiful planet could be compacted down to the size of a golf ball.

“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
-Dr. Raj Baldev [1] [2]

http://www.lhcfacts.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL2ghqv5mCg Part 1

So what do we think playgrounders? Should we all go around with sandwich boards reading the end is nigh?

skywalker

2008-06-10, 12:40 AM

They're specifically trying to create MBHs, aren't they?

They're fairly certain it's contained...

I'm not thinking there's too much to worry about.

And if it's the whole planet that's going to end, I've got the affairs I need in order in order...

Baerdog7

2008-06-10, 12:45 AM

I'm not too worried, to be honest. If nothing bad happens, then hooray! However, if something bad (like a black hole) does happen, I probably won't be alive long enough to really care.

Solo

2008-06-10, 12:55 AM

There is so much bad science here I don't know where to begin.

Lycan 01

2008-06-10, 01:05 AM

Why are smart people acting stupid?

"Hey! I know! Lets prove how smart we are by doing something really stupid that could destroy the earth and everything involved with it! Woooo! :smallbiggrin:"

Seriously... FTW?

Personally, I'd expect a massive nuclear blast or something out of this before the MBHs, but since they seem so adamant about it, I guess there's not much to worry about... *shrug*

Green Bean

2008-06-10, 01:06 AM

There is so much bad science here I don't know where to begin.

But if the Atomic Wall is breached by E=MC^2, black holes could convert the energy to mass and dissolve the universe at the quantum level, thus killing Schroedinger's Cat! :smalleek:

Skippy

2008-06-10, 01:10 AM

Schroedinger's cat is already dead. He just doesn't know it yet.

Anyway, if we can save years of slowly dying from Global Warming by killing ourselves in a couple minutes, so be it. I'd rather have that.

Solo

2008-06-10, 01:10 AM

Lycan 01

2008-06-10, 01:15 AM

Oooh, ooh, let me guess! Hawking Radiation is named after Steven Hawkings, or whatever his name is? :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, I don't know much about physics and stuff of the uber-sciency sort. I can tell you about anatomy, biology, history, literature, and speak several languages, but I know very little of the phsyical and chemical side of science. Wait... no... I know the chemical formula for gunpowder. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, when people say "mini black holes forming on, in, or near earth, that kinda raises lots of red flags for me... :smalltongue:

Solo

2008-06-10, 01:19 AM

Oooh, ooh, let me guess! Hawking Radiation is named after Steven Hawkings, or whatever his name is? :smallbiggrin:
If it was Seven Hawkings, it would be called Hawkings Radiation.

Sorry, I don't know much about physics and stuff of the uber-sciency sort. I can tell you about anatomy, biology, history, literature, and speak several languages, but I know very little of the phsyical and chemical side of science. Wait... no... I know the chemical formula for gunpowder. :smallbiggrin:

You mean ammonium nitrate?

But yeah, when people say "mini black holes forming on, in, or near earth, that kinda raises lots of red flags for me... :smalltongue:
Are you aware of the physical characteristics and properties of a min-blakc hole of the size that may be created by the experiment?

BRC

2008-06-10, 01:23 AM

I'm not worried, these scientists definetally went through the experiment checklist

1: Is this experiment likely to
a) Destroy the World
b) Lead to Humanity's enslavement by robots.
c) Lead to Humanity's enslavement by superintelligent giant squid.

If any of the above are viable answers, then you don't do the experiment.

ghost_warlock

2008-06-10, 01:26 AM

Mini Black Hole. :smallconfused:

Please. :smallsigh:

Not scary. Even if it did happen, a MBH will never have enough accumulated mass to draw in a paperclip, much less destroy the Earth.

Hairb

2008-06-10, 01:27 AM

When do they switch it on? I was planning on throwing a party, so that in the (rather unlikely) event of the world's ending, I'd go out having a swell old time.
I should point out that people worried about Earth's atmosphere igniting when we split the atom. We seem to have done alright since then.
Also, because no one else has:

RESONANCE CASCADE!

I know where my crowbar is. Do you?

Lycan 01

2008-06-10, 01:28 AM

Are you aware of the physical characteristics and properties of a min-blakc hole of the size that may be created by the experiment?

Ummm..... no. Like I said, I such at physics! :smalltongue: Didn't you read my post?

Solo

2008-06-10, 01:33 AM

Ummm..... no. Like I said, I such at physics! :smalltongue: Didn't you read my post?

I am not a physicist either, but I do have google.

Shademan

2008-06-10, 01:33 AM

this is it! this is what is gonna trigger the zombie infestations!!!!
...
sorry... too much Zombie survival guide and too little sleep.

Pyrian

2008-06-10, 01:35 AM

If it was Seven Hawkings, it would be called Hawkings Radiation.I'm going to have to say that your mispelling was worse than his. :smalltongue:

Are you aware of the physical characteristics and properties of a min-blakc hole of the size that may be created by the experiment?...No human is. We have only theory. Theory for which there are good reasons to think is right, and also good reasons to think may very well be wrong. At any rate, it's certainly never been observed.

Ironically, even if Hawking Radiation is not correct it is still highly likely that micro-black holes are unstable, and probably exceedingly so. If it were that easy to create and sustain them, the universe should be littered with the damn things. Particles of higher energy hit our atmosphere all the time; the people claiming that we're replicating conditions not seen since the big bang are frankly full of it. All this is assuming that LHC can create MBH's in the first place, which only some pretty outlandish theories predict (honestly, those multi-dimensional theories can predict anything).

skywalker

2008-06-10, 01:39 AM

Givent hat any micro black holes formed will likely evaporate in a puff of Hawking Radiation soon after forming, I fail to see the problem.

This was pretty much point in saying "Aren't they trying to create MBHs?"

And yes, it is Stephen Hawking, MBHs are one of his few "follies." He wrote is doctoral thesis on their possible existence back in the 70s. But, up until recently, they've been considered an interesting theory, but ultimately not correct. Nobody's found any yet.

I think it's really funny that they spent a lot of money on a project in which one of the main purposes is proving Dr. Hawking right. I mean, if it were my doctoral thesis, what then? But no, something about this guy makes people want to think he's right. Always has been.

Jagg

2008-06-10, 01:48 AM

Givent hat any micro black holes formed will likely evaporate in a puff of Hawking Radiation soon after forming, I fail to see the problem.

Given that they are not actually sure that this experiment will create Hawking radiation.....I think this is what some scientists are worried about.

The arguments I've seen are more about what clarity and what safety procedures are in place, than the experiment itself. How exactly do you stop a black hole from growing? Some scientists believe that black holes, even MBH, only expand.

This is why a court case before US Federal Courts to compel reasonable proof of safety has its first hearing on June 16, 2008 in Hawaii.

“Hawking Radiation… 50/50 chance of working or not”
“Once you have identified some problems you have to be able to prove they are not going to happen”
“Cosmic Ray Argument has been Debunked”
by Nuclear Physicist Walter L. Wagner

Famous physicist Stephen Hawking predicted early in his career that black holes will, in effect, evaporate due to quantum effects at their edge. It's called Hawking Radiation, or HR in the rest of this post. The smaller the black hole, the faster the HR process, and the theory goes that a tiny black hole created in the LHC would instantaneously evaporate in a spray of subatomic particles. It would be this process by which the detectors would in fact know that a black hole had [very temporarily] been created. Black holes which absorb surrounding matter at a rate faster than they lose weight through HR will grow in size, but once there is nothing around them to "accrete", they will start losing weight again.

BUT there are credible physicists who doubt that HR actually exists. Although astronomers believe they have strong evidence of massive black holes in the centre of galaxies, HR is too faint to be observed that way.

So, the fundamental problem comes down to this: the CERN risk assessment paper is based on HR definitely happening. They do not consider in any detail what may happen if a micro black hole does not disappear quickly.

I'm not saying I believe this stuff...I'm just curious what others have to say.

Solo

2008-06-10, 01:51 AM

skywalker

2008-06-10, 01:55 AM

Jagg, Hawking was the one who originally came up with MBHs. Since they're creating Hawking MBHs, they're probably going to behave the way Hawking said they would.

Of course, to me, that all makes sense. Since Hawking's MBHs are being created, they're going to behave the way Hawking said they would.

Just my two cents, tho... and my brain is addled from 3AM.

Jagg

2008-06-10, 02:00 AM

Again, I have to ask how likely it is that we will create a sustained mini black hole.

Given it would probably take more energy to do so than has been generated over the entire history of mankind, I suppose you have a good explaination for me, or at least some figures to prove me wrong?

Um you realize that a much smaller collider created an incident known as the bosenova explosion? Was this a MBH that dissolved because of HR? No one is sure... it's a bit of a mystery.

Given that there are a couple of stellar intellects who argue about this stuff Eg Nobel prize winners Dr's Cornell and Wieman along these lines....

"Dr. Wieman confirmed that his colleague Dr. Cornell may have in fact written in an email that the bosenova implosion was “probably not a black hole”, but that Dr. Cornell was probably just being diplomatic. When asked why he was not scared of micro black holes, do you think that they will not be created, that they will evaporate or that they will grow too slowly to be a threat? He replied that black holes would only form if string theory was valid, and he has issues with the credibility of string theory." We are out at the pointy end of theoretical interactions and arguments occur between highly educated individuals in this area...and yet we seem to think we know what is going on.

I just find it interesting.

Nasrudith

2008-06-10, 02:03 AM

Why do scientists even bother making apocalyptic predictions in the first place when dealing with something completely unknown? They have no proof of it in the first the place to back up their guess and somehow they think that they can destroy the world accidentally with less energy than a kilogram of uranium 215. Are they borrowing their sense of scale from science fiction writers who skipped out on research. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale) The entire point behind the experiment is that they don't know what will happen in the LHC. Please leave the fear mongering to Luddites and rival scientists desperate for your funding :smalltongue:.

Solo

2008-06-10, 02:06 AM

Um you realize that a much smaller collider created an incident known as the bosenova explosion? Was this a MBH that dissolved because of HR? No one is sure... it's a bit of a mystery.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/supernova_lab_010723.html

By then fiddling with the magnetic fields, the researchers shrunk the condensate and forced a tiny explosion, which they say resembles a supernova, albeit in a microscopic level.
I'm terrified. A microscopic explosion.

"Dr. Wieman confirmed that his colleague Dr. Cornell may have in fact written in an email that the bosenova implosion was “probably not a black hole”, but that Dr. Cornell was probably just being diplomatic. When asked why he was not scared of micro black holes, do you think that they will not be created, that they will evaporate or that they will grow too slowly to be a threat? He replied that black holes would only form if string theory was valid, and he has issues with the credibility of string theory." We are out at the pointy end of theoretical interactions and arguments occur between highly educated individuals in this area...and yet we seem to think we know what is going on.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Jagg

2008-06-10, 02:12 AM

Ha! Love the comics ...thanks Solo

Freshmeat

2008-06-10, 02:13 AM

Jagg, your doomsaying is no match for Solo's unending sarcasm. :smallamused:

randman22222

2008-06-10, 02:16 AM

Another little something: I think I recently read an article that said that MBH's are actually formed quite often higher in the atmosphere, where less radiation from the sun, other stars, etc. is filtered out. I believe it was something about these higher-energy waves entering the atmosphere creates many MHB's that do dissipate via Hawking radiation.

Someone who knows a bit more might want to help me out here?

H. Zee

2008-06-10, 02:22 AM

I'd prefer for humanity to be destroyed as a result of SCIENCE!! rather than as a result of war... But to be honest, I'd prefer to take a third option.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that black holes are perhaps the coolest thing ever?

Nychta

2008-06-10, 02:26 AM

I do truly look up to my big brother.

Renegade Paladin

2008-06-10, 02:26 AM

Jayngfet

2008-06-10, 02:27 AM

why are they doing sometphing that could KILL US ALL?

Solo

2008-06-10, 02:29 AM

I do truly look up to my big brother.

Yes, I am taller than you.

why are they doing sometphing that could KILL US ALL?
Because the atomic bomb didn't give us nuclear energy or anytthing else useful. At all.

Oh, come on. A black hole is the mass of a star collapsed into a volume the size of the head of a pin. If you don't have the mass of a star involved to begin with, and this experiment doesn't, you're not going to get anything that can destroy the planet. :smallsigh:

You could create a black hole by keeping the star to pinhead ratio with the stuff in the experiment, but that's both unlikely andhard to achieve, and even if it formed a black hole, the mass would be so low as to not be able to affect anything. Black hole or no, it still will have the mass of a napkin.

Nychta

2008-06-10, 02:40 AM

Yes, I am taller than you.
If you knew me IRL, you would grasp the sheer hilarity of this quote.

Solo

2008-06-10, 02:42 AM

If you knew me IRL, you would grasp the sheer hilarity of this quote.

Ok, I'm roughly 1.8 meters tall. How tall are you?

Bag_of_Holding

2008-06-10, 02:45 AM

Ok, I'm roughly 1.8 meters tall. How tall are you?

I wouldn't call 1.8m a height- it's altitude! *does Stewie Griffin voice* So, how's the air like up there? Enjoying the relative lack of oxygen, mm?

On-topic: Meh, I don't think it'll really destroy the world as such. Just Europe. That'd suck because we'd be living in a world without those European cocoa goodness... Oh noes! World really is going to end! :smalleek:

Nychta

2008-06-10, 02:56 AM

Ok, I'm roughly 1.8 meters tall. How tall are you?

A lot shorter than that.

Solo

2008-06-10, 03:40 AM

A lot shorter than that.

I believe a request for pictures is appropriate.

Tingel

2008-06-10, 04:30 AM

“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
-Dr. Raj Baldev
That is bogus and Dr. Raj Baldev is a very questionable source anyway. I work at the CERN and not a single scientist here sees any realistic "risk to the life of the Earth".

All those doomsday scenarios related to the LHC are utterly fantastic and should not be taken seriously.

SDF

2008-06-10, 05:15 AM

I skipped over the bickering so I don't know if it's been said, but black holes have been created in particle accelerators before. They disappear the instant they are formed and the only way you can tell one was formed in the first place is the radiometric data that is collected at the instant of particle impact.

The relatively small size increase in this installation isn't going to allow for any drastic changes in yield. Certainly not enough to damage anything, let alone the planet.

why are they doing sometphing that could KILL US ALL?

Certainly it can't be worse than the clowns that want to DESTROY US ALL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLKwQz6REkw)

banjo1985

2008-06-10, 05:36 AM

I'm not worried. Any black holes created, will not be big enough to stabilise and start consuming us.

It's the impending Zombie apocalypse you should all be worrying about. :smalltongue:

Renegade Paladin

2008-06-10, 09:47 AM

why are they doing sometphing that could KILL US ALL?
Because they aren't. Everyone's panicking over precisely nothing.

Solo

2008-06-10, 09:48 AM

The whole issue is akin to Chicken Little fearing the sky falling.

Besides, as we all know, the world will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 09:52 AM

Oh, come on. A black hole is the mass of a star collapsed into a volume the size of the head of a pin. If you don't have the mass of a star involved to begin with, and this experiment doesn't, you're not going to get anything that can destroy the planet. :smallsigh:

Actually... A black hole can be of any mass. It's the mass to volume ratio that makes a difference. The Earth itself could collapse into a black hole if it was compressed to the size of a matchbox.

I did a research dealie about black holes... Very interesting.

Oh, and if the world does end, we won't know about it.

Edit: Oh, and ever more also, a little background on micro black holes: if they do form they are hypthesised to occur in as of yet undiscovered dimensions. They don't think they'll be much of a problem though, due to the way in which they think black hole 'evaporate', due to Hawking Radiation. While Hawking radiation loses the black hole a VERY small amount of energy, it should be enough to evaporate the incrediably small mass of these micro black holes.

Hoggy

2008-06-10, 11:03 AM

I'm willing to bet anyone my entire possessions and assets that the world will not end from that experiment!

Scrap that, willing to bet all of the above that the world will never end. Ever.

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 11:06 AM

I'm willing to bet anyone my entire possessions and assets that the world will not end from that experiment!

Scrap that, willing to bet all of the above that the world will never end. Ever.
I understand the first bet... Since you have no chance of losing it... But the second? You can never win or lose it!

That's not some kind of zen is it?

Freshmeat

2008-06-10, 11:07 AM

Scrap that, willing to bet all of the above that the world will never end. Ever.

I'll take you up on that bet!!!

Solo

2008-06-10, 11:11 AM

I'll take you up on that bet!!!

I'm willing to bet all his posessions that the world won't end as well.

chiasaur11

2008-06-10, 11:16 AM

Oh.
The world isn't doomed, eh?

I'll just put away the "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" banners then.

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-10, 11:17 AM

ImperialGolem

2008-06-10, 11:21 AM

When, exactly, are they going to run this little experiment?

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-10, 11:24 AM

In two weeks, I'd imagine, given that's how long a fortnight is.

give or take a few hours.

The Extinguisher

2008-06-10, 11:25 AM

Supermassive Hadron Collider?

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 11:28 AM

Hey, I read about this! It got into the Guinness book of records for being the biggest collider ever or something like that. Apparently it was built in the same place that used to hold a different collider.

Anyways, I highly doubt it's dangerous. It doesn't have AI, nanobots, lasers, sharks, sharks WITH lasers or zombies.
I would've thought it'd be famous enough for practically everyone to know about it... Not just from the Guinness book of world records, anyway...

I mean, it covers the area of a country an' all...

And it does have AI. Just not the semi-sentient-kill-every-human kind.

SerenityKry

2008-06-10, 11:35 AM

One of my co-workers and I are actually talking about the machine and black holes oddly as I read this thread. :smalleek:

I say all we can do is hope for the best, because irregardless of the fact of who likes this idea or not they're going to fire up this machine.

I remember reading articles where people are trying their darnest to stop them from starting this machine.

So... Are they trying to prove something, a theory of sorts with this experiment or are we looking at creating a different kind of energy source? Or am I just insanely lost in this whole thing?

Maybe... we'll get super powers from a mass explosion from the machine and we can be almost like... City of Heroes. Oh that would be sweeeeeet!

thubby

2008-06-10, 11:37 AM

END=NIGH! :smalltongue:

i wonder what they'll discover.

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-10, 11:39 AM

Well, seeing as I've been on graveyard shift for the past several months and before that I was a hermit at best my opportunity to learn about new things consisted of reading the local paper, emphasis on local, and the internet. I don't exactly make a habit of looking up random things like Hadron Colliders on the internet, so Guinness was the first I heard of it.

And I stand corrected about the AI, though fortunately it's not the kill-all-humans kind, so that's not a problem. As a side note, I can name at least one instance of a science fiction story where the sentient and self-aware AI did NOT try to kill everything.

Feel free to ridicule me now.

Tingel

2008-06-10, 11:39 AM

I mean, it covers the area of a country an' all...
You say strange things. What country do you have in mind here?

You can find all the details you want about the LHC on the CERN website: http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
There's a link specifically about the LHC right in the header.

The absurd fears about the LHC are also directly addressed: http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

Rollin

2008-06-10, 12:14 PM

As a side note, I can name at least one instance of a science fiction story where the sentient and self-aware AI did NOT try to kill everything.

I've read a science fiction story where it tried to do the exact opposite (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html), in fact.

chiasaur11

2008-06-10, 12:16 PM

SoD

2008-06-10, 12:18 PM

So what do we think playgrounders? Should we all go around with sandwich boards reading the end is nigh?

Yup. Even if we're wrong, it'll be a laugh.

BRC

2008-06-10, 12:18 PM

You say strange things. What country do you have in mind here?

Well, It's likely BIGGER than a country. The Vatican is technically a nation, and I have a feeling it's bigger that that

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 12:19 PM

You say strange things. What country do you have in mind here?

I'm talking about the country which has the area covered by the LHC. That country. Countries can be whatever size I want them to be.

Also, they're looking for the gravity force exchange particles among other things.

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-10, 12:21 PM

Have you learned nothing? All AIs, sooner or later become the kill all humans kind.

Some just hide it better.

Tell that to Number 5. He HAD a laser, but he got rid of it specifically because it was meant to kill people.

SerenityKry

2008-06-10, 12:31 PM

Have you learned nothing? All AIs, sooner or later become the kill all humans kind.

Some just hide it better.

Some hide it better or some just realize later on that the human race is full of bumholes and decide to change their mind and kill us.

Well, here's to hoping we don't have it all wrong. Although it would be kind of funny if they fired it up and something random happens, something totally off the wall. Like it ends up creating a massive clown...

Did I mention I had extra sugar in my coffee and an over active imagination??

Cobra_Ikari

2008-06-10, 12:36 PM

Some hide it better or some just realize later on that the human race is full of ********s and decide to change their mind and kill us.

Well, here's to hoping we don't have it all wrong. Although it would be kind of funny if they fired it up and something random happens, something totally off the wall. Like it ends up creating a massive clown...

Did I mention I had extra sugar in my coffee and an over active imagination??

That'd be nice. It'd prove the universe has a sense of humor.

I don't know why, but I can't help but be curious what would happen if they accelerated two humans at each other. >.<

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 12:37 PM

Some hide it better or some just realize later on that the human race is full of bumholes and decide to change their mind and kill us.

Well, here's to hoping we don't have it all wrong. Although it would be kind of funny if they fired it up and something random happens, something totally off the wall. Like it ends up creating a massive clown...

Did I mention I had extra sugar in my coffee and an over active imagination??

It's theoretically plausible that something comes back from the future upon the particle collision...

Marty McFly or no, that's pretty cool... Won't happen. But still cool.

FoE

2008-06-10, 12:43 PM

Player_Zero

2008-06-10, 12:54 PM

I looked at the Wikipedia file on this, and it states the possibility for a doomsday scenario as being 1 in 50 million.

And wonder where the guy who was quoted got that figure from? Which I will remind you is uncalculatable, since it's dependant on which particular branch of theoretical physics turns out to be most accurate...

SerenityKry

2008-06-10, 01:12 PM

That'd be nice. It'd prove the universe has a sense of humor.

I don't know why, but I can't help but be curious what would happen if they accelerated two humans at each other. >.<

Well after much calculating, 1 minute of thinking. I've come to the conclusion that we'd either have a huge bloody mess OR a human with double of everything. 4 Arms, 4 Legs, 2 Butts, 2 Heads, etc.
Talk about an ultimate marriage... O.o

Hoggy

2008-06-10, 01:30 PM

As an aside: I almost wish I could sit in that giant concrete donut for the test. Bet there would be some awesome visuals.

MrEdwardNigma

2008-06-10, 01:43 PM

“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
-Dr. Raj Baldev
Well, we're all gonna die eventually, we might as well learn something while we're at it!

Lord Omberous

2008-06-10, 01:58 PM

As an aside: I almost wish I could sit in that giant concrete donut for the test. Bet there would be some awesome visuals.Actually, there will likely be photon released from the reactions; however, they will probably be high-energy ones and therefore not be detectable by the human eye. Sorry.

Also, if no one else has put this in, I thought I'd stick Randall Munroe's idea of what will happen (http://xkcd.com/401/) in here.

SurlySeraph

2008-06-10, 02:31 PM

Also, because no one else has:
RESONANCE CASCADE!

I know where my crowbar is. Do you?

Bah! I don't need a crowbar! I live in Ravensholm, the safest city in the world! Nothing bad will ever happen here!

In any case, I have nothing to fear from the end of the world. I have enough tinfoil to completely wrap my home in. And everyone knows that tinfoil is not only fireproof, laserproof, and mind-control-beam-proof, it is also completely miniature-black-hole-proof.

I'm talking about the country which has the area covered by the LHC. That country. Countries can be whatever size I want them to be.

Also, they're looking for the gravity force exchange particles among other things.

That would be the Higgs Boson. Incidentally, I don't care what the real physicists say, the Higgs Boson is ludicrous. Particles don't actually have mass in and of themselves, they just consume a particle that does have mass and then get mass from that? Absolutely goddamn ridiculous. Particles have mass. Having mass is what makes particles particles and not waves. Even neutrinos have mass. If particles only have mass because they consume Higgs Bosons, why haven't we found massless particles yet? And photons don't count. Why haven't we found particles whose weight is lower than normal because they haven't consumed the normal number of Higgs Bosons yet? Higgs Bosons are NOT real. *sits down, waits patiently for someone who actually knows physics to justify Higgs Bosons to him*

Lord Seth

2008-06-10, 02:38 PM

I looked at the Wikipedia file on this, and it states the possibility for a doomsday scenario as being 1 in 50 million. The LHC's website itself states repeatedly there is no cause for concern.If I remember correctly, the scientific standard for determining impossibility is if it is less than 1 in 10^50 power, or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000, or one in ten quindecillion.

In other words, a chance of 1 in 50 million is better, meaning it's possible. Heck, isn't the chance that life started on Earth lower than 1 in 50 million? And it, er, evidently occurred.

Hoggy

2008-06-10, 02:48 PM

Crowbar? I don't have a crowbar, but I have a mighty fine wrench, if you're interested? No? Wrong game? But it's - oh, okay, I suppose. I'll leave, it's fine.

CrazedGoblin

2008-06-10, 02:50 PM

it will accelerate trillions of heavy lead particles to almost the speed of light and then smash them together head on. These head-on collisions at a combined rate of two times the speed of light (relative to the observer) will create an enormous concentrated energy of 1,150 TeV, tera (trillion) electronvolts, or 1.15 Quadrillion electronvolts of energy. This is expected to create conditions that haven’t existed since the big bang.

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet:smallbiggrin:

multilis

2008-06-10, 02:51 PM

FdL

2008-06-10, 03:10 PM

to title: I hope it doesn't, I'm buying a new LCD monitor :s

sikyon

2008-06-10, 04:08 PM

That would be the Higgs Boson. Incidentally, I don't care what the real physicists say, the Higgs Boson is ludicrous. Particles don't actually have mass in and of themselves, they just consume a particle that does have mass and then get mass from that? Absolutely goddamn ridiculous. Particles have mass. Having mass is what makes particles particles and not waves. Even neutrinos have mass. If particles only have mass because they consume Higgs Bosons, why haven't we found massless particles yet? And photons don't count. Why haven't we found particles whose weight is lower than normal because they haven't consumed the normal number of Higgs Bosons yet? Higgs Bosons are NOT real. *sits down, waits patiently for someone who actually knows physics to justify Higgs Bosons to him*

Particles are waves, there is no distinction in quantum mechanics. You are, in fact, a wave right now. Photons infact DO count. Higgs Bosons basically explain why photons do not have mass (though incidently they do have momentum and such).

I believe that most likely problem with the particle accelerator would be creation of strange matter which converts regular matter into strange matter as well, thus catalacyzing the earth into a ball of strange matter. They are trying to see if neutron stars are made of strange matter, if so, then the theory is correct.

Oregano

2008-06-10, 04:28 PM

I personally think it'll make rifts and the Snarl may be able to break free and we'll have to unite and go all Sexy Shoeless God of War style on it.

NinjaHippy

2008-06-10, 04:52 PM

The bad science part is a black hole this size is most likely to lose matter faster than it gains.

But bad science is all around us. Why is global warming now seen by so many as the greatest threat (nuclear and bio seem to be forgotten), when 50 years ago it was a coming ice age?

The earth has supposedly been much warmer during the bronze age. It is claimed that early earth atmosphere was CO2 and methane. (and we don't know of any plants that survive boiling temps, yet plants were able to *bring down* the levels of methane and co2 from nearly 100%)

If CO2 goes up and the earth gets warmer, then just like in a greenhouse (where co2 boosts plant growth) you get more CO2 being used. Warm up the north and the growing season is extended by months. Overall there should be *more* rain on average (warm means more evaporation, more surface area of water, the same), which means more plant growth.

Yes there is a potential danger. But why is that danger rated as higher than nuclear (every year nukes become easier to make), and biological (either accident of genetic engineering or targetted weapons, every year these become easier)? Perhaps for the same reason some believe Bush is dumb as a monkey when he apparently got around same marks in school as Kerry and Gore?

Too many people on both sides of political divides seem to be dishonest about facts, science and threats in order to help their *side*. And too many people like the fame and profit that comes from fearmongering their causes.

Problem is that like the boy who cried wolf, if you are unbalanced on dangers you help put at risk everyone including yourself.

Well, one of the arguments I've heard about the dangers of global warming is that if the ice caps melt like they are projected to, we'll find ourselves with somewhere around 100 million people worldwide who's homes just got flooded out. Which is a problem.

On topic: To be honest, the biggest problem I have with the LHC is the name. I mean, come on. We have a gigantic tube of steel that stretches into two countries, made by the foremost nuclear research company of our time, capable of creating black holes, and we can't come up with a better name than the "Large Hadron Collider"? People, please.

Incidentally, this is the same problem I have with the Big Bang. Humongous Space Kablooie, anyone?

Holy_Knight

2008-06-10, 05:19 PM

If I remember correctly, the scientific standard for determining impossibility is if it is less than 1 in 10^50 power, or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000, or one in ten quindecillion.

In other words, a chance of 1 in 50 million is better, meaning it's possible. Heck, isn't the chance that life started on Earth lower than 1 in 50 million? And it, er, evidently occurred.
Perhaps this is a silly question, but shouldn't impossibility mean that the event has a zero chance of occurring? Anything greater than zero, however small the ratio, is by definition possible.

Incidentally, this is the same problem I have with the Big Bang. Humongous Space Kablooie, anyone?
You mean "Horrendous".

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-10, 05:21 PM

Scientists, apparently, have no imaginations. Like pirates. you have an island, there's treasure buried on it. So you name it treasure island.

Someone get Bill Watterson to name these things.

Pyrian

2008-06-10, 05:29 PM

Particles don't actually have mass in and of themselves, they just consume a particle that does have mass and then get mass from that?I felt a lot better about a lot of these sorts of concepts when I realized that when particle physicists say "particle" they mean "thing". There is no effect they will not refer to as a particle. If something happens, they will describe that occurrence as being caused by a particle. In essence, the Higgs Boson exists not so much by nature, but by definition - mass exists, and therefore must be assigned at least one particle, and probably several.

Why is global warming now seen by so many as the greatest threat (nuclear and bio seem to be forgotten), when 50 years ago it was a coming ice age?We address the nuclear and bio threats as best we can, but as you say, crying wolf - i.e., invading Iraq - is not the best solution. Of course, those are just potential threats. Global warming was predicted decades ago and is now underway.

Oh, and the coming ice age? Still coming. Probably won't be in our lifetimes, though, or even our children's, short of massive increases in lifespan (quite possible). The 400,000 year record makes that pretty clear.

The earth has supposedly been much warmer during the bronze age.The Earth's climate has been fantastically stable for 10,000 years - i.e., the entire rise of human civilization and then some. This unusual womb of humanity would appear to be ending. That's not a good thing.

It is claimed that early earth atmosphere was CO2 and methane. (and we don't know of any plants that survive boiling temps, yet plants were able to *bring down* the levels of methane and co2 from nearly 100%)Okay, now you're completely off the deep end. The Earth's atmosphere has always been nitrogen based. Methane is not stable in the atmosphere. CO2 sinks into the mantle. Plants didn't even come into existence until long, long after the early periods of Earth's geologic history.

I had written responses to the rest of your post, but then remembered that political discussion is not allowed on this board. ...Almost got trolled! :smallcool:

Nonanonymous

2008-06-10, 05:37 PM

The earth has supposedly been much warmer during the bronze age. It is claimed that early earth atmosphere was CO2 and methane. (and we don't know of any plants that survive boiling temps, yet plants were able to *bring down* the levels of methane and co2 from nearly 100%)

Perhaps you've forgotten of photosynthetic bacteria and algae?

SurlySeraph

2008-06-10, 05:54 PM

Particles are waves, there is no distinction in quantum mechanics. You are, in fact, a wave right now. Photons infact DO count. Higgs Bosons basically explain why photons do not have mass (though incidently they do have momentum and such).

Oh yeah, de Broglie wavelength. I forgot about that. That kind of makes more sense now, but I still need more detail before I'm going to accept the existence of Higgs Bosons.

I felt a lot better about a lot of these sorts of concepts when I realized that when particle physicists say "particle" they mean "thing". There is no effect they will not refer to as a particle. If something happens, they will describe that occurrence as being caused by a particle. In essence, the Higgs Boson exists not so much by nature, but by definition - mass exists, and therefore must be assigned at least one particle, and probably several.

That actually helps me a lot. Higgs Bosons still don't make sense to me, but I'll accept them now.

Lupy

2008-06-10, 06:08 PM

Yes, but first Cthulu, Jesus, and John Lennon have to return to Earth and battle for the fate of all souls... :smallbiggrin:

Phae Nymna

2008-06-10, 06:18 PM

Schrödinger's Cat always lives. He's the only one who understands the experiment. :smalltongue:

Moff Chumley

2008-06-10, 07:11 PM

this is it! this is what is gonna trigger the zombie infestations!!!!
...
sorry... too much Zombie survival guide and too little sleep.

Mind ninja... I was gonna say that. :smallmad:

The Extinguisher

2008-06-10, 07:38 PM

That'd be nice. It'd prove the universe has a sense of humor.

I don't know why, but I can't help but be curious what would happen if they accelerated two humans at each other. >.<

It's an interesting way to meet someone, that's for sure.

SDF

2008-06-10, 07:40 PM

The bad science part is a black hole this size is most likely to lose matter faster than it gains.

But bad science is all around us. Why is global warming now seen by so many as the greatest threat (nuclear and bio seem to be forgotten), when 50 years ago it was a coming ice age?

The earth has supposedly been much warmer during the bronze age. It is claimed that early earth atmosphere was CO2 and methane. (and we don't know of any plants that survive boiling temps, yet plants were able to *bring down* the levels of methane and co2 from nearly 100%)

If CO2 goes up and the earth gets warmer, then just like in a greenhouse (where co2 boosts plant growth) you get more CO2 being used. Warm up the north and the growing season is extended by months. Overall there should be *more* rain on average (warm means more evaporation, more surface area of water, the same), which means more plant growth.

Yes there is a potential danger. But why is that danger rated as higher than nuclear (every year nukes become easier to make), and biological (either accident of genetic engineering or targetted weapons, every year these become easier)? Perhaps for the same reason some believe Bush is dumb as a monkey when he apparently got around same marks in school as Kerry and Gore?

Too many people on both sides of political divides seem to be dishonest about facts, science and threats in order to help their *side*. And too many people like the fame and profit that comes from fearmongering their causes.

Problem is that like the boy who cried wolf, if you are unbalanced on dangers you help put at risk everyone including yourself.

50 years ago we didn't have the meteorological and climate models we do now. The data was much different and you didn't have computers able to predict future climate change. 50 years ago our understanding of many scientific matters was very different than it is now.

Plants have always had a very small impact on overall oxygen content in the atmosphere. They tend to release vast amounts of CO2 when they burn and offset the photosynthetic conversion of gases during their life after they die and decompose. Prokaryotic photosynthetic bacteria and algae are responsible for just about all the oxygen. Extremeophiles (specifically thermophiles) have always been able to survive the early conditions of our planet. The scary thing about global climate change is not the temperatures on land, but rather the change in aquatic conditions that are killing coral reefs and the bacteria in the water. If that goes so does everything else.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-10, 07:42 PM

Schrödinger's Cat always lives. He's the only one who understands the experiment. :smalltongue:Must ... try to ... resist!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/522563155_73757af6e4.jpg
Failed.

Chronos

2008-06-10, 07:45 PM

Physicist, here. First of all, they don't really expect to create microscopic black holes. There are a few fringe models which say it might happen, and if it does, great, we'll get oodles of information about how the Universe works. But the LHC is primarily intended for a wide variety of other interesting results, the Higgs boson being the top of the list.

Now, what if they do create black holes: What would happen? Any black holes they made would necessarily be exceedingly small, since the amount of energy going into producing them will be correspondingly small. According to everything we know about physics, a black hole that small should inevitably decay away in a timescale far, far shorter than would be needed for it to even begin to eat anything.

But you may ask: What if all of what we know about physics is wrong, and the hypothetical black holes produced by the LHC are in fact dangerous? Well, that's certainly possible. Nothing can ever be proven absolutely in science. But by the same token, we also can't prove that you won't accidentally destroy the planet by pouring yourself a bowl of raisin bran tomorrow morning. All we have to go on is what we know, and according to that, the LHC is safe.

Furthermore, there's no reason to expect that the LHC would be any more dangerous than existing particle accelerators which are far more powerful. The LHC may be the most powerful accelerator yet built by humans, but it's only human hubris that causes us to attach any particular significance to that. There are naturally-occurring cosmic rays which are many, many orders of magnitude more energetic than anything we puny humans can hope to produce in our laboratories, and they haven't destroyed the Earth yet. The only reason we're building a big expensive accelerator instead of relying entirely on the naturally-occurring ones is that they're unpredictable, and we want to be able to produce high-energy particles on demand and in a controlled environment.

Collin152

2008-06-10, 08:03 PM

If I expect the world to end, it won't.
Therefore, get out of my way, I have a doomed world to see.

chiasaur11

2008-06-10, 08:33 PM

I currently don't have a crowbar.

Would a baseball bat still be good enough in the event of world ending disaster?

Syka

2008-06-10, 09:22 PM

My friends and I had a big talk about this last semester, despite none of us being physics majors and all of us being Classicists.

We came to the conclusion that, should the world end, we would not care (the whole not existing thing taking care of worrying about it). Therefore, let the experiment continue. :smallbiggrin:

Cheers,
Syka

Collin152

2008-06-10, 09:26 PM

The world will end in two weeks, physics be damned.
I don't care if I have to bite every human in America and start a Vampire apocalypse, the world is going down!

NinjaHippy

2008-06-10, 09:28 PM

You mean "Horrendous".

Ooh, good catch. I'm obviously not up on my Calvin and Hobbes.

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 01:47 AM

Perhaps this is a silly question, but shouldn't impossibility mean that the event has a zero chance of occurring? Anything greater than zero, however small the ratio, is by definition possible.

Consider this: If every single human on Earth does an action with the probability which has been defined as impossible one thousand times a day for a thousand years then the probability of it happening would still be roughly the same as winning the lottery about ten times in a row.

Even if humanity itself sets out to do this task, every single person ever within a million year period doing it a million times a day, you won't even come CLOSE to a one in a million chance of it happening.

Dryken

2008-06-11, 01:50 AM

It damn well BETTER not end in a fortnight otherwise I will have spent the last two weeks doing something I really don't like doing: Looking for a job.

And if I get one moments before the world ends I am going to be PISSED.

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 01:54 AM

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-11, 02:07 AM

http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~klaakson/kuvat/gman.jpg
Better prepare for unforseen consequences!

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 02:10 AM

...Wut? :smalltongue:

Cool, though...

Holy_Knight

2008-06-11, 02:29 AM

Consider this: If every single human on Earth does an action with the probability which has been defined as impossible one thousand times a day for a thousand years then the probability of it happening would still be roughly the same as winning the lottery about ten times in a row.

Even if humanity itself sets out to do this task, every single person ever within a million year period doing it a million times a day, you won't even come CLOSE to a one in a million chance of it happening.

That's fine, but my point is still correct. Improbability, even extreme improbability, is not the same as impossibility.

_Zoot_

2008-06-11, 06:42 AM

In any case, I have nothing to fear from the end of the world. I have enough tinfoil to completely wrap my home in. And everyone knows that tinfoil is not only fireproof, laserproof, and mind-control-beam-proof, it is also completely miniature-black-hole-proof.

* runs out to get tinfoil *

now they cant get me with their mind control HAHAHA!!!

My friend was talking about this, i hope the world dosnt end because then i wont find a way to prove to him once and for all the monks aren't the best class.

Solo

2008-06-11, 06:45 AM

* runs out to get tinfoil *

now they cant get me with their mind control HAHAHA!!!

My friend was talking about this, i hope the world dosnt end because then i wont find a way to prove to him once and for all the monks aren't the best class.

So you know Giacomo in real life?:smalltongue:

Hoggy

2008-06-11, 06:55 AM

Better prepare for unforseen consequences!

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6561/avvy29gp6.png

Better yet, FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES!

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 06:56 AM

That's fine, but my point is still correct. Improbability, even extreme improbability, is not the same as impossibility.

Yes it is. Talking semantics you could say so perhaps, but when we're talking real world applied mathematics then it is more close to zero probability than you could possibly imagine.

When you can prove to me that the lowest number imaginable isn't zero then I'll think about it.

In before negative numbers.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 07:20 AM

Yes it is. Talking semantics you could say so perhaps, but when we're talking real world applied mathematics then it is more close to zero probability than you could possibly imagine.

When you can prove to me that the lowest number imaginable isn't zero then I'll think about it.

In before negative numbers.I agree. We only define impossibility in our everyday life as extreme improbability. It si possible that we all sprout wings, but not likely at all, due to the bizzare probabilistic circumstance sit would have to occur under.

Chances are, even if a black hole forms, it will evaporate from Hawking radiation quickly enough anyways that it won't matter to most of us. We physicists are good with secrets anyways.

kwanzaabot

2008-06-11, 07:22 AM

I'm confident that the world is NOT going to end. The energy required to create not only a black hole, but a black hole stable enough to not disappear into a puff of nothing is far, far beyond what mankind will be able to produce in our lifetimes.
If a black hole is created, it'll be tiny and unstable. I mean, come on, compared to what the universe creates on a daily basis, we're still just hairy, poo-flinging apes fishing for termites with a blade of grass.

However, if i'm wrong and I stop existing, i'm gonna be pissed.

Incidentally, assuming there is an afterlife, are ghosts powerful enough to escape the gravity of a black hole?
Given the choice, I would prefer to continue existing in some form or another, but if not, I suppose I wouldn't mind too much.

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 07:30 AM

However, if i'm wrong and I stop existing, i'm gonna be pissed.

Incidentally, assuming there is an afterlife, are ghosts powerful enough to escape the gravity of a black hole?
Given the choice, I would prefer to continue existing in some form or another, but if not, I suppose I wouldn't mind too much.

Pissed for all of the few microseconds of which you are aware of being compressed into a singularity, huh? :smalltongue:

Also... Do ghosts have mass? Surely not, or else they'd be more likely interact with observable matter, which surely we would've noticed... I suppose they could be weakly interacting particles of neglible mass... But then, we've found neutrinos and they were FREAKING HARD to find, huh? :smalltongue:

Dallas-Dakota

2008-06-11, 07:36 AM

kwanzaabot

2008-06-11, 08:04 AM

Pissed for all of the few microseconds of which you are aware of being compressed into a singularity, huh? :smalltongue:

Hey, that's a few microseconds I can't get back!

Eh, i'd probably waste them anyway...

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-11, 09:37 AM

Lord Seth

2008-06-11, 10:39 AM

Furthermore, there's no reason to expect that the LHC would be any more dangerous than existing particle accelerators which are far more powerful. The LHC may be the most powerful accelerator yet built by humans, but it's only human hubris that causes us to attach any particular significance to that. There are naturally-occurring cosmic rays which are many, many orders of magnitude more energetic than anything we puny humans can hope to produce in our laboratories, and they haven't destroyed the Earth yet. The only reason we're building a big expensive accelerator instead of relying entirely on the naturally-occurring ones is that they're unpredictable, and we want to be able to produce high-energy particles on demand and in a controlled environment.Wait, I'm confused. First you say that it's larger than other particle accelerators, but is less powerful. Then you say it is "the most powerful accelerator yet built by humans". So...which is it?

SurlySeraph

2008-06-11, 11:14 AM

Well, the quietest place on earth is -9.6 decibels.

I don't know how they managed that either.

http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pics/products/regular/1/7/2/344172.jpg

Noise-cancelling headphones!

GoC

2008-06-11, 02:41 PM

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 02:51 PM

A mini-blackhole has the same gravity as the matter that makes it up. With less than an ounce of mass it's not going to be attracting much (it'll attract less than your shoe-lace) in the millisecond it takes to evaporate.Don't forget the mass form the energy used to smash the particles together which results in the black hole; it's where most of the virtual mass comes from.

Holy_Knight

2008-06-11, 04:01 PM

Yes it is. Talking semantics you could say so perhaps, but when we're talking real world applied mathematics then it is more close to zero probability than you could possibly imagine.

When you can prove to me that the lowest number imaginable isn't zero then I'll think about it.

In before negative numbers.
No, it's really not. "Close to zero probability" and "zero probability" are not the same, and that's not semantics, that's precision. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying anything like "Oh no, if there's any chance, no matter how small, they shouldn't do it!", this has nothing to do with that. This is just a point about the correct use of terms. I also don't need to prove anything about a lowest imaginable number, regardless of negatives being thrown out (by fiat, as it were). Probability ranges from 0 to 1, with zero being impossible and 1 being a certainty. The concept of "exceedingly small but positive chance of occurrence" is by definition not equivalent to a zero probability.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 04:05 PM

No, it's really not. "Close to zero probability" and "zero probability" are not the same, and that's not semantics, that's precision. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying anything like "Oh no, if there's any chance, no matter how small, they shouldn't do it!", this has nothing to do with that. This is just a point about the correct use of terms. I also don't need to prove anything about a lowest imaginable number, regardless of negatives being thrown out (by fiat, as it were). Probability ranges from 0 to 1, with zero being impossible and 1 being a certainty. The concept of "exceedingly small but positive chance of occurrence" is by definition not equivalent to a zero probability.But there is no such thing as an impossibility, as I said above. There's the tiniest chance we will all grow tails and become 15 meters tall, but we say it's impossible because the chance is so small. Nothing is truly absolute in the universe, so we approximate extremely-super-duper-uber-double-chocolate-latte-unlikely things as impossible.

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 04:07 PM

As you say, it's a matter of precision. There is no event so precise as to be accurate to 10^-50, therefore mathematically the probability IS zero.

Anything which we can measure we will measure to an accuracy of lower than 10^-50, therefore any probability we calculate which is lower than 10^-50 is inaccurate to the order of at least 10^-50 and is therefore mathematically equivilent to zero.

Saying that it isn't zero based on a theoretical basis of a very, very small probability IS semantics, because it will never happen. Ever. Just as entropy won't reverse.

The time period it will happen in is as close to infinite as mankind can ever hope to last.

Holy_Knight

2008-06-11, 04:11 PM

But there is no such thing as an impossibility, as I said above.
I actually disagree with you here, but in any case, if there's no such thing as an impossibility, then my earlier point is still right. Obviously an extremely small chance isn't the same as impossibility if there's no such thing as impossibility.

Nothing is truly absolute in the universe
Absolutely nothing?

As you say, it's a matter of precision. There is no event so precise as to be accurate to 10^-50, therefore mathematically the probability IS zero.
Here's a question: what do you mean by "a precise event"?

Anything which we can measure we will measure to an accuracy of lower than 10^-50, therefore any probability we calculate which is lower than 10^-50 is inaccurate to the order of at least 10^-50 and is therefore mathematically equivilent to zero.

Saying that it isn't zero based on a theoretical basis of a very, very small probability IS semantics, because it will never happen. Ever. Just as entropy won't reverse.

The time period it will happen in is as close to infinite as mankind can ever hope to last.

You've basically just said: "It's a zero probability, because it will never happen." While I'll grant that any zero probability event will never happen, of course, your argument is circular.

You also seem to be arbitrarily limiting the domain of possible occurrences to "possible occurrences during the span of human existence", or alternately "possible occurrences measurable by us", and there is no reason to do so.

Austran

2008-06-11, 04:19 PM

As Rajesh Koothrappali said about this very topic on the opening scene of The Big Band Theory's episode 15: "No guts no glory, man!" :amused:

Pyrian

2008-06-11, 04:38 PM

There may or may not be any such thing as impossible. We are restricted to finite experience, so we can't know. As far as human knowledge goes, a sufficiently small probability is entirely indistinguishable from impossibility. Whether that's true in the general metaphysical sense is literally unanswerable and therefore entirely academic. :smallcool:

Anyway, that leads back to context: are we talking about an event which is "impossible" in the abstract, metaphysical sense or impossible in it's ordinary, everyday meaning? Since we're talking about a concrete event, it is reasonable to say that we mean impossible in a human sense.

The destruction of the Earth just as impossible - i.e. probabilitistically indistinguishable from zero - in the time period at which the LHC is run as it is in the moment before and the moment after.

To the best of our knowledge, after all, it is perfectly "possible" in the ludicrous sense that, say, 100% (or even just 1%) of the total protons in the Earth could spontaneously decay at the same time. That, too, would destroy the Earth.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-11, 04:50 PM

Better yet, FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES!

LHC particle physicist looked around the Swiss countrysides and said "its a good day to do what has to be done by me and create resonance cascade".

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2502/picture24tv4.png

Player_Zero

2008-06-11, 05:09 PM

Here's a question: what do you mean by "a precise event"?

You've basically just said: "It's a zero probability, because it will never happen." While I'll grant that any zero probability event will never happen, of course, your argument is circular.

You also seem to be arbitrarily limiting the domain of possible occurrences to "possible occurrences during the span of human existence", or alternately "possible occurrences measurable by us", and there is no reason to do so.

I have no idea what I meant by precision event, I think I must've missed a word... Oh well.

Also, if I say that it will never happen and therefore has zero probability then it DOES have zero probability. That is the definition of zero probability. But what I actually meant was that we could never measure anything accurately enough to determine any difference between impossible and negligibly probable.

More also, we DO have to limit what we can measure to human lifespans, while we could limit it to end of time we cannot measure to the end of time and therefore any predictions based on it would be mere speculation. For instance, if everything has a probability of happening and time is infinite then when infinite time has passed then abosultely everything has happened all at once and never simultaneously. Time has to be limited in order for probability to make any sort of sense.

Even more double also, if we theorise possible occurances unmeasurable by us then that is religion, not science.

When we have something with a 10-50 chance of happening then we must've measured this chance with apparatus or techniques which are too inaccurate to measure to this precision. We can, and do, say that it is zero because it will never happen. You can go ahead and believe that you'll win the lottery twenty or so times in a row without buying a ticket but when it comes to applied science we like to be realistic.

Jagg

2008-06-11, 05:58 PM

Interesting discussion. I'd like to point out a few things.

We are still the same poo slinging insect eating monkeys who made castle bravo happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

This whole probability of things happening discussion doesn't take into account that we monkeys make mistakes.

We are also making lots of assumptions.....because how can we actually test anything in a safe way in relation to a subject we know so little about?

To the guy who said he worked at CERN.....Sooo whats the deal with the court cases? Obviously some people disagree with what CERN says in regards to safety and they have had to go to the extreme measure of court cases to try and get themselves heard.

And finally Can anyone answer me how do you stop a black hole if it becomes stable?

P.S. I'm playing devils advocate here. I think the machine should be turned on and just want to understand whether the crackpots have something or not.

Solo

2008-06-11, 06:45 PM

To the guy who said he worked at CERN.....Sooo whats the deal with the court cases? Obviously some people disagree with what CERN says in regards to safety and they have had to go to the extreme measure of court cases to try and get themselves heard.

The teaching of evolution has been taken to court too on at least one occasion. Doesn't mean that if people disagree and take something to court, they have a point.

Chronos

2008-06-11, 07:01 PM

Wait, I'm confused. First you say that it's larger than other particle accelerators, but is less powerful. Then you say it is "the most powerful accelerator yet built by humans". So...which is it?It's the most powerful yet built by humans. There are naturally-occuring accelerators which are more powerful, but not man-made ones. And the natural accelerators haven't destroyed the Earth yet. This is like being afraid you'll destroy the Empire State Building with the static shock you get from touching the doorknob, when the building survives many lightning strikes every year.

Collin152

2008-06-11, 07:05 PM

It's the most powerful yet built by humans. There are naturally-occuring accelerators which are more powerful, but not man-made ones. And the natural accelerators haven't destroyed the Earth yet. This is like being afraid you'll destroy the Empire State Building with the static shock you get from touching the doorknob, when the building survives many lightning strikes every year.

:smalleek:
I need to wear insulating gloves at all times!
For the saftey of the ESB!

Pyrian

2008-06-11, 07:11 PM

We are still the same poo slinging insect eating monkeys who made castle bravo happen.That was about three times as powerful as expected (15 Mt instead of 4-6). An error of that percent magnitude in the LHC would be very interesting, but would still be very, very small.

Can anyone answer me how do you stop a black hole if it becomes stable?...You, um, can't. :smallcool:

Innis Cabal

2008-06-11, 07:19 PM

If it does we wont notice

Jagg

2008-06-11, 07:54 PM

The teaching of evolution has been taken to court too on at least one occasion. Doesn't mean that if people disagree and take something to court, they have a point.

True If people disagree and sue it doesn't mean they have a point. (but what I'd like to say in reagrds to THOSE court cases probably contravenes the policy on these in regards to religion). lets just say these court cases seem to have different motivation behind them rather than a religious one. Since we had a guy from CERN here...maybe he can fill me in why some scientists have concerns over the safety protocols and have decided to take them to court to enable full disclosure.

@Pryian

That was about three times as powerful as expected (15 Mt instead of 4-6). An error of that percent magnitude in the LHC would be very interesting, but would still be very, very small.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. An organisation that was considered to be the peak of science...right out on the pointy end, extremely well funded and supported dealing in an area that was not completely understood at the time... Made an error which resulted in a 300% larger explosion than they were expecting because they didn't understand the properties of what they were experimenting with.

They made what I would consider to be a BIG error. Not a small one. So if the LHC scientists make a BIG error and it turns out those scientists who disagree with theorised Hawking Radiation effects, or the stability of MBH are closer to the mark.....would this be a big error we are capable of making in an area that is not completely understood at this time because they don't understand the properties of what they are experiementing with?

When the upshot of a large error is the earth the size of a golfball....I'd like to know these guys won't make a BIG error.

RS14

2008-06-11, 08:29 PM

When the upshot of a large error is the earth the size of a golfball....I'd like to know these guys won't make a BIG error.

Randall Munroe said this much better than I could.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/global_warming.png

Only joking. Sort-of.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure we would notice a stable black hole. Supposing a stable black hole were created, we could expect it to drop to the center of the earth, correct? We would not feel gravity increase, only the earth falls apart as the matter around the black hole gets sucked in, leaving the essentially a shell growing thinner and thinner, until the crust buckles or crumbles. Then we, on the surface, would experience a fall of significant duration - I've not computed how long, but maybe I'll do so later.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 08:33 PM

Randall Munroe said this much better than I could.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/global_warming.png

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure we would notice a stable black hole. Supposing a stable black hole were created, we could expect it to drop to the center of the earth, correct? We would not feel gravity increase, only the earth fall apart as the matter around the black hole gets sucked in, leaving the essentially a shell growing thinner and thinner, until the crust buckles or crumbles. Then we, on the surface, would experience a fall of significant duration - I've not computed how long, but maybe I'll do this later.This one fits the general subject better.http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/large_hadron_collider.png

Lord Seth

2008-06-11, 09:08 PM

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 09:11 PM

Is there any truth to the fears that this might create strange matter particles large enough to become stable, which would set off a chain reaction and turn Earth and everything on it into one giant ball of strange matter?Not according to our theories, no. And what do you even mean "strange matter"? That's more than vague.

Pyrian

2008-06-11, 10:08 PM

Strange matter is another one of those hypothesized-but-never-observed things. Kind of like the entirety of string theory... Anyway, that one falls right into the same category as the others, in that if it was going to happen it would have already happened.

Made an error which resulted in a 300% larger explosion than they were expecting because they didn't understand the properties of what they were experimenting with.I'm not an expert on that particular occurrence, but according to your link, the problem that occurred was not something not understood, but overlooked.

They made what I would consider to be a BIG error. Not a small one.A 300% error is not particuarly unusual in scientific endeavor. It was only a problem due to the total scale of the energies they were working with in the first place.

So if the LHC scientists make a BIG error and it turns out those scientists who disagree with theorised Hawking Radiation effects, or the stability of MBH are closer to the mark.....If there's no Hawking Radiation, MBH's are stable, and MBH's are capable of being created under those conditions, there is already no universe as we know it. No Earth, no Sun, no Moon, so Solar System, no human beings, no LHC, nothing for it to destroy... Just a hail of black holes in the dust, lit by occasional quasars.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-11, 10:14 PM

Strange matter is another one of those hypothesized-but-never-observed things. Kind of like the entirety of string theory... Anyway, that one falls right into the same category as the others, in that if it was going to happen it would have already happened.So you just mean matter made up of but up, down and strange quarks, basically quark matter. This would be caused by compressing nuclear particles beyond a certain density, when they would theorectically dissasociate into stable, independent quarks (which does not happen normally). This what you mean?

Solo

2008-06-11, 10:25 PM

A glimpse of this thread, and somehow the threat of impending doom loses its sting.

sikyon

2008-06-11, 10:30 PM

Strange matter is another one of those hypothesized-but-never-observed things. Kind of like the entirety of string theory... Anyway, that one falls right into the same category as the others, in that if it was going to happen it would have already happened.

Space is vast Don't presume that anything which can happen has happened. There may be extrenuating factors preventing strange matter from spreading, for example. Scientists are trying to determine if neutron stars are composed of strange matter, which would confirm their theories. Gravity will stabalize strange matter, but it may be unstable without massive size.

Apparently strange matter from cosmic rays will decay to ground state (positive charge) because of the vast travel distance and therefore be repelled by atoms. However, without that decay time it could be negativly charged and therefore interact with nuclei.

If there's no Hawking Radiation, MBH's are stable, and MBH's are capable of being created under those conditions, there is already no universe as we know it. No Earth, no Sun, no Moon, so Solar System, no human beings, no LHC, nothing for it to destroy... Just a hail of black holes in the dust, lit by occasional quasars.

Even without Hawking Raiditiona MBH's may not be stable.

Pyrian

2008-06-12, 12:09 AM

This what you mean?...You extrapolated all of that from my little post? :smalltongue:

Space is vast Don't presume that anything which can happen has happened.The vastness of space is an excellent reason to think that anything which can happen probably has - but that doesn't necessarily make it detectable. The point, though, is that the LHC is not going to accomplish anything that doesn't happen on a regular basis anyway.

Apparently strange matter from cosmic rays will decay to ground state (positive charge) because of the vast travel distance and therefore be repelled by atoms. However, without that decay time it could be negativly charged and therefore interact with nuclei.Cosmic rays consisting of strange matter are not the appropriate comparison. Cosmic ray protons which are at least as capable of generating strange matter as the LHC are the appropriate comparison.

Even without Hawking Raiditiona MBH's may not be stable.I would call that highly likely, given that it's a basic prediction of good ol' thermodynamics.

sikyon

2008-06-12, 07:10 AM

The vastness of space is an excellent reason to think that anything which can happen probably has - but that doesn't necessarily make it detectable. The point, though, is that the LHC is not going to accomplish anything that doesn't happen on a regular basis anyway.

Thoeretically, but it has the potential to.

Tingel

2008-06-12, 07:52 AM

To the guy who said he worked at CERN.....Sooo whats the deal with the court cases?
Two guys file a lawsuit in Honolulu - that's all there is to those "court cases" (sic) you speak of. An American district court hardly has any jurisdiction over a scientific organization of European nations, so I have no idea what those two men hope to accomplish. The Hawaiian court simply has no authority whatsoever over CERN.

Not only are those plaintiffs' fears absurd and delusional, their methods are as well.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-12, 06:45 PM

Not according to our theories, no. And what do you even mean "strange matter"? That's more than vague.

For SCIENCE! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter)

Even I, with my namby-pamby humanities focus, knew that.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2008-06-12, 08:24 PM

Must ... try to ... resist!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/522563155_73757af6e4.jpg
Failed.

That cats named Toby. I know that cat. Sorta. I know who took that picture though.

Holy_Knight

2008-06-12, 11:16 PM

There may or may not be any such thing as impossible. We are restricted to finite experience, so we can't know.
You've just said that it's impossible for us to know that something is impossible--which, if correct, means that at least one thing is impossible. On the other hand, if it is incorrect, we can know that something is impossible. Either way, there is such a thing as impossibility.

Or if you find that reasoning obnoxious (which isn't the same as it being incorrect), I think you're misconceiving what it means for something to be impossible. Being restricted to finite experience is actually irrelevant here--more on that in a second.

As far as human knowledge goes, a sufficiently small probability is entirely indistinguishable from impossibility. Whether that's true in the general metaphysical sense is literally unanswerable and therefore entirely academic. :smallcool:
Not at all. In the first place, something which is extremely unlikely but possible is something for which causal conditions can (in principle) be specified--which is distinct from something for which there are no potential causes. Secondly, some things are impossible--and knowably so--through purely logical grounds.

Anyway, that leads back to context: are we talking about an event which is "impossible" in the abstract, metaphysical sense or impossible in it's ordinary, everyday meaning? Since we're talking about a concrete event, it is reasonable to say that we mean impossible in a human sense.
The problem here is that by the "human sense of impossible" you seem to mean something like "really really unlikely, as far as we know"--but again, that's just an imprecise use of words.

The destruction of the Earth just as impossible - i.e. probabilitistically indistinguishable from zero - in the time period at which the LHC is run as it is in the moment before and the moment after.

To the best of our knowledge, after all, it is perfectly "possible" in the ludicrous sense that, say, 100% (or even just 1%) of the total protons in the Earth could spontaneously decay at the same time. That, too, would destroy the Earth.
I think a more accurate way to describe this would be to say that the spontaneous decay you're talking about is conceptually possible, but we do not know whether it's physically possible.

I have no idea what I meant by precision event, I think I must've missed a word... Oh well.

Also, if I say that it will never happen and therefore has zero probability then it DOES have zero probability. That is the definition of zero probability. But what I actually meant was that we could never measure anything accurately enough to determine any difference between impossible and negligibly probable.
There's a couple problems here, though. First, the point about measuring things isn't really true. There could be a case where we look at an event which has already occurred, and determine that the necessary causal conditions were exceedingly unlikely to have occurred--but nevertheless did. That would clearly be distinct from something which is actually impossible. Secondly, not all determinations of possibility are a matter of measurement. As I mentioned above, some things are impossible on purely logical grounds.

More also, we DO have to limit what we can measure to human lifespans, while we could limit it to end of time we cannot measure to the end of time and therefore any predictions based on it would be mere speculation. For instance, if everything has a probability of happening and time is infinite then when infinite time has passed then abosultely everything has happened all at once and never simultaneously. Time has to be limited in order for probability to make any sort of sense.
I think you misunderstood what I was getting at here. My point was that whether or not something is possible does not in itself have to do with what we can measure. What is possible or impossible, and what we can know is possible or impossible, are not the same.

Even more double also, if we theorise possible occurances unmeasurable by us then that is religion, not science.
No it's not (or at least, not necessarily). There are events taking place in other galaxies that we cannot measure, but believing that this is so requires no religious context. There are even events taking place here on Earth that we can't currently measure--for instance, at the bottom of crater lake. Again, believing that is perfectly legitimate scientifically.

When we have something with a 10-50 chance of happening then we must've measured this chance with apparatus or techniques which are too inaccurate to measure to this precision. We can, and do, say that it is zero because it will never happen. You can go ahead and believe that you'll win the lottery twenty or so times in a row without buying a ticket but when it comes to applied science we like to be realistic.
Again, I think you're running afoul of the basic point here. By "be realistic", you mean something like "understand the severe unlikelihood"--but again, severe unlikelihood is not actual impossibility.

Collin152

2008-06-12, 11:25 PM

When you get down to it, nothing is impossible, since we can't be certain about anything.
For all we know, all our dead presidents will ocme back to life tomorrow.

The odds of it are so low, however, that we call it impossible.

Solo

2008-06-12, 11:34 PM

Inconcievable!

So, are there any valid objections to this remaining, that haven't been addressed yet?

Cobra_Ikari

2008-06-12, 11:41 PM

Inconcievable!

Damn it, Solo! >.<

Solo

2008-06-12, 11:48 PM

Damn it, Solo! >.<

:smalleek: Why such harsh langauge?

Usually people odn't do that unless I cause them to lose the game.

Collin152

2008-06-12, 11:55 PM

:smalleek: Why such harsh langauge?

Usually people odn't do that unless I cause them to lose the game.

Damn it, Solo! >.<

Lord Seth

2008-06-13, 01:19 AM

Inconcievable!

So, are there any valid objections to this remaining, that haven't been addressed yet?1 in 50 million chance of doomsday. 1 IN 50 MILLION CHANCE OF DOOMSDAY!

reorith

2008-06-13, 02:41 AM

1 in 50 million chance of doomsday. 1 IN 50 MILLION CHANCE OF DOOMSDAY!

the 49,999,999:50,000,000 chance that nothing will change seems sorta depressing. they should make a doomsday device with a higher apocalypse yield. like 1:1. brb ice-nine

Stupendous_Man

2008-06-13, 06:12 AM

crasy stuff

so... will we get sent to another dimension?

Felixaar

2008-06-13, 06:36 AM

So what do we think playgrounders? Should we all go around with sandwich boards reading the end is nigh?

What, more so than usual?

And no, the world's end is atleast three/four years away.

Lord Omberous

2008-06-13, 07:22 AM

crasy stuff

so... will we get sent to another dimension?No, alternative realities are thought to be completely separate and impossible to travel between. But if science can be wrong in one aspect...

Solo

2008-06-13, 07:49 AM

We'll be sent to the Shadow Realm!

Dallas-Dakota

2008-06-13, 07:58 AM

Well I know I'l go to the cookie heaven to sit at Cookiemanjaro's side. Eating cookies and drinking milk. And gaming.:smallbiggrin:

Player_Zero

2008-06-13, 08:03 AM

We'll be sent to the Shadow Realm!

You just activated my trap card! (By referencing Yugioh and thus summoning me to this thread once more!)

I can now play Mystical Space Typhoon from my hand and destroy your puny LHC magic card!

Lord Seth

2008-06-13, 11:28 AM

the 49,999,999:50,000,000 chance that nothing will change seems sorta depressing. they should make a doomsday device with a higher apocalypse yield. like 1:1. brb ice-nineI'd feel a lot safer if it were 1 in 51 million.

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-13, 02:39 PM

You just activated my trap card! (By referencing Yugioh and thus summoning me to this thread once more!)

I can now play Mystical Space Typhoon from my hand and destroy your puny LHC magic card!

I challenge you to a Children's Card Game to decide the fate of the universe.

Player_Zero

2008-06-13, 02:53 PM

I challenge you to a Children's Card Game to decide the fate of the universe.

You're on! If I win then I will use the power of The Pharaoh which I'll obtain from the game to ensure the world's destruction!

And what's more, not only will you be battling for humanity, you will be battling for your very soul as I take this battle to the Shadow Realm!

Ah hahahahahahah!

kirbsys

2008-06-13, 03:18 PM

I can say, one hundred percent for certain that the world will not end in a fortnight. The first collisions aren't expected to happen for at least two months after the injection. Whether or not the world will end then, I have no professional opinion, but the case presented in this thread has helped to allay my fears.

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-13, 04:57 PM

You're on! If I win then I will use the power of The Pharaoh which I'll obtain from the game to ensure the world's destruction!

And what's more, not only will you be battling for humanity, you will be battling for your very soul as I take this battle to the Shadow Realm!

Ah hahahahahahah!

Very well, but you've missed an Important point. You're clearly the villain, destroying the world is a dead giveaway, and villains never win for long on this show. Now behold, as I use my absurdly overpowered card to take control of the field and attack your life points directly!

chiasaur11

2008-06-13, 05:15 PM

Very well, but you've missed an Important point. You're clearly the villain, destroying the world is a dead giveaway, and villains never win for long on this show. Now behold, as I use my absurdly overpowered card to take control of the field and attack your life points directly!

Not if he activates his...
TRAP CARD!

Player_Zero

2008-06-13, 05:47 PM

Not if he activates his...
TRAP CARD!

Indeed so, Pharaoh!

My trap card allows me tribute one of your monsters on the field this turn. And I choose your Dark Magician.

Behold the power of an egyptian god! Come forth Winged Dragon Of Ra! Destroy his monsters with your searing flame!

Ahahahahaha! Give it up Pharaoh, this duel is already over!

Heh... How easily I can derail a thread with either Yugioh or Mathematics. :smalltongue: ...Errr... The LHC is physics and physics is good. :smalltongue:

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-13, 06:18 PM

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think! I'll do something intelligent for once and play a dark hole to destroy your winged dragon. Then I'll use MONSTER REBORN! AHAHAHA, IT IS MY DRAGON NOW!

Meanwhile, in the background: "Wait, can he do that? I thought you could only play one card per turn or something like that"

"Who knows? The rules of this card game are so convoluted it would take the most powerful computer in the world years to work them all out"

:tongue:

Player_Zero

2008-06-13, 06:27 PM

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think! I'll do something intelligent for once and play a dark hole to destroy your winged dragon. Then I'll use MONSTER REBORN! AHAHAHA, IT IS MY DRAGON NOW!

What the crap is this bull!?

Those cards are banned!
Pharaoh, you best be kidding. I didn't spend 5000 years planning this world destruction business for nothing!

Ahhh, screw it! I'm going back to Egypt for blackjack and hookers.

*mumblemumbleuselessbannedcardcheatingpharaohmumbl emumble*

Destro_Yersul

2008-06-13, 06:33 PM

Screw the rules, I'm the protagonist!

And then the pharaoh was carted off by a man in a British Army Major's uniform for being 'too silly'

And with that aside, we return you to your regularly scheduled doomsday discussion.

:smallbiggrin:

Pyrian

2008-06-13, 06:39 PM

You've just said that it's impossible for us to know that something is impossible--which, if correct, means that at least one thing is impossible. On the other hand, if it is incorrect, we can know that something is impossible. Either way, there is such a thing as impossibility.I'm not denying that there is such a thing as impossibility. I'm denying that we can be sure something is impossible. Am I sure of that? Of course not. In fact, I think it's highly likely that we're right about certain things being impossible.

...I think you're misconceiving what it means for something to be impossible.You've apparently misconstrued my argument in the first place.

Being restricted to finite experience is actually irrelevant here--more on that in a second.We're talking about the concrete results of a concrete action. That makes our experiences - finite as they are - paramount.

In the first place, something which is extremely unlikely but possible is something for which causal conditions can (in principle) be specified--which is distinct from something for which there are no potential causes.There is no thing for which there are no "potential" causes, given sufficient imagination.

Secondly, some things are impossible--and knowably so--through purely logical grounds.All logical grounds are based on assumed postulates. A logical paradox is only a paradox insofar as its underlying assumptions are correct. There are actually a number of ancient "impossibilities" which were in fact correctly logically proven to be impossible that have turned out to be empirically true. The logical proofs were, of course, based on faulty assumptions (classical mechanics).

The problem here is that by the "human sense of impossible" you seem to mean something like "really really unlikely, as far as we know"--but again, that's just an imprecise use of words.In some sense that's correct, it is a misuse of language. The problem is, language itself is based on how it is used, not in dictionary definitions. Outside of philosophy class, nobody really uses "impossible" in it's most precise definition, since there would be no reason to ever use it - nothing our fallible senses could detect can ever be accurately described as literally impossible.

A Matrix-like (or Plato's Cave-like or Descates' Demon-like if you prefer) scenario can explain any and all possible perception - it cannot be disproven, and can provide a simple explanation for any supposed impossibility.

I think a more accurate way to describe this would be to say that the spontaneous decay you're talking about is conceptually possible, but we do not know whether it's physically possible.Oh, no, not at all, we have every reason to think that that, or some equivalent spontaneous disaster scenario, is in fact physically possible. That's the point.

What is possible or impossible, and what we can know is possible or impossible, are not the same.Absolutely. And I have argued that the latter is "nothing" in the literal, precise meaning of impossible. (In fact, that assertion is the basis of Empiric philosophy which in turn is the fundamental underpinning of all modern science.) What I don't think is getting across to you, though, is that by talking about whether or not the LHC is going to destroy the Earth, we are talking very strictly about what we can know is possible or impossible.

By "be realistic", you mean something like "understand the severe unlikelihood"--but again, severe unlikelihood is not actual impossibility.I cannot prove the "actual impossibility" that I won't destroy the Earth as a direct consequence of snapping my fingers. I could even go so far as to posit reasons why that might be so: for example, we're all actually in a Matrix-simulation programmed to end once I've snapped my fingers a given number of times. Improbable? Highly. Strictly impossible? No.

Klose_the_Sith

2008-06-15, 08:25 PM

This is a handy way to scare year 7's :smallamused:

I panicked a busload of the muppets!

* runs out to get tinfoil *

now they cant get me with their mind control HAHAHA!!!

My friend was talking about this, i hope the world dosnt end because then i wont find a way to prove to him once and for all the monks aren't the best class.

You're about as likely to prove that as I am to give the NMA back this delightfully spelt "Contrctor" Security pass, work experience rocks me like a hurricane. Thanks for mentioning me in passing though :P

So you know Giacomo in real life?:smalltongue:

Considering it's me I can't tell who just got burned :smallbiggrin:

Ossian

2008-06-16, 05:29 AM

Just 2 dataries collected from a PhD friend (2/3 of it at the CERN and involved in the LHC).
Apparently when a physicist says the chances are 10 the 40 negative power it is his or her polite way of being polita and scientific at the same time, while assesing such chances at zero over zero divided by zero.
Looks like that, even if that happens, the 10 to the -40 is the chance that a ridiculously puny BH forms.

As an example, I was told by this PhD that there is a much higher chance of me managing to run through a wall thanks to the tunnel effect (empty spaces between my atoms and the wall´s atoms) that to end life on firing up the LHC.

Now, I don't know whether they have yet to fire it or not (should check the date of the OP) but the 21 of June is the Solstice and there is a Full Moon. So DON'T!!! please DON'T!!! I mean, were-antimatter-wolves! Who wants them?

O.

Player_Zero

2008-06-16, 05:37 AM

Ossian

2008-06-16, 05:51 AM

0 / 0 / 0 eh? So they're undefined you say? ...Hmmm... I suppose this means that the probability of it happening is every number at the same time! Oh crap! The probability is 1/1 too! We're doomed! :smalltongue:

Ha! You saw it! I was amusing myself with the thought that I had lured humanity into a false sense of security while actually telling them the truth about their inevitable fate. Player Zero, my arch-nemesis, you unmasked my plan for the last time. I rigged the LHC to produce a cluster of MBHs engineered to grow at a slower rate (around 10mph), thus sucking slowly Earth into the event horizon. Try and thwart this master plan, if you dare, or enjoy your slow death; and yes, were-antimatter-creatures invasion WILL follow, since I can also stop the MBH growth! (hmm...I should not have said that, it implies there IS a hope for mankind, but nah, Player Zero will never find the reverse button on my MBH remote, safely hidden in my vault under the mountain of doom beyond the sea of despair, guarded by my trusted lieutenant and his legion of mad psychos)...

Player_Zero

2008-06-16, 06:30 AM

Maxymiuk

2008-06-16, 06:34 AM

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice

Robert Frost

Studoku

2008-06-16, 06:39 AM

Having spent two weeks working my ass off for exams, I will be seriously annoyed if the world ends just as they finish. I'd hate for all that work to go to waste.

Zarrexaij

2008-06-16, 09:17 PM

Micro black holes commonly manifest in our upper atmosphere, and given how highly unstable they are because of their size, I say we have nothing to worry about in the terms of MBH.

However, I'm very scared of the possibility of finally finding the fuel for a potential quantum vacuum collapse. It won't just annihilate the Earth; you create one of those bad-ass things, you destroy ALL the normal matter in the universe.

It's not known if quantum vacuum energy still exists. All that is known is that either it no longer exists since the Big Bang and such are all over with, or if colliding certain particles together will unleash apocalypse of godlike proportions.

Needless to say, there is also a problem with that. There's an infinisimally small chance of that happening, too, since particles collide all the time in our atmosphere. However, with colliding rare elements such as gold or ones that don't exist in "real" nature.... well, we'll just have to see, won't we?

Player_Zero

2008-06-17, 03:36 AM

It won't just annihilate the Earth; you create one of those bad-ass things, you destroy ALL the normal matter in the universe.

Wouldn't that be for the best, though, really?

chiasaur11

2008-06-17, 10:30 PM

Ha! You saw it! I was amusing myself with the thought that I had lured humanity into a false sense of security while actually telling them the truth about their inevitable fate. Player Zero, my arch-nemesis, you unmasked my plan for the last time. I rigged the LHC to produce a cluster of MBHs engineered to grow at a slower rate (around 10mph), thus sucking slowly Earth into the event horizon. Try and thwart this master plan, if you dare, or enjoy your slow death; and yes, were-antimatter-creatures invasion WILL follow, since I can also stop the MBH growth! (hmm...I should not have said that, it implies there IS a hope for mankind, but nah, Player Zero will never find the reverse button on my MBH remote, safely hidden in my vault under the mountain of doom beyond the sea of despair, guarded by my trusted lieutenant and his legion of mad psychos)...

...

The reverse button?
Does it have "reverse" written on it?

If so, I totally deserve a statue or something now. And an international holiday.

Collin152

2008-06-17, 10:41 PM

...

The reverse button?
Does it have "reverse" written on it?

If so, I totally deserve a statue or something now. And an international holiday.

No dice.
We have no proof the world was in any danger.
That's why you wait until teh world is half-destroyed before you save it.

Werewindlefr

2008-06-27, 09:14 PM

Physicist, here. First of all, they don't really expect to create microscopic black holes. There are a few fringe models which say it might happen, and if it does, great, we'll get oodles of information about how the Universe works. But the LHC is primarily intended for a wide variety of other interesting results, the Higgs boson being the top of the list.

(How could I miss this topic :smallfrown:)
This one's on my front door at work:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/large_hadron_collider.png
Although it's more out of self-mockery than anything else.
Otherwise, damn you Chronos for explaining things better than I ever will. :smallfurious:
Yes, you can sleep peacefully: earth is not going to be destroyed by the experiments we conduct at CERN. The main proof of this is that LHC is a powerful accelerator, but powerful only when compared to other accelerators. Compared to some natural phenomenons -at the same microscopic scale- it's just weak.
Besides, there were exactly the same concern, from the same people, when they started the beams at RHIC in Brookhaven, NY. Nothing happened. Well, I mean, aside from terabytes of data that takes an awful lot of time to analyze.
Just like conspiracy theories, those End Of The World Theories are funny and make good books, but they're not based on anything rational or reasonable.
Well, that, and it makes me and my collegues laugh a bit by giving us a subject to joke upon, in good spirit (understand: not out of mockery).

Chronos, are you an High Energies physicist?