Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Are we fucked or do we believe in Hawking Radiation?
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2, 3
hobgoblin
With scientists carrying out their experiment on Wednesday to try to re-create the Big-Bang and a Higgs Boson particle, how concerned should we be that our safety is pretty much being based on the un-tested theory of Hawking Radiation? If Hawking Radiation does not happen, then low-velocity black-holes created in the course of the experiment may well remain.

Risk Assessment
Activity - Recreate the moment after the Big-Bang.
Hazard - Creation of low-velocity micro black-holes (and possibly strangelets, if they exist).
Who might be harmed and how - The entire Universe might (possibly over a period of years, but perhaps sooner) be sucked into a black hole and be destroyed.
Existing measures to control risk - Faith in the theory of Hawking Radiation.
Risk rating - Low (we think).
Outcome - A Nobel Prize if we are successful (the end of the Universe if we are wrong).
Doctor Love
Well, I don't know the answer, but I think to be safe everyone should savor a good number of glasses of absinthe between now and the 10th when they fire up the CERN doomsday machine so that if the world does come to an end, at least we'll wink out of existence with a good aftertaste in our mouths.
Shabba53
Meh. We're all going to die on 12-12-12 anyway, so what's a few years' difference. harhar.gif
Lord Stanley
I thought it was 12/21/12. Not to squabble over details but an extra week and a half would be nice.
dakini_painter
It could even be 12/23/12 depending on which correlation factor is used. However, the Long Count doesn't come to an end, it just cycles over like an odometer.

Guess I'd better go have a drink and toast some Hawking Radiation.
Jaded Prole
Though I don't see this as a threat, I feel it's best to play it safe and drink as much good absinthe as possible -- just in case.
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 7 2008, 05:12 PM) *

If Hawking Radiation does not happen, then low-velocity black-holes created in the course of the experiment may well remain.

If they are neutrally charged, and if they are indeed created.

Proof by existence: if LHC experiments would create the sort of black holes that could engulf the earth, we'd have been fucked a long time ago -- cosmic radiation creates the same kind of collisions infrequently, but frequently enough for them (and much higher energy collisions to have happened *quite* a lot, because the universe is quite a violent place, much more than the LHC is; thos collisions simply did not occur just not while someone was watching with a bubble chamber nearby.

It's actually *less* probable the LHC creates strangelet than for some already existing accelerators (and they've tried to actually observe strangelets and failed to find them in those).

If I were you, I'd worry more about a 1 kilometre asteroid and less about micro-black-holes: theory says that hypothetically, both those kinds of objects could have fucked us in the past, but evidence suggests that asteroids have fucked "us" (or our predecessors) really badly (one impact probably vaporised the entire earth's oceans over 3-6m, and that's not counting the earlier impact that chopped off enough of the earth's outer regions to create the moon) but black holes haven't.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 7 2008, 08:26 PM) *
cosmic radiation creates the same kind of collisions infrequently, but frequently enough for them (and much higher energy collisions to have happened *quite* a lot, because the universe is quite a violent place, much more than the LHC is; thos collisions simply did not occur just not while someone was watching with a bubble chamber nearby.


My understanding was that the collisions caused in nature produce micro-black-holes that are high velocity, and it is their high velocity that means they pass through rather than hang about, whereas low velocity micro-black-holes may well be produced during this experiment, and these will not pass through, but will indeed stay in the Earth.

I readily admit that I have a relatively poor understanding of this subject, but an experiment where there is a risk (even if it is a small risk) that the world could be destroyed if an un-tested scientific theory proves to be false, does slightly worry me.
Doctor Love

QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 7 2008, 12:26 PM) *
If I were you, I'd worry more about a 1 kilometre asteroid and less about micro-black-holes: theory says that hypothetically, both those kinds of objects could have fucked us in the past, but evidence suggests that asteroids have fucked "us" (or our predecessors) really badly (one impact probably vaporised the entire earth's oceans over 3-6m, and that's not counting the earlier impact that chopped off enough of the earth's outer regions to create the moon) but black holes haven't.


Unless of course that just means we're due sleepy.gif
hobgoblin
QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 7 2008, 08:26 PM) *

If I were you, I'd worry more about a 1 kilometre asteroid and less about micro-black-holes


The danger from such an asteroid may well be greater, but we are not inviting an increased risk of such an event through experiments that may create one.
OCvertDe
QUOTE
Are we fucked or do we believe in Hawking Radiation?


I don't see how we can be any more or less fucked based on our beliefs in this instance.
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 7 2008, 08:46 PM) *

The danger from such an asteroid may well be greater, but we are not inviting an increased risk of such an event through experiments that may create one.


We aren't inviting cosmic radiation, but it's still there. We aren't increasing the risk by much (and because cosmic radiation has bombarded the earth for ages and we're still there, there isn't much risk in the first place).

But feel free to follow the loony with the cardboard sign saying "the end is nigh". I'll have a good laugh at your expense on the 11th of September. And given you're a Catholic, once more on judgement day, where I'll remind you once again that the end wasn't on the 10th of September 2008.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 7 2008, 09:03 PM) *

But feel free to follow the loony with the cardboard sign saying "the end is nigh".


Oh I'm not following him, just stopping and considering that he may actually have a point worth considering.

And your use of the example of MBHs produced by cosmic radiation is not entirely correct. MBHs produced by cosmic radiation have much higher velocity than that are likely to be produced in the CERN collider (where you have 2 particles of opposing speeds colliding, and not just 1 particle hitting a static target). High velocity MBHs pass on through, but a very low speed MBH would be a very different matter as it would be captured by the Earth.
Neptunati
sixela do you have a degree in everything or just bullshit? cuz you are always interjecting your lame 2 pesos into everything. i think you have mpd and a degree to go with each one, or are all you diamond hording bastards that smart? i think not. Also Who's the blond? I imagine your some fat hairy old fuck, who couldn't even pa a street walking whore to suck him off. Grab ur foil hat cuz daddy's home!
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 7 2008, 09:12 PM) *

QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 7 2008, 09:03 PM) *

But feel free to follow the loony with the cardboard sign saying "the end is nigh".


Oh I'm not following him, just stopping and considering that he may actually have a point worth considering.

And your use of the example of MBHs produced by cosmic radiation is not entirely correct. MBHs produced by cosmic radiation have much higher velocity than that are likely to be produced in the CERN collider (where you have 2 particles of opposing speeds colliding, and not just 1 particle hitting a static target).


If electrically charged MBHs would occur, cosmic radiation ones would've been stopped by the earth, too. But it's pointless to debate the point too much -- the LHC is going online, so we'll know in a couple of days wink.gif.

You're also overestimating what a MBH can achieve (in time scales small enough for the planet to avoid being scorched by the sun) -- at small scales, gravity *really* is very weak compared all the other forces, and a MBH attracts matter just as much as its puny mass suggests, and it's only at very, very, very small scale that it's any different from the more mundane lumps of matter that attract you towards the centre of the earth and prevent you from flying unassisted.

Some people who've read the CERN article hoping (!) for MBH creation in the LHC have obviously missed the p.s.:

QUOTE
Postscript
It should be stated, in conclusion, that these black holes are not dangerous and do not threaten to swallow up our already much-abused planet. The theoretical arguments and the obvious harmlessness of any black holes that, according to these models, would have to be formed from the interaction of cosmic rays with celestial bodies, mean that we can regard them with perfect equanimity.
sixela
QUOTE(Neptunati @ Sep 7 2008, 09:19 PM) *

sixela do you have a degree in everything

Just engineering and computer science (with a past a as a scientific researcher before compulsory military service and mammon lured me away from university). My current employment does mean looking at physics program codes (usually in crufty Fortran) whose algorithms users have to explain to me (painstakingly). A fine way to learn quite a bit about physics and why it's really a pain to predict low-altitude clouds well in weather models.

QUOTE

cuz you are always interjecting your lame 2 pesos into everything.

Oh we can't all contribute posts reaching the quality of your post. Which is, of course, perfectly on topic, unlike mine, because really, all the threads are about me, me, me.

QUOTE

I imagine your some fat hairy old fuck,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you, because my hairline has receded quite a bit.

QUOTE

who couldn't even pa a street walking whore to suck him off

If you had PTFA'd and had been here for long enough, you would have seen a photo of my wife, but let's not get a few facts get in the way of an insult crafted by an obviously superior intellect.

I'll bow out gracefully, now that every reader of this thread has seen what an idiot I am compared to you.

QUOTE

Also Who's the blond?

Number six. If you had PTFA'd you'd have known all about my avatar pictures past and present, but of course, you need not -- you know everything that you should without having to PTFA, obviously.
Zenzero
Sixer, I'm astound by the fact you were even able to decipher Neptunati's reply, despite all spelling and grammar mistakes.

And let's be honest here, you're still looking quite attractive for a fuck of your age.
Zenzero
Let's set a date for an appointment in Pontarlier cause I'm sure we, and the rest of our civilization, will last way beyond the 2008 Absinthiades.

By the way, I do not believe in all this modern "end of the world, by the end of the week" (or on Wednesday) nonsense theories, the most reliable and trustworthy predictions were made long ago by the legendary Nostradamus, with his trousers green and tight. He looked alright…
Zenzero
With his trousers green and tight (In English)
dakini_painter
Just to ease everyone's mind, the LHC will start sending hadrons in only one direction in a few days. Collisions of the beams won't happen until October sometime.

Here's a link to a ScienceNews report:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/…80826121607.htm

You can watch online at 09:00 CEST.
http://webcast.cern.ch/

Also:
http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/lhc-firs…am/Welcome.html
Zenzero
Okay, that's an enormous relief and finally something that'll at least, ease my mind until the next update.



OCvertDe
Or until we're all sucked in.


D'oh!
scuto
Would an absinthe made by CERN make me turn peridot and louche me when I shower?

Regardless, I'm looking forward to hearing about which, if any, particles emerge in a month's time.
Doctor Love

They should collide particles of chop.gif and make the universe trip ballz.
scuto
yes.gif w00t1.gif

If they get the chop.gif up to the speed of light, it will bring us all back to a never-ending 90s when fauxsinth was the king of spirits™.



Never-before-seen photos of the heart of the LHC:


Legler-Pernod-mini.gif
Provenance
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 7 2008, 08:12 AM) *
If Hawking Radiation does not happen, then low-velocity black-holes created in the course of the experiment may well remain.

Would the Nobel committee hold that against him?
Bruno Rygseck
QUOTE(scuto @ Sep 8 2008, 05:35 AM) *

Would an absinthe made by CERN make me turn peridot and louche me when I shower?

Didn't Albert Einstein experiment with sugar solutions in 1905 using a bathtub? Did he ever add any absinthe to it?
sixela
QUOTE(dakini_painter @ Sep 8 2008, 01:23 AM) *

Just to ease everyone's mind, the LHC will start sending hadrons in only one direction in a few days. Collisions of the beams won't happen until October sometime.


Another reason to party like there's no tomorrow in Pontarlier.

Someone at the CERN drinks too much absinthe wink.gif.

sixela
QUOTE(Zenzero @ Sep 8 2008, 12:23 AM) *

Sixer, I'm astound by the fact you were even able to decipher Neptunati's reply, despite all spelling and grammar mistakes.

If you can read 20 year old Fortran code written by a physicist and patched up by others over the years, you can read anything.

Zenzero
QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 9 2008, 12:02 AM) *

If you can read 20 year old Fortran code written by a physicist and patched up by others over the years, you can read anything.
Does that mean you won't mind me, making awful and stupid grammar and spelling mistakes and stuff anymore, even if I would reply in erroneous Fortran code or any other ancient language??

Maybe you should put back a previous signature and heraldic motto: "Vorsprung durch pedanterie". Because, even someone like me, was able to understand the meaning of it, after a while.
sixela
QUOTE(Zenzero @ Sep 9 2008, 12:24 AM) *

even if I would reply in erroneous Fortran code or any other ancient language??


I get paid for reading those codes. I spend my time here out of my own free will.

Does that answer your question?
Zenzero
Well… Let me put it this way, apparently I'm not yet skilled enough to decipher Fortran code.

Does that, again, answer your question?
speedle
No, I don't think it does.

In any case, I recall seeing just the other day a new theory about black holes, which revolved (that revolved?) around a finite maximum speed they could achieve consuming surrounding matter. The long and short apparently is that we've got plenty of time. Unless you're standing next to the bloody thing, I suppose.
Provenance
I haven't seen Fortran code since I used punch cards. On occasion, I miss the cards but not the code.
sixela
QUOTE(Zenzero @ Sep 9 2008, 12:37 AM) *

Well… Let me put it this way, apparently I'm not yet skilled enough to decipher Fortran code.

The point is that I have to decipher badly written language (in one form). That doesn't mean I like it or think that the authors had great style when they wrote it.

In one ocean model code that came through my hands, I found *eight* bugs caused by the sloppy writing, which meant that it was only running on the production machine out of sheer luck -- you couldn't run it on less processors or more or port it to another architecture, because the program would crash.

"There are no bugs in the program because it has been running for five years" is just as false an assertion as "My writing style is OK because you managed to decipher my message".

QUOTE

Does that, again, answer your question?

You're confused. You were the one with a question.
sixela
Why stop at MBHs? It's Satan's StarGate, no less (because obviously, the only thing preventing evil aliens from returning to earth from the planet Niburu is the Van Allen belt).

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0&…feature=related
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 7 2008, 09:12 PM) *

[And your use of the example of MBHs produced by cosmic radiation is not entirely correct.

Not entirely complete.

This article is more complete.

QUOTE

MBHs produced by cosmic radiation have much higher velocity than that are likely to be produced in the CERN collider (where you have 2 particles of opposing speeds colliding, and not just 1 particle hitting a static target). High velocity MBHs pass on through, but a very low speed MBH would be a very different matter as it would be captured by the Earth.

Dangerous MBHs can't be charged, or they would have been observed through cosmic radiation creation and capture by the earth. Neutral ones are highly unlikely because the physical models that allow them to become neutral (usually at energies far beyond those of the LHC, but you never know) break down in the absence of Hawking radiation.

Nevertheless, *suppose* that, by magic, Hawking radiation no longer breaks them down once they're neutral.

It's possible to show that if they would be harmful (i.e., in our earth, grow fast enough to become an issue before the red giant spawned from the sun roasts the earth), cosmic radiation alone would make these ubiquitous enough for white dwarf stars and neutron stars¹ to be very rare - yet we see them in spades.

In other words: were the theories that make it possible for the LHC to produce any thing dangerous true, we would only see neutron stars and white dwarfs in this universe exceptionally rarely, yet these seem to be the end stages of all non-supermassive stars (and this galaxy, as a result, is peppered with them). Which makes such a hypothesis directly contradicted by observation.

--
¹which would be able to capture these high speed MBHs produced by cosmic radiation, because of their very high density, and are already very close to collapsing on their own
sixela
QUOTE(OCvertDe @ Sep 8 2008, 02:26 AM) *

Or until we're all sucked in.

Should Hawking radiation not exist: don't hold your breath. Otherwise, I would recommend you to stay clear of all your bottles of absinthe and to send them to me -- their mass is going to remain much larger for the rest of your file than that of any MBHs created in 2008, and they're very likely much closer, so they're much more likely to suck you in.

Stay clear of anything with mass, and certainly don't touch it.

Zenzero
QUOTE(sixela @ Sep 9 2008, 11:30 AM) *

You're confused. You were the one with a question.


As always.


PS.

Did you check your PM inbox lately?
Kirk
QUOTE
returning to earth from the planet Niburu).

Where do these people come from? It must be a different dimension.
" Scientists the world over, well Masons, the same thing"
I think those little scooters the masons ride have something to do with it, we should ban the scooters.
sixela
QUOTE(Kirk @ Sep 9 2008, 01:56 PM) *

we should ban the scooters.

Definitely. Especially the ones carrying pizzas, because those pizzas are obviously flying saucers that have emanated from mini black holes and are carrying earth-invading (muslim) mini-aliens.
Donnie Darko
I find it ironic that anyone who is used to taking things on "faith" would suddenly be deeply concerned about these physics experiments. Whassa matta? The evidence isn't good enough for you?

Sixela speaks the truth, as confirmed by many sources, but it's summed up succinctly here:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortshar…ptember-10.html
thegreenimp
QUOTE
we should ban the scooters.


Their little cars look like fun.
Click to view attachment
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Sep 9 2008, 02:50 PM) *

I find it ironic that anyone who is used to taking things on "faith" would suddenly be deeply concerned about these physics experiments. Whassa matta? The evidence isn't good enough for you?


But there is no proper evidence for the existence of Hawking radiation. It's just an untested theory, there is no real evidence for it. Some of us do take certain religious matters on faith, but that doesn't mean we buy into anything (religious or otherwise) just because someone says "have faith".

What is stranger is that we have atheists who, on the one hand, ridicule the notion of faith and dismiss it as nonsense, but on the other hand, they are quite happy to have faith in an unproven theory like Hawking radiation because it suits their secular scientific agenda. That really is ironic don't you think?

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Sep 9 2008, 02:50 PM) *
Sixela speaks the truth, as confirmed by many sources,
So Hawking radiation is the 'Truth' is it? Despite the fact that it an unproven theory. I guess that makes Stephen Hawking a god then.

Ok, so the world will probably not end as a result of the CERN experiment, but to say there is no risk is complete crap. By saying there is no risk, is in effect saying that Hawking radiation is an undeniable truth, when, since it is only an untested theory, that is clearly not the case. It amazes me that so many atheists who insist on 'evidence' for everything and ridicule the notion of faith, are so keen to have unquestioning faith in an untested theory, so much so that they insist the planet will be protected because of this theory.

I never took you as being a man of faith Donnie, but I guess I was wrong. You just believe in a different god(s) than me.
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 9 2008, 07:15 PM) *
So Hawking radiation is the 'Truth' is it?


PTFA. Even if you would be able to craft a theory that generates micro black holes that are neutral without Hawking radiation destroying them, they wouldn't be dangerous *or* we wouldn't see white dwarfs and neutron stars (at least not in galaxies).


QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 9 2008, 07:15 PM) *

By saying there is no risk, is in effect saying that Hawking radiation is an undeniable truth,


As said above: even if there were none (and neutral black holes could still be made), there still would be no risk.

If you ask questions in a thread, you'd better actually try to read the answers if you're after answers.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Sep 9 2008, 02:15 PM) *

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Sep 9 2008, 02:50 PM) *

I find it ironic that anyone who is used to taking things on "faith" would suddenly be deeply concerned about these physics experiments. Whassa matta? The evidence isn't good enough for you?


But there is no proper evidence for the existence of Hawking radiation.


Since you didn't read the link, let me repost it here for you so you can not read it here. One doesn't have to believe in Hawking radiation in order to have confidence that the LHC will not create mini-black holes that eat the earth:
QUOTE
No, for me, there is a much more compelling argument why the LHC won't destroy the world. And it doesn't rely on theoretical flights of fancy. Whatever the LHC churns up out of all the collision energy, we've been there before. Cosmic rays from outer space are raining down on us all the time and they can reach truly staggering energies. You can get the same collision energy as the LHC from a 108-GeV cosmic ray slamming into the atmosphere. And there are plenty of cosmic rays with such energies.

Cosmic ray experiments all over the world - experiments that have nothing to do with the CERN laboratory where the LHC is based - have found that about 10-14 rays with energy greater than the LHC strike each square centimetre of Earth every second. That might not sound like much. But over the Earth’s 4.5 billion year lifetime, that makes 1022 collisions or 100,000 times more than the LHC will ever produce. Obviously, in that time no mini black holes, vacuum bubbles, killer strangelets or any other weird effects have eaten the planet.

Not convinced? Scale the cosmic ray sums up to cover the 100 billion stars in the Milky Way and the 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe and you find that nature has already made the equivalent of 1031 LHCs. Or if you like, 10 trillion LHCs are running every second. And we're still here.


QUOTE
I never took you as being a man of faith Donnie, but I guess I was wrong. You just believe in a different god(s) than me.


Science is informed worship of nature. I believe deeply in the quest to unravel what makes "nature" function as it is what has created all of us and all that surrounds us. So yes, you can call that God if you want, though it would be quite a stretch to compare that very physical reality to the metaphysical human-centric nonsense described by most religion.
hobgoblin
The link talks about cosmic radiation, but what it fails to point out is that in the CERN experiment the proton streams will be hitting each other head on at opposing speeds. This could produce low-velocity MBHs, as opposed to cosmic radiation which would not result in MBHs of such low velocity. High velocity MBhs would pass through the Earth, whereas low velocity MBHs would be trapped. The implication in the link that since cosmic rays have been battering us and haven't done us any harm therefore the CERN experiment must be safe, is misleading, since the proton streams will be hitting each other directly head on at exactly the same high velocity. Low velocity MBHs that may be produced will be trapped, unlike those that could possibly result from cosmic radiation. If black holes hanging around inside the Earth are perfectly safe as they are, then no worries, but if they could present a risk then do we simply believe in the untested theory of Hawkings radiation and have faith that these black holes will simply evaporate.

The scientists think we are safe, based on untested theories, and we probably are safe. However our safety is not assured, and being probably safe when it comes to something like the existence of the Earth does at least warrant some concern.
Donnie Darko
Well what are you posting here for? Get your ass on a plane and go to CERN and tell these scientists what you have figured out and to be extra careful, lest they kill us all!
Provenance
Because he already posted the same item over here months ago.
hobgoblin
Very droll Donnie. But there's be no point in telling them something they already know. "Trust us, we're scientists", is only marginally more reassuring then, "Trust us, we're politicians".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.