Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World

mercurial

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
2,694
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
Still worried that the Large Hadron Collider will create a black hole that will destroy the Earth when it's finally switched on this summer?

Um, well, you may have a point.

Three physicists have reexamined the math surrounding the creation of microscopic black holes in the Switzerland-based LHC, the world's largest particle collider, and determined that they won't simply evaporate in a millisecond as had previously been predicted.

Rather, Roberto Casadio of the University of Bologna in Italy and Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms of the University of Alabama say mini black holes could exist for much longer — perhaps even more than a second, a relative eternity in particle colliders, where most objects decay much faster.

Under such long-lived conditions, it becomes a race between how fast a black hole can decay — and how fast it can gobble up matter to grow bigger and prevent itself from decaying.
Click to expand...

Full article
 
Hey Pooky! Some more lovely news! :D

If the worst comes to pass, and there's now a slightly greater chance that it might, at least it might explain why we've never heard from extraterrestrial civilizations: Maybe they built Large Hadron Colliders of their own.
Click to expand...

Hehehehehe :D:D:D:D
 
Think I would rather go with the 100's of scientists that worked on the "maths" behind the LHC than 3 that didn't :)

But I still think it would be nice to having the blackholes open for less than a second but more than was origenally though.... more data :D
 
Devill said:
Think I would rather go with the 100's of scientists that worked on the "maths" behind the LHC than 3 that didn't :)

But I still think it would be nice to having the blackholes open for less than a second but more than was origenally though.... more data :D
Click to expand...

That's what I can't understand. Surely they have been doing these calculations for ages now, so why all of a sudden do they have different answers to their calculations?
 
The same thing happened with the first nuclear bomb.

At first the maths show that the nuclear bomb will set fire to the entire atmosphere - so they redid the maths.

The rest is history.
 
mercurial said:
That's what I can't understand. Surely they have been doing these calculations for ages now, so why all of a sudden do they have different answers to their calculations?
Click to expand...

Well it might be that some take different principles into account...

The_Librarian said:
The same thing happened with the first nuclear bomb.

At first the maths show that the nuclear bomb will set fire to the entire atmosphere - so they redid the maths.

The rest is history.
Click to expand...

Yeah but was it not more or less the same team that re-did the calculations?
 
porn$tar said:
He told you this over afternoon tea?
Click to expand...

and pink wafer biscuits? :D

Like I've said previously, if it did create a black-hole big enough to destroy the earth, I don't think it would really matter. The end of the earth would be virtually instantaneous.

B
 
The_Librarian said:
The same thing happened with the first nuclear bomb.

At first the maths show that the nuclear bomb will set fire to the entire atmosphere - so they redid the maths.

The rest is history.
Click to expand...

Hmm yes but here the maths first showed that it will work fine and then later,by these three people, showed that it might not be fine after all.

Only thing we can really do is hope that we were right the first time.
 
Last edited:
The_Librarian said:
The same thing happened with the first nuclear bomb.

At first the maths show that the nuclear bomb will set fire to the entire atmosphere - so they redid the maths.

The rest is history.
Click to expand...

I think black holes are just a wee bit different to nukes... Not really sure how to explain my statement:confused:
 
The problem is where I see something like "three scientists" I have difficulty believing that its scientific consensus with only "three scientists". Perhaps 3000 and I can take this more seriously.

The problem with the media and reporting on science is they try a "balanced" approach. This was very evident in the creationism lie thats doing its rounds.

They present the story as though each side has equal merit and the public is easily confused by this.
 
Bismuth said:
and pink wafer biscuits? :D

Like I've said previously, if it did create a black-hole big enough to destroy the earth, I don't think it would really matter. The end of the earth would be virtually instantaneous.

B
Click to expand...

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right ...

here I am ... stuck in the middle with you :p


As for the instantaneous part, yes it would be ... to anyone observing it from an external view. The rest of us will suffer severely from time dilation & will almost carry on as per usual...
 
They should create mini black holes in the LHC, and sell these off to rubbish dumps and so on - the rubbish problem will soon be solved :D
 
w1z4rd said:
The problem is where I see something like "three scientists" I have difficulty believing that its scientific consensus with only "three scientists". Perhaps 3000 and I can take this more seriously.

The problem with the media and reporting on science is they try a "balanced" approach. This was very evident in the creationism lie thats doing its rounds.

They present the story as though each side has equal merit and the public is easily confused by this.
Click to expand...

Yeah they might also be right (not likely).

Remember Einstein was also just "one" when he wrote some nice theories.

And again the same Einstein was on the wrong side when it came to most of quantum physics. Him being "the smartest" and also having lots of support.

But yes I agree that "those 3" should have their work reviewed by a panel and also published if indeed it is true :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X