Man-made Black Hole that could destroy the world

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 31 Dec 2006 20:49

smokefree wrote:I don't like messing with God's territory. Im all for science especially physics. But I think there are certain things that shouldn't be messed with, including the ABomb. I dont think it should even exist. Anyway, this may not end the earth but at the rate were going how long until we invent something that does?
... Greenhouse gases? Nuclear bombs... only takes twenty to put enough debris in the sky to end life... We've created plenty of things that can end the world and/or the lives on this planet.
Image
Image

User avatar
cammel
BSOS Beast
Posts: 438
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 21:16
Location: SB, California
Contact:

Post by cammel » 21 Jan 2007 01:35

Caleb wrote: To be honest, it was more likely that this weapon would destroy the entire planet then just an entire city. But guess what, they fired it anyway and we're all still here. No worries :D
I want to be a theoretical physicist :D so i've read a bunch of stuff about this black hole theory at CERNs LHC, but fist i just want to say that it definitely wasnt more likely that the first bomb would destroy the planet. No one thought it would destroy the planet itself but a few of the scientists in the Manhattan Project thought that there was a slight possibility that the detination might cause atmospheric ignition which is when the nitrogen gas that makes up most of the atmosphere starts fusing. That wouldn't be very good for anything that liked living but the planet would still be intact. But it was just a few scientists who thought that it was a remote possibility.

Now about the black holes, from what ive read there really doesnt seem to be any danger at all. Calling them black holes make people think of the super massive singularities out in space that suck in stars and planets but they really arent like that at all. A black hole's force comes from the mass that is centered at its singularity. The black holes that will be made at CERN will probably have masses on the order of the mass of proton or electron. It will also be ridiculously small, smaller than an atomic nucleus so theres a very small chance that anything will come close enough to become gravitationally atracted to it. This type of black hole has the same chance of sucking up the planet as any proton does... they have simillar masses.

The black holes wont stay around long either because in quantum field theory the heisenberg uncertainty principle can be applied to vacuums. It was beleived that vacuums were at a zero-point state without any energy, but infact there are zero-point fluctuations where the energy fluctuates up and down around the zero-point state. These fluctuations take the form of virtual partical pairs that pop in and out of existance, being created one instant and coming together and anihilating each other the next. When pairs like this emerge next to the event horizon of a black hole one of the pair can fall in while the other escapes as radiation from a black hole. this radiation reduces the mass of the black hole. the smaller and hotter the black hole is the more likely it is that this radiation will cause the whole thing to evaporate. The black holes at CERN will be very small and very hot.

Also the solar system would be fine if earth became a black hole. The black hole would just have the mass of the earth so everything in the solar system would act the same as it did before... the moon would even keep orbiting the black hole in the same way it did the earth.
Gray Chadwick

User avatar
Pyroman924
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 944
Joined: 03 Nov 2006 12:26
Location: Raleigh, NC

Post by Pyroman924 » 21 Jan 2007 12:00

After reading through this entire topic... my head exploded. :x

At the rate we are going though, we'll probably kill ourselves off through pollution or whatnot before we make our planet collapse in on itself... :?
Alan Underhill

http://www.myspace.com/pyroman924

"The more you drop, the better you get." -Ben Rinowski

User avatar
NotHisRealName
Post Master General
Posts: 2527
Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Post by NotHisRealName » 31 Jan 2007 16:17

It's my understanding that the ability to create black holes at will is the beginning of wormhole technology! I can't remember who wrote about it - probably Asmov or Hawking but, theoretically one could create a wormhole between black holes.
Comment in the BCS blog if you feel the need to.

Gareth Williams

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 03 May 2007 05:10

Switch Kicker wrote:...Ugh...

Read "The Last 3 Minutes." It's very very informative about all the theories behind blackholes.

Blackholes are not, "holes." They are planets, with so much mass that their gravitation pull exceeds the power of light. Meaning light cannot escape from it, meaning that we cannot see them, thus the reason they are called, BLACKholes. And the reason mass seems to be sucked "into" blackholes, is because mass as we see it, is not as big as we see it.

There is a SHIT-TON of space between atoms. If you were to remove all the empty space in an atom, you could fit the entire Rocky Mountains in the US, a glass jar.

Blackholes have the power to push atoms so close that the space is pushed aside, and the atoms get closer and closer. That's why they're called holes, because it LOOKS as if things are being sucked into it... Because, you see two stars get sucked into a hole, and the hole stays the same size...

Eitherway, in order for a blackhole to form, you need extraoridinary amounts of energy and/or extraordinary amounts of mass. Energy being neutrons and electrons, mass being the nucleus.

You can create a black hole that only has one atom, as long as you have enough energy to back it up. If you have an atom with an atomic number of 8,902,134,792,103,812,489,210,381,247,920,381,298x^10 Which is a huge fucking number... then that one atom, is going to have enough energy, to create enough gravity to form a blackhole... And it would be so small, you can't even see it. We don't have enough electrons and protons and neutrons in the Milky Way GALAXY, to amount to THAT number. Note that that number is multiplied by the power of 10... that's huge. (Also note,that the amount of energy I talked about, would be applying to a single atom, which is why we don't have enough in the galaxy to form a black hole, even though there is already several black holes in our galaxy... Read the last three minutes, you'll understand.)

However, you can make a blackhole out of incredible mass of plain old hydrogen if you like. The pressure would eventually cause the hydrogen to form into darkmatter (Weighs about 12,000x^10 tons per tbsp.), but you can do it.

Either way, by these theories (Which are most popular and make most sense out of all the theories.), it's technically, impossible to create a blackhole with the very fucking small amount of resources we have here on Earth. We don't have enough energy, or enough mass, even when distributed perfectly, to create a black hole. It won't happen, it's technically, impossible. Now, if our sun sucked in all our planets, asteroids, and such, and then blew up, it MIGHT cause a black hole to form, but our sun is rather small, so it would probably just reform itself as a white dwarf star.

Either way, I have no confidence in the idea that man will ever create anything more than minor nuclear devices. We will eventually reach a point, where in order to make a bigger boom, we will need a STABLE, higher atomic atom, and in order to create that, you needs EXTREME amounts of pressure, such as that of the core of a planet or something. The sun's core, is solid, because teh pressure on the outside won't let it become liquid. That's why the Earth's core, is liquid ont eh outside, but then has a solid core, becuase the pressure makes it stay in that form. We will reach a point where we can't go any farther. And we most certainly will never be able to create a black hole.

Peace,
Fred.
Who needs facts now, asshole. By the way, blackholes aren't planets, they were stars.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 03 May 2007 05:14

the coolest thing is that if you try and prove me wrong you'll have to reference some facts that you loath oh so much.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 03 May 2007 08:33

Blue_turnip wrote:the coolest thing is that if you try and prove me wrong you'll have to reference some facts that you loath oh so much.
Already did, fucking dumbass. "The Last Three Minutes." Go read. And blackholes are PLANETS, ignorant ass monkey. They're too dense to be anything except a solid. The pressure is so great that it forces liquids, gases, and plasma into a solid.

Who the fuck are you? Jeremy's sidekick? Go kill yourself.
Image
Image

User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 03 May 2007 08:40

They're CREATED from stars, ususally. But they are not stars.
Image
Image

User avatar
Langstaff
Multidex Master
Posts: 287
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 18:02
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Langstaff » 03 May 2007 17:01

I hope that the world gets sucked into a pinhole so that I don't have to see a bunch of people bitching at eachother every time I click a link in "Discussion".
Besides, that's a sweet way to end our species! :P
Andrew Langstaff

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 03 May 2007 18:02

Surely part of the definition of a planet is an object that orbits around a star. I don't see how you can define a black hole as a planet.

User avatar
cammel
BSOS Beast
Posts: 438
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 21:16
Location: SB, California
Contact:

Post by cammel » 03 May 2007 20:52

Alright,

So black holes come from stars. If a star isn't massive enough when it dies it will form a white dwarf or something like that which is just like a gigantic atomic nucleus. Something like a cubic cm of it is as massive as a cubic km of granite.

If the star is big enough when it dies it will form a black hole. To tired to explain exactly how that works.

The center of black holes are singularities. They are mathematical points. One dimensional. So it has infinite density. I wouldn't really define it as a planet either. I guess it could orbit a star. Star would probably orbit it though.
Gray Chadwick

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 03 May 2007 21:59

Blue_turnip wrote: Who needs facts now, asshole. By the way, blackholes aren't planets, they were stars.
Yeah, dumbass. they "WERE" stars.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 04 May 2007 07:46

Blue_turnip wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote: Who needs facts now, asshole. By the way, blackholes aren't planets, they were stars.
Yeah, dumbass. they "WERE" stars.
Wow. You're so fuckin' illiterate it's sickening. You can't argue about what something IS by stating what it USED to be.
Image
Image

User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 04 May 2007 07:48

Jeremy wrote:Surely part of the definition of a planet is an object that orbits around a star. I don't see how you can define a black hole as a planet.
Surely, Jeremy has a quote from a dictionary to back that up too. You know, even though you can look in any recent astronomy book and see that there are lone, PLANETS, that are just floating in between solar systems.
Image
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 04 May 2007 09:26

lol. Source?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
A planet, as defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion in its core, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.[1][2]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/planet
1. Astronomy.
a. Also called major planet. any of the nine large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the order of their proximity to the sun.
b. a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun.
c. (formerly) a celestial body moving in the sky, as distinguished from a fixed star, applied also to the sun and moon.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=planet
S: (n) planet (any celestial body (other than comets or satellites) that revolves around a star)
http://www.astro.uio.no/ita/TNP/nineplanets/help.html#P
The recently adopted IAU resolution states that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

1. A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/p ... 14/14.html
Planet: A major object which orbits around a star.
http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids ... ssary.html
planet - a heavenly body other than a comet, asteroid, or satellite that travels in orbit around the Sun; also such a body orbiting another star
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... sary.shtml
planet — An object orbiting the Sun and visible by reflected sunlight. There is no official lower limit to the size of a planet, but the name has not been applied to small objects such as comets or asteroids.
http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-surv ... lterm.html
Planet: A natural satellite of the sun or another stellar system.
It's funny how every single definition of the word "planet" from a huge range of sources agrees that an object must be orbiting a star or stellar object to be called a planet. There are no planets floating between solar systems. If such objects existed, they would not fit the definition of a planet. You clearly just made up your last post, you had no evidence to base it on, you just lied. I think it's time you gave up pretending you know about anything, and started learning instead.

User avatar
Switch Kicker
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota

Post by Switch Kicker » 04 May 2007 10:33

Jeremy wrote:lol. Source?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
A planet, as defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion in its core, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.[1][2]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/planet
1. Astronomy.
a. Also called major planet. any of the nine large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the order of their proximity to the sun.
b. a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun.
c. (formerly) a celestial body moving in the sky, as distinguished from a fixed star, applied also to the sun and moon.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=planet
S: (n) planet (any celestial body (other than comets or satellites) that revolves around a star)
http://www.astro.uio.no/ita/TNP/nineplanets/help.html#P
The recently adopted IAU resolution states that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

1. A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/p ... 14/14.html
Planet: A major object which orbits around a star.
http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids ... ssary.html
planet - a heavenly body other than a comet, asteroid, or satellite that travels in orbit around the Sun; also such a body orbiting another star
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... sary.shtml
planet — An object orbiting the Sun and visible by reflected sunlight. There is no official lower limit to the size of a planet, but the name has not been applied to small objects such as comets or asteroids.
http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-surv ... lterm.html
Planet: A natural satellite of the sun or another stellar system.
It's funny how every single definition of the word "planet" from a huge range of sources agrees that an object must be orbiting a star or stellar object to be called a planet. There are no planets floating between solar systems. If such objects existed, they would not fit the definition of a planet. You clearly just made up your last post, you had no evidence to base it on, you just lied. I think it's time you gave up pretending you know about anything, and started learning instead.
You are an ignorant bitch, you know that? I didn't lie. I stated that you can go look in a vast variety of modern astronomy books, and there you can quote lines stating that planets do exist between solar systems.

You have way too much fuckin' time on your hands. Don't you have something better to do with your time than spend 20 minutes looking up 20 sources for the same word just to prove someone on the internet that they're wrong. When in fact, there was nothing to be proven in the first place. Go fuckin' read a book, and quit mulling over the internet you stupid nerd. I suspect you are quite pale.

I gave you my source, go look at it, and quit being an ignorant bitch.
Image
Image

mizua_r
Hack Fiend
Posts: 44
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 10:07
Location: a village in the middle of nowhere

Post by mizua_r » 04 May 2007 12:09

:roll: :roll: First of all, let me just say that everyone bitching is getting REALLY old. But just for the sake of the arguement, let's consider a moment. A black hole is created when ANY body of mass is put under pressure great enough to cause implosion. Solid or liquid does not matter, because the plasma in a star would be condenced to density as great as that of a planet anyway. I think the chances of a stable black hole are infintesimal, but then, that's what science is about. Taking chances for the sake of knowledge.
Becca

mizua_r
Hack Fiend
Posts: 44
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 10:07
Location: a village in the middle of nowhere

Post by mizua_r » 04 May 2007 12:11

Just for clarity; a star does not normally become a black hole; it usually forms a supernova, however under extremely special, unlikely circumstances, it can. Theoretically.
Becca

User avatar
Texta
Shredaholic
Posts: 157
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 18:38
Location: in my couch fort

Post by Texta » 04 May 2007 15:11

Switch Kicker wrote:
Jeremy wrote:lol. Source?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
A planet, as defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion in its core, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.[1][2]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/planet
1. Astronomy.
a. Also called major planet. any of the nine large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the order of their proximity to the sun.
b. a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun.
c. (formerly) a celestial body moving in the sky, as distinguished from a fixed star, applied also to the sun and moon.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=planet
S: (n) planet (any celestial body (other than comets or satellites) that revolves around a star)
http://www.astro.uio.no/ita/TNP/nineplanets/help.html#P
The recently adopted IAU resolution states that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

1. A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/p ... 14/14.html
Planet: A major object which orbits around a star.
http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids ... ssary.html
planet - a heavenly body other than a comet, asteroid, or satellite that travels in orbit around the Sun; also such a body orbiting another star
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... sary.shtml
planet — An object orbiting the Sun and visible by reflected sunlight. There is no official lower limit to the size of a planet, but the name has not been applied to small objects such as comets or asteroids.
http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-surv ... lterm.html
Planet: A natural satellite of the sun or another stellar system.
It's funny how every single definition of the word "planet" from a huge range of sources agrees that an object must be orbiting a star or stellar object to be called a planet. There are no planets floating between solar systems. If such objects existed, they would not fit the definition of a planet. You clearly just made up your last post, you had no evidence to base it on, you just lied. I think it's time you gave up pretending you know about anything, and started learning instead.
You are an ignorant bitch, you know that? I didn't lie. I stated that you can go look in a vast variety of modern astronomy books, and there you can quote lines stating that planets do exist between solar systems.

You have way too much fuckin' time on your hands. Don't you have something better to do with your time than spend 20 minutes looking up 20 sources for the same word just to prove someone on the internet that they're wrong. When in fact, there was nothing to be proven in the first place. Go fuckin' read a book, and quit mulling over the internet you stupid nerd. I suspect you are quite pale.

I gave you my source, go look at it, and quit being an ignorant bitch.
Are you for serious? In my studies of Astronomy at university we defined a planet as orbiting a star (though the definition is more explicit than just that as Pluto should know...) and my astronomy text books certainly define it that way. Now I while I know my university has one of the best astronomy and astrophysics departments in the southern hemisphere, I'd be interested to see what actual astronomy textbooks have told you that a planet doesn't need to orbit a star? "The Science of Star Trek"? The only book you've mentioned "...the last three minutes" isn't a book I would expect any university astronomy course to use. But maybe you go to one of those new age universities where you get to smoke dope all day.

Seath
Craptacular Spatula
Posts: 2126
Joined: 29 Sep 2003 12:16
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canadia
Contact:

Post by Seath » 04 May 2007 15:16

[quote="smokefree"]I don't like messing with God's territory.quote]

heh remember when geocentrism was God's territory?
Image
The Goggles do nothing.

Do you like Mazes?!
Read my blog!

Post Reply