Man-made Black Hole that could destroy the world

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 23 Oct 2006 21:04

Can a particle collider be taken too far? That question is being raised about the next-generation Large Hadron Collider (LHC), shown in the photo here. The huge particle pulverizer and accelerator is located at the
CERN particle physics laboratory, near Geneva, Switzerland. It's due to open for business late next year and slated to simulate the Big Bang.

The LHC is being constructed in a massive underground tunnel. The tunnel's core contains two pipes, each containing a proton beam. The two beams will travel in opposite directions around the tunnel and create massive, as-yet-unseen amounts of energy when they collide, which will be measured and analyzed by scores of computers and physics equipment.

The Lifeboat Foundation, which serves as a watchdog for next-generation particle accelerators, has posted a set of concerns about LHC experiments. In particular, the foundation notes this citation from CERN's Web site: "According to some theoretical models, tiny black holes could be produced in collisions at the LHC. They would then very quickly decay into what is known as Hawking radiation (the tinier the black hole, the faster it evaporates) which would be detected by experiments." The primary concern of Lifeboat is that the black holes may never decay, creating unstable, possibly disastrous physical consequences.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a particle accelerator and collider located at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland (46Â°14â€²00â€³N, 6Â°03â€²00â€³E). Currently under construction, the LHC is scheduled to start operation in November 2007, when it will become the world's largest and highest energy particle accelerator. The LHC is being funded and built in collaboration with over two thousand physicists from 34 countries, universities and laboratories.

The collider is contained in a 27 km circumference tunnel located underground at a depth ranging from 50 to 150 metres [1]. The tunnel was formerly used to house the LEP, an electron-positron collider. The 3 metre diameter, concrete-lined tunnel actually crosses the border between Switzerland and France at four points, although the majority of its length is inside France. The collider itself is located underground, with many surface buildings holding ancillary equipment such as compressors, ventilation equipment, control electronics and refrigeration plants.

---------------------------------

As with RHIC, people both inside and outside of the physics community have voiced concern that the LHC might trigger one of several theoretical disasters capable of destroying the Earth or even the entire universe. These include:

* Creation of a stable black hole
* Creation of strange matter that is more stable than ordinary matter
* Creation of magnetic monopoles that could catalyze proton decay
* Triggering a transition into a different quantum mechanical vacuum (see False vacuum)

CERN performed a study to investigate whether such dangerous events as micro black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles could occur. The report concluded, "We find no basis for any conceivable threat." For instance, it is not possible to produce microscopic black holes unless certain untested theories are correct. Even if they are produced, they are expected to evaporate almost immediately via Hawking radiation and thus to be harmless. Perhaps the strongest argument for the safety of colliders such as the LHC comes from the simple fact that cosmic rays of much higher energies than the LHC can produce have been bombarding the Earth, Moon and other objects in the solar system for billions of years with no such effects.

However, some people remain concerned about the safety of the LHC. As with any new and untested experiment, it is not possible to say with utter certainty what will happen. John Nelson at Birmingham University stated of RHIC that "it is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk - but I could not prove it." In academia there is some question of whether Hawking radiation is correct.

One physicist was quoted as saying, "The intellectual consequences of not going forth with this experiment would be far more disasterous."

Footbag Forever · Post by **Footbag Forever** » 24 Oct 2006 07:33

I think with any experiment ever performed in history there has always been a saftey issue. If the experts on this have done a sufficient amount of research and know what they're doing then let them do it. I think this would be an incredible scientific breakthrough. Creating a stable black hole..? Sorry guys, science nerd, I know. I think it's pretty fascinating though!
I know, on the other hand, how helpful will this be if it destroys our 3rd rock from the sun? We always need to take into account just how dangerous it is, seeing how global warming in itself, among other things, is threatening our planet and no one seems to do shit about it. ('no one' was a generalization) but not enough people to make a significant difference.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 24 Oct 2006 08:21

Footbag Forever wrote:I think with any experiment ever performed in history there has always been a saftey issue. If the experts on this have done a sufficient amount of research and know what they're doing then let them do it. I think this would be an incredible scientific breakthrough. Creating a stable black hole..? Sorry guys, science nerd, I know. I think it's pretty fascinating though!
I know, on the other hand, how helpful will this be if it destroys our 3rd rock from the sun? We always need to take into account just how dangerous it is, seeing how global warming in itself, among other things, is threatening our planet and no one seems to do shit about it. ('no one' was a generalization) but not enough people to make a significant difference.

Creating a stable black hole..? Sorry guys, science nerd, I know. I think it's pretty fascinating though!

Hahaha, creating a stable black hole would either A. cause the entire planet to collapse instantaneously or B. The entity would have enough mass to maintain stability and gain more and more on it's little journey around the planet. As it gained more mass, its gravity would increase. So it would take a little longer to suck the entire planet up. Like, probably 5-10 minutes, idk maybe half an hour.

You think that's facinating? Yeah me too, not something I'd like to experience though lolz.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 24 Oct 2006 08:24

The physicists that are BEHIND the project are banking on the fact that the black hole will not be stable. They figure it will probably evaporate. If man ever created a stable black hole it would be the destruction of mankind. I don't think it would destroy the universe, that just doesn't make sense since there's black holes all over the universe.

Footbag Forever · Post by **Footbag Forever** » 24 Oct 2006 08:38

shredzilla wrote:The physicists that are BEHIND the project are banking on the fact that the black hole will not be stable. They figure it will probably evaporate. If man ever created a stable black hole it would be the destruction of mankind. I don't think it would destroy the universe, that just doesn't make sense since there's black holes all over the universe.

yeah I think I'm a moron. I reread the article and I think I was more interested in the fact that there would be be microscopic black holes that would evaporate and essentianally be harmless to human beings. The thing I don't understand is how already existing black holes don't suck in the universe if they are constantly gaining mass. Although there isn't much to suck in if there isn't anything around them...not even air since space is pretty much just a vacuum. I guess they could suck in light but it's being debated weather or not light is considered matter. *ponders

shredzilla wrote:You think that's facinating? Yeah me too, not something I'd like to experience though lolz.

lol I'm not sure I'd like to experience an actual stable black hole either...being crushed instantaneously is not my idea of a good time. hah.

jay7 · Post by **jay7** » 24 Oct 2006 08:47

Wow, never heard about this. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some googling/wikipedia-ing..

And yes, I am genuinely interested in physcics/everything else that makes the world go round...

Footbag Forever · Post by **Footbag Forever** » 24 Oct 2006 08:50

jay7 wrote:And yes, I am genuinely interested in physcics/everything else that makes the world go round...

Hooray for the science nerds! lol. Quantum physics couldn't get more interesting! Although I would have to say it's not quite as cool as footbag lol!

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 24 Oct 2006 09:13

Footbag Forever wrote:Quantum physics couldn't get more interesting! Although I would have to say it's not quite as cool as footbag lol!

It always trips me out how many moves are named AFTER Quantum Physics.

Quantum
Quark
Atomic
Atom Smasher
Atom Bomb
Nuetron Smasher
Singularity
Reactor
Fusion
Nuclear
Flux
Fission
Cold Fusion
Black Hole

I guess all footbaggers are science nerds! Maybe the old schoolers were trying to tell us something...

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 24 Oct 2006 13:36

Source?

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 24 Oct 2006 14:05

sb wrote:Source?

Yeah, sorry. Wikipedia and the other one was from an article I pulled up from a yahoo news search. It's the first and pretty much the only current article.

Also, my 'situation B' up there I believe is incorrect. I made the post at night, and since the edit button magically disappeared via black hole lol I just left it. Situation A is really the only scenario.

Because a stable black hole will have such a concentrated mass, it's gravity will be much greater than Earth's, thus sucking it in at least faster than 9km/s, but probably more like hundreds of times as fast. So, yeah idk it would be instantaneous or at the very longest less than a minute. I don't really feel like doing the math lol.

professor · Post by **professor** » 25 Oct 2006 19:56

But you have to admit, if you're gonna die, being sucked up by millions of little black holes would be a cool way to go.

Talk about going out in style.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 25 Oct 2006 21:13

Live or die, we will need a footbag move or set, named: "strangelet"

-n

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 26 Oct 2006 10:54

Creating a stable black whole would take a tremendous amount of energy, that we can't supply even here on Earth. Most blackholes are formed from super novas. Some are formed by just too much shit coming together and then being so heavy it just forms into a blackhole...

I severly doubt a black whole will ever be created by man. However, if it did, a microscopic one would have to spend thousands of years, gaining mass, before it would have enough gravitational potential to suck the earth in.

A full blown, stable blackhole would cause the earth to collapse into itself, and then it would rip our entire solar system apart, and the whole solar system would collaspe into itself.

I say go for it, cause it's impossible to create a blackhole (Based off of my own opinions and beleifs, and from what i've read.), so I'm not worried about it.

I suggest reading, "The Last 3 Minutes."

Peace,
Fred.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 26 Oct 2006 13:30

Switch Kicker wrote:However, if it did, a microscopic one would have to spend thousands of years, gaining mass, before it would have enough gravitational potential to suck the earth in.

By very definition, a stable black hole has more mass and gravity than the objects that surround it. The pull is so strong that not even light can escape it. If we created one, no matter how small, it would cause the entire Earth to collapse instantly.

professor · Post by **professor** » 28 Oct 2006 01:32

shredzilla wrote:By very definition, a stable black hole has more mass and gravity than the objects that surround it. The pull is so strong that not even light can escape it. If we created one, no matter how small, it would cause the entire Earth to collapse instantly.

Considering black holes are only a theory and although we have evidence that they exist, they have never been proven to exist; I don't know how you or anyone can say for sure what would happen if one was created. Especially since there is a relatively small amount of information known about black holes.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 28 Oct 2006 15:49

...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.

Caleb · Post by **Caleb** » 02 Nov 2006 06:12

When the A-bomb was created, no one knew whether the chain reaction creating that immense devastation would have its limits or ever stop. In essence, the A-bomb is entirely based on electrons firing into a neighboring atom's nucleus, causing that nucleus to release energy, causing more electrons to fire off, into other neighboring nuclei....see the pattern?

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

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 02 Nov 2006 08:28

Caleb wrote:When the A-bomb was created, no one knew whether the chain reaction creating that immense devastation would have its limits or ever stop. In essence, the A-bomb is entirely based on electrons firing into a neighboring atom's nucleus, causing that nucleus to release energy, causing more electrons to fire off, into other neighboring nuclei....see the pattern?

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

That was the theory behind it, that's not how it actually works though.

But I see your point. And I agree.

Besides, it's not like you have any controll over when you die anyway, so why get all worked up over all this anyway?

Peace,
Fred.

beenjammin · Post by **beenjammin** » 30 Dec 2006 21:49

whoowey!

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 30 Dec 2006 22:42

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?