Large Hadron Collider...

[Faris]

I have a large hardon and screw science

[Jotaru]

Again, just because we don't understand everything doesn't mean every theories are as likely to become true.

Eh, no offense Kaylia, as I like people who contribute to these types of topics and you do quite often, but we've been around this circle before 8) In the end what you're saying boils down to what you believe and the others to what they believe, there's no real basis to tell someone they are 'most likely' incorrect. Things could pan out either way; I don't see any valid way to calculate their 'likeliness'. I view it kinda the same way as a lightbulb that may or may not be burnt out. If the only information you have is whether light is coming from the bulb or not, there is no way to tell if its burnt out, faulty wiring, or some other cause if it does not work; you can only prove in the affirmative (i.e. if the light turns on, its obviously not broke) but you can't really validate a claim that the light is 'burnt out' just because its not on at any given time. I put the same viewpoint towards theoretical science where we really don't have all the information.

[Kaylia]

there's no real basis to tell someone they are 'most likely' incorrect.

A claim based on science fictions is more likely to be incorect than a theory supported by reality (what we observed) within the universe. Not even sure why you're arguing otherwise. According to what you are saying, imagination is the only limit and the infinite number of possibilities you imagine all have the same chance of happening until you're 100% certain of your theory. That's not the case, the closer you stick to sciences and observation, the higher your chance are to be right.

Gravity is the weakest of all force, and no matter where you look at in our universe, there is no strong manifestation of gravity unless you have an absurd amount of mass at your disposal. Even dark matter barely affect other particles. Despite that, you say it's as likely for us to be able to generate infinite gravity out of thin air than the opposite?

I can't agree with such reasoning, it's just wishful thinking , not a rational analysis.

[Jotaru]

Despite that, you say it's as likely for us to be able to generate infinite gravity out of thin air than the opposite?

Hm.. no, rather I just meant to state that it's pretty irrational to simply deny all other possibilities based on your own personal beliefs. Sure, if you drop an apple ten times and all ten times it falls to the floor it may be more likely the 11th time it'll fall rather than rise a hundred feet high and explode, so I give you that, but on the other hand, you can't guarantee it with 100% certainty, just due to the fact that certainty is just that, and requires a totalistic knowledge of all the goings-on.

[Max™]

LHC fires up
Microscopic Black Hole is produced
Scientists determine this by looking at the data left behind after it decayed rather violently

No "omg, it's eating everything!" along the lines of that STUPID AS FUCK movie on the Sci Fi channel.

Black Holes can be assumed fairly reasonably to decay, the rate of decay depends on the size of the hole, and INCREASES as the size DECREASES.

A Black Hole the size of a proton would glow like a MOTHERFUCKING SUN and then poof! Explode in a little spray of high energy particles, leaving trails which could then be studied and would suggest "Hey, something interesting happened here, I think it was a microscopic black hole."

[Neosutra]

You should point out though Kaylia, that most of what you stated is still theoretical, and the hadron colider will possibly validate some of these theories. While we can make some assumptions about black holes, and have many postulates about effects of sub atomic particles in these extreme gravitational fields, the truth is we know very little about what really happens past the event horizon. The description of what it would be like to be "sucked" into a black hole also makes a few assumptions on unvalidated theorems. Hopefully this colider will unlock some of those previous mysteries.

As to anyone's concern about destroying the planet/universe: The source of a black hole's power is it's mass, which has to be great enough to cause the suspected einstein-bosen state (all particales occupying the same point), and without this force (i.e w/o a constant source of matter to absorb) the black hole dissapates. The black holes that will possibly be created at the lab will exist for microns, consist of only a few particles, and will disolve almost instantly due to lack of sustainable force (i.e the colider is done with that charge burst). So our planet is more then safe.

The universe however, has never been at threat from a black hole, which pales in comparison to the massive expanse that is our universe.

[Kainsin]

Just to note: Spaghettification should be painless since the gravity pulling you apart is also pulling the electrical impulses along your nervous system, keeping them from reaching your brain.

One less thing to worry about.

[Kaylia]

Sure, if you drop an apple ten times and all ten times it falls to the floor it may be more likely the 11th time it'll fall rather than rise a hundred feet high and explode, so I give you that, but on the other hand, you can't guarantee it with 100% certainty, just due to the fact that certainty is just that, and requires a totalistic knowledge of all the goings-on.

Except, that it did fell billion and billions of times on the ground. That's how science works. That's how we can determine physics laws. Our current theories aren't far behind the one needed to confirm/deny those things, that's why we can anticipate what is going to happens to some extent and that's why we can affirm certains ideas are not likely to be true. No matter how far your theorics physics goes, the apple is going to keep falling on the ground when you drop it, you can add 10 variables and parameters next to gravity formula, and it will still fall on the ground.

Just looks at the problem from a thermodynamics level (1st and 2nd laws) and perpetual motion. If you can control and generate gravity field like this, it would be easy to create some sort of gravity mills that produce infinite energy, breaking both thermo laws. it's true thermo might not apply as well when you get out of our universe, but what you just did would break the balance of our universe by creating energy out of nowhere. Considering our universe is still intact, and there is no evidence that total energy is increasing over time, we can assume it's very unlikely something like he said will ever happen


Read the next two paragraph I quoted from wikipedia. It's basically my opinion about the whole thing

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics.

The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem is actually a proof that any conservation law can be derived from any continuous symmetry. In other words, as long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time -- as long as the laws of the universe are fixed -- then the conservation laws must be true, in the sense that they follow from the presupposition using mathematical logic. Essentially, literally most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics or both would have to be false.

[Kaylia]

You should point out though Kaylia, that most of what you stated is still theoretical, and the hadron colider will possibly validate some of these theories. While we can make some assumptions about black holes, and have many postulates about effects of sub atomic particles in these extreme gravitational fields, the truth is we know very little about what really happens past the event horizon. The description of what it would be like to be "sucked" into a black hole also makes a few assumptions on unvalidated theorems. Hopefully this colider will unlock some of those previous mysteries.

Actually, our gravity model explain everything above the singularity, not event horizon. String theories is trying to link quantum mechanics to relativity to figure out what happen in that point. While it's true we can't be certain of what happen, because nothing can get out of it, when mathematics works, it's usually a good indication.

As for spaghetification, tidals force are stronger than subatomic force, that's why there is very little reason to thinksomething else happens. Thing aren't "sucked" inside a blackhole, they "fall" inside a blackhole.

Just to note: Spaghettification should be painless since the gravity pulling you apart is also pulling the electrical impulses along your nervous system, keeping them from reaching your brain.

One less thing to worry about.

What if you're nerves are doing a 90 degree angle with the black hole? Anyway...the blood getting stuck in your feet due to tidal wave force is probably going to be painful a long time before you get spaghetified.

[oxx2]

BG where video game nerds become theoretical physicists

[Kaylia]

BG where video game nerds become theoretical physicists

Because no one here went to school, amirite? Out the hundred posters who are here, there has to be a few who have high level study in physics/maths.

[oxx2]

pretty much

[Amele]

Black Holes can be assumed fairly reasonably to decay, the rate of decay depends on the size of the hole, and INCREASES as the size DECREASES.

prior to the hypothesis of hawking radiation (which is in and of itself purely theoretical and more over doesn't have a rigorous experimental test yet) this wasn't 'fairly' reasonable at all. in fact; it's highly disputed.

A Black Hole the size of a proton would glow like a MOTHERFUCKING SUN and then poof! Explode in a little spray of high energy particles, leaving trails which could then be studied and would suggest "Hey, something interesting happened here, I think it was a microscopic black hole."

technically; this is conjecture and wishful thinking. we don't know whether or not the LHC will produce micro singularities at all, nor do we know whether or not micro singularities will decay, what rate they'll decay at and whether or not we'll be able to detect that amidst all the other activity and background noise in an LHC collision.


and kaylia, while I agree that string theory shows much promise, it's important to remember that the theory is thus far unfalsifiable (unlike even several other supersymmetric theories) and was designed to work with the math first, rather than being designed around observable phenomena, so of course it's mathematically compelling - it was written to be.

[Kaylia]

and kaylia, while I agree that string theory shows much promise, it's important to remember that the theory is thus far unfalsifiable (unlike even several other supersymmetric theories) and was designed to work with the math first, rather than being designed around observable phenomena, so of course it's mathematically compelling - it was written to be.

But I didnt use string theories anywhere in my post. I simply mentioned string theories was created to explain the singularity, not the event horizon.

[Charla]

I really don't think anyone here said anything about violating the conservation laws. Interfering with an existing gravitational field by expending energy from another source bears no resemblance to a perpetual motion phenomenon.

Gravity is the weakest of all force, and no matter where you look at in our universe, there is no strong manifestation of gravity unless you have an absurd amount of mass at your disposal. Even dark matter barely affect other particles. Despite that, you say it's as likely for us to be able to generate infinite gravity out of thin air than the opposite?

In fact, I was trying to speculate on a way to accomplish "the opposite". My speculation regarded interfering with gravity, not creating it without the appropriate mass. Assume for a second that a "theory of everything" uniting all four fundamental forces will someday be created. This may be a stretch to some, but as I understand, it does not contradict our current physical models. Now, once gravity is shown to be similar to the other forces, it would not be unreasonable for one force to be capable of affecting another.

[Jotaru]

Essentially, literally most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics or both would have to be false.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that, although perhaps unlikely, there is some possibility to this. There's now way to know to the contrary with 100% certainty.

[alt]

All I have to say, is if I have to go out, and humanity has to go out any specific way. Dying from a mini-black hole we created ourselves would be pretty unbeatable.

[Amele]

and kaylia, while I agree that string theory shows much promise, it's important to remember that the theory is thus far unfalsifiable (unlike even several other supersymmetric theories) and was designed to work with the math first, rather than being designed around observable phenomena, so of course it's mathematically compelling - it was written to be.

But I didnt use string theories anywhere in my post. I simply mentioned string theories was created to explain the singularity, not the event horizon.

ah, my misunderstanding then you mentioned string theories in reference to generating a unified field theory (sometimes called 'theory of everything') and the way you phrased the latter half of it (about mathematics working) made me think you were talking specifically about a string based GUT, which I was cautioning against throwing your lot in with (for the above reasons).

if you just meant it as an example of a possible GUT rather than a tacit endorsement - my mistake, and I retract my caution

[Kaylia]

Essentially, literally most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics or both would have to be false.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that, although perhaps unlikely, there is some possibility to this. There's now way to know to the contrary with 100% certainty.

If you had to make a bet, which side would you pick. By saying "unlikely", you're doing exactly what I did before. Personally, I like to think there is some truths behind mathematics and sciences considering how far it brought us and how reliable they are no matter where you're in the universe (or when). I'm willing to make a step back and rethink our theories, but we need to find contradicting evidences first, and this is very unlikely apple will stop falling

All I have to say, is if I have to go out, and humanity has to go out any specific way. Dying from a mini-black hole we created ourselves would be pretty unbeatable.

Destroying the universe would be more fun. Kinda want to send a big "fuck you all, we destroyed it first!" message to every aliens species out there.

[Kaylia]

ah, my misunderstanding then you mentioned string theories in reference to generating a unified field theory (sometimes called 'theory of everything') and the way you phrased the latter half of it (about mathematics working) made me think you were talking specifically about a string based GUT, which I was cautioning against throwing your lot in with (for the above reasons).

if you just meant it as an example of a possible GUT rather than a tacit endorsement - my mistake, and I retract my caution

I just reread my line and the whole thing wast worded in a confusing way. You're correct when you say I should have used GUT instead of String, I just went with the most popular theories.. About "mathematics", I was talking about relativity for the area between horizon and the singularity.