"Hmmmm, perhaps I can top my hurricane generator with a black hole gun!"
Posted on 09/20/2006 6:58:16 PM PDT by annie laurie
Scientists could generate a black hole as often as every second when the world's most powerful particle accelerator comes online in 2007.
This potential "black hole factory" has raised fears that a stray black hole could devour our planet whole ...
But the chance of planetary annihilation by this means "is totally miniscule," ...
For one thing, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking calculated all black holes should emit radiation, and that tiny black holes should lose more mass than they absorb, evaporating within a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, "before they could gobble up any significant amount of matter," Landsberg said.
...
"Still, let's assume that even if Hawking is a genius, he's wrong, and that such black holes are more stable," Landsberg said. Nearly all of the black holes will be traveling fast enough from the accelerator to escape Earth's gravity. "Even if you produced 10 million black holes a year, only 10 would basically get trapped, orbiting around its center," Landsberg said.
However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.
At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Here's a reassuring article for a change. It was a nice counterpoint to David Brin's Earth; that one gave me the creeps! :-0
What does the statistical term "totally miniscule" mean? It doesn't seem to quite equal 0 does it?
I am not worried, I have Black Holes covered on my insurance policy :-)
Well if does, it would be Bush's fault
(/s)
I figured mini-blackholes would replace shredders.
In the '40s, physicists were taking wagers that the first atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. In the 50s, the concern was the first H-bomb would ignite the atmosphere. I got over both those worries. But now this!! OMG.
What I want is someone to explain time to me. For example, how can a photograph exist. What is the difference between something that happened to something that never happened as it relates to today? For a photograph to exist, wouldn`t it mean that there must be an existing past, a past that must constantly exist for that photo to remain? Say you take a photo of yourself on a polaroid...It spits out the picture and you can see what you looked like a few minutes ago. But how can that photo exist if the past is no longer in the here and now? If the past doesn`t exist then wouldn`t it be the same as if you never took a photo? Is time and space like flipping animation cards? Multiple universes being formed with every movement? Would this explain why when you come near the speed of light time slows down because you are nearer the last universe? Einstein said eventually mass will become infinite when it reaches the speed of light. Does this mean you cross over to a universe that has passed and you can go back in time? Spock Spock!! I dont know, I`ve taken too much LDS!
I love science as much as the next guy, but doesn't the fact that "planetary annihilation" is even possible sort of argue against such research at this time? [Especially if you're creating "one blackhole per second", which kinda increases those "miniscule" odds.]
Well, mebbe. But I'm still keeping the saucer in standby.
Heh. The ultimate "Memory Hole" ;-)
Think of a "reference frame" whereby events happen in a frame independent of other events.
What do the Mormons have to do with this?
I hope it isn't a valley girl expression.
Haliburton could probably make one for him.
No. There are those huge machines that come and eat up everything every little bit, (like on that Steven King t.v. movie) so you don't want to get caught in the past if you don't want those things that look like the huge computer game character that used to be so popular to come and get you. I don't know why they don't eat up photos; that's a real puzzle. (I have some they SHOULD have eaten up.)
PAC-MAN. That's the name.
I think the point is that the even horizon of these black holes would be smaller than a proton. Hence, electromagnetism would be a stronger force at this scale than gravity and the probability of such a black hole even coming close to an matter would be vanishingly small. And if it did, it wouldn't make any difference since theblack hole would decay faster than it could accumulate mass.
even horizon = event horizon. oops. Bloack hole got the 't'.
And if it did, it wouldn't make any difference since theblack hole would decay faster than it could accumulate mass.
------
perhaps the principle of the chain reaction can be applied here: create black holes fast enough for the process to become self sustaining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.