Re: French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG

On Fri, 9 May 2008 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 9, 2:54 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 20:45:53 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On May 7, 11:41 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:27:08 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 6, 11:10 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 5, 2:27 am, "Doomsday Machine?" <seeli...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
French And CERN Build Massive 17 Mile Round Particle Accelerator
(Black Hole Generator)

(European Organization for Nuclear Research) Build Worlds
Largest Particle Accelerator

The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).

"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.

There's always some risk of the unexpected in any scientific endeavor.
Perhaps this investment in research needs this kind of controversy in
order that its work can be appreciated. It could be much worse:
throwing all that money [for]... poor experimental results. The only reason
this research is still funded is because there is always the potential
of a new kind of Atom bomb.

Idiot

You need to read the above paragraphs that I've highlighted. The very
small risk is worth the discovery of the Higgs' boson. And the
military would like it very much if a new kind of bomb could be
developed with the LHC. We'd be shortly having one in the US-- when
the economy gets better.

There's a Gary Larsson cartoon appropriate for this scenario.
You know, I suppose, that there's a layer of iridium in earth's
sediments at the K-T (Cretatious-Tertiary) boundary when the
dinosaurs disappeared, and that Iridium is rare on earth but
common in asteroids and comets. Some dinosaurs in white
lab courts are watching another lab-coated dinosaur pointing
at equations and diagrams on a blackboard, triumphantly
announcing that his team has developed the most formidable
military weapon in the history of dinosauria, the iridium bomb.

The odds of destroying the planet with particle research
seems to me remote, though I think it is a good idea that some
people are worried enough about it to keep us on the alert.

The micro-black hole seems promising. The mass of the micro hole is so
minute that the earth's gravitational field and the Hawking radiation
can destroy the hole, but perhaps with a large enough mass-- like the
critical mass of the atom bomb-- a tipping point is reached where the
Hawking radiation is insufficient to destroy the hole. With enough
research, this regenerative effect can be used by an efficient
thermonuclear reaction to produce a temporary black hole of sufficient
size that it can rip apart an asteroid or comet headed to impact the
earth. There's a very slim possibility IIRC that this may happen in
the next 10,000 years. 'Research like this may save our planet in the
long run, or like your iridium bomb, may be the source of our own
extinction.

I think it's thought that the micro-black-holes have already
evaporated, at least any that may have been created in the
Big Bang, and it's hard to think of many being created by
any mechanism other than the Big Bang. The bigger black
holes evaporate too, but the bigger they are, not only the
more there is to evaporate, but also the slower the
evaporation will be, since the near-event-horizon is wider,
thereby making it harder for one particle from a virtual pair
generated near the event horizon to escape without being
sucked back in.

This is a good argument for the lower risk of micro holes. If such
small masses were stable, the universe would be filled with black
holes that keep getting bigger and bigger. We don't see that. IIRC the
black holes seem to occupy the centers of galaxies. The tremendous
mass of the black holes and the central mass of the galaxy itself
seems to explain partly the motion of the galaxy-- the unexplained
part being missing. Perhaps the discovery of the Higgs boson will help
scientists better explain the first moments of the big bang with
greater precision and thus account for this mass.

It seems to me a point worth thinking about whether the
supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies mostly grew
by accretion of stars from the galaxy, or whether the black
holes came first and the galaxies formed around them.

Also, I suppose you've heard what I think is the latest,
though it's not all that recent, observation that the mass in the
universe is distributed like the soapy film in a stack of soap
bubbles, where the galaxies tend to form at the edges and
lines between bubbles, and most especially where four
bubbles come together at a common point (I think it's four,
assuming I'm envisioning soap-bubble geometry correctly).

There's something on this in wikipedia, including the
"great wall" that was discovered some time back:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

Great link. Space itself is distorted by matter-- the gravitational
field. The lumpiness of space may just be a relic of the distribution
of matter prior to the original big bang? Just got email on the
Argonne Super Computer. It will be used this coming year to model
type !a supernovas. These supernovas have a small variance in the
white dwarf mass density from which they are created, and thus, the
supernovas tend to have the same brightness. The intensity of the
supernova hence would give a good indication of distances from earth
independent of red shift data that has been previously used to
discover the distribution of matter in space.

Anyway, the distribution of matter leads to the assumption of dark
matter which is accelerating the expansion of the universe. I don't
think that we can say much of the distribution of matter until we can
explain dark matter and the acceleration of the expansion of the
universe.

I don't understand the theory, but it seems to me that if we observe
an acceleration of the universe expansion at the farthest reaches of
the universe, that that is really indicative of the earliest motion
near to the time of the big bang. That's how long it takes light to
reach us. A lesser expansion rate closer in distance to us indicates
that the later expansion is slower-- which is what you would expect
when the universe has gotten larger (ie the gravitational field is
less with the greater separation of matter). An early acceleration of
the expansion followed by a latter deceleration would also naturally
create lumpiness in the universe. If dark matter interacts with the
gravitational field then the resulting changes in acceleration of
matter would be affected by concentrations of dark matter. The great
voids absent on matter in the universe that are observed between lumps
may have a great relationship with dark matter.



I'm a bit suspicious of "dark matter". I know nothing, of
course, but it just seems a bit too convenient.

"Superluminal" expansion, as you note, has been used
to explain the "lumpiness" of the universe. That's another
thing I'm suspicious of, though once again of course I know
nothing. Philosophically, I'm much more tempted to draw
again on many-worlds, since the universe can be as
lumpy as it wants then. As long as the total from all the
universes in the multiverse adds up to zero, we're all set.
That of course, doesn't explain why this all should "be",
but nothing will ever explain that. I'm willing to make that
flat statement because the lack of explanation seems to
me not merely due to ignorance, but due to a
fundamental impasse in that we always have to "start"
(note the quotation marks) with "something" out of
"nothing".


+




.

Quantcast