Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Astronomy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   More on creating black holes (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=198788)

  • Mar 26, 2008, 07:30 AM
    Credendovidis
    More on creating black holes
    In topic īblack holes` I mentioned that at Cern they expect in the process to create (ultra small) black holes.
    But as we should expect small black holes to grow into big black holes, all our hope should be on Stephen Hawkins who predicted that ultra small black holes will evaporate. Let's hope he is right on that !
    .
    But is science not taking an unacceptable risk by POSSIBLY creating black holes, while we have no idea if Stephen Hawkins is right on his conclusion that such ultra small black holes will evaporate?
    What if Cern succeeds but Stephen Hawkins is wrong?
    .
    What are your thoughts on this?
    .
  • Mar 26, 2008, 07:51 AM
    Capuchin
    First of all. His name is Stephen Hawking. Perhaps you are confusing him with Richard Dawkins, a biologist.

    We're pretty damn confident that black holes do evaporate, as it fits in with other models to describe how black holes interact thermodynamically with the rest of the universe. It's not just "what if he is wrong?", but "what if the vast majority of the particle physics community is wrong?"

    Also, the cosmic rays which hit our atmosphere routinely create collisions with many times more energy than the LHC will be able to produce, so if the LHC can create black holes, so can these cosmic rays in our atmosphere, and since we haven't been sucked into a black hole yet, we can assume that nothing catastrophic is going to happen at the LHC.
  • Mar 26, 2008, 01:59 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    First of all. His name is Stephen Hawking. Perhaps you are confusing him with Richard Dawkins, a biologist.
    No, not confusing. I know very well the difference between these two. Just a mix up.
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    ... We're pretty damn confident that black holes do evaporate ...
    Sounds like I'm on the Christianity board. There they also are sure that what they BELIEVE is the one and only truth...
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    It's not just "what if he is wrong?", but "what if the vast majority of the particle physics community is wrong?"
    No, it's just "what if he is wrong?" Period.
    :rolleyes:
  • Mar 26, 2008, 02:26 PM
    Capuchin
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    Sounds like I'm on the Christianity board. There they also are sure that what they BELIEVE is the one and only truth ...
    Except that it's based on observable evidence. We don't see black holes that destroy humanity come from similarly energetic reactions in the atmosphere.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    No, it's just "what if he is wrong?" Period.
    You really think that if something goes wrong at the LHC and a large proportion of humanity dies, all the blame will go on Hawking?
  • Mar 26, 2008, 02:37 PM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    What if Cern succeeds but Stephen Hawkins is wrong?
    .
    What are your thoughts on this?
    It's pretty far down on my list of things to worry about.
  • Mar 26, 2008, 03:02 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    ... You really think that if something goes wrong at the LHC and a large proportion of humanity dies, all the blame will go on Hawking?
    No. Just the thought that something CAN GO WRONG makes me question if the risk - however small it may be - is worth it.
    .
    Excellent if the data Cern will provide allows us to understand nature better. But do we really want to run such risks? What is the use of all that knowledge if it ends up in a black hole the size of a soccerstadium containing the entire planet earth?
    .
    Once Cern fails to provide all data required to understand nature, other more powerful accelerators will be build. How long does humanity intend to go on with that, with the risk that one day we will succeed in generating a black hole that starts growing?.
    :rolleyes:
  • Mar 26, 2008, 03:06 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    It's pretty far down on my list of things to worry about.
    It's also rather low on my list. But when I saw that other topic on black holes, my list was just temporally reshuffeled... :)
    :rolleyes:
  • Mar 29, 2008, 07:10 PM
    Capuchin
    This might be of interest:

    Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More - New York Times
  • Mar 29, 2008, 07:58 PM
    michealb
    As cap said there isn't risk. Much more energetic reactions take place every day in our upper atmosphere and not once in 4 billion years has it created a stable black hole, so I don't know what that puts the odds at(considering it might not even be a possible outcome) but I think we at safe enough that I'm willing to risk it, for the knowledge we might gain. Plus if it does happen we probably won't even know it happened we would be smeared and paused at the event horizon.
  • Mar 30, 2008, 02:40 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    ... Plus if it does happen we probably won't even know it happened we would be smeared and paused at the event horizon.
    More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk. But belief never strengthen caution. So curious monkeys can end (one of) natures many experiments... I wonder how many monkey experiments ever existed that added to all that dark matter...
    :rolleyes:
  • Mar 30, 2008, 05:28 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk.
    And apparently you BELIEVE that the risk is sufficiently large that the Large Hadron Collider should not be allowed to operate. Is that what you BELIEVE?
  • Mar 30, 2008, 09:35 AM
    michealb
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk. But belief never strengthen caution. So curious monkeys can end (one of) natures many experiments ... I wonder how many monkey experiments ever existed that added to all that dark matter ...
    :rolleyes:
    I don't believe. I think. There is a big difference. Believe comes without evidence. Thinking is what happens in the presence of evidence. So right now since more energetic reaction take place all the time in our atmosphere and haven't caused a black hole. It means one of two things.
    1.) A stable black hole isn't possible with these types of reactions (This is true because a stable black hole requires energy or mass to make it stable and we aren't even close to giving it enough of either.)

    2.) The chance of a black hole forming are so remote that it hasn't happened with millions of reactions per square inch taking place every day for the last 4 billion years. We can't even calculate what the odds are until it happens but if we assume a stable black hole forms in the atmosphere tomorrow the odds of it happening in any one time are 4.9 *10^39. Again I think we are pretty safe.
  • Mar 30, 2008, 02:57 PM
    Credendovidis
    For ordinaryguy and michealb

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    And apparently you BELIEVE that the risk is sufficiently large that the Large Hadron Collider should not be allowed to operate. Is that what you BELIEVE?
    I NEVER stated that. Of course Cern has to go on.
    My point was that there is a risk, however small that risk may be. And the risk of this research should openly be discussed. By science and by society at large.
    If it does not happen at Cern, it may happen at the next more powerful collider, and if it does not happen there, it may happen in the next more powerful collider, etc. etc. etc...
    All I say is that this is not something that should only be up to (the interests of) the scientific world. It is up to us all, as we are all involved. We can make such a mistake only once...
    ;)
  • Mar 30, 2008, 04:29 PM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    My point was that there is a risk, however small that risk may be.
    Well, that is the question, isn't it? How does the size of this risk compare to the thousands of other risks that societies and individuals take every day? It appears to me, and apparently to many others who are more knowledgeable than me, that it is vanishingly small by comparison. The fact that the risk can't be known with certainty to be absolutely zero is not a sufficient reason to prohibit high-energy particle physics research.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    And the risk of this research should openly be discussed.
    I agree. Are we done yet?
  • Mar 30, 2008, 04:31 PM
    michealb
    Scientist have discussed it and there is no risk. As far as the society discussing it, most people aren't able to comprend most of the basic science behind the super collider so why would you discuss it with them?
  • Mar 31, 2008, 09:26 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    Well, that is the question, isn't it? How does the size of this risk compare to the thousands of other risks that societies and individuals take every day?
    What a ridiculous faulty comparison is that? None of these "thousands of other risks" can result into the total destruction of a planet the size of earth, with everything on and in it.
    At the other side : the risk of creating a black hole on earth however does run that risk, small as it may be. The risk of total annihilation of all life we know to exist in the universe.
    So be serious , PLEASE!
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    It appears to me, and apparently to many others who are more knowledgeable than me, that it is vanishingly small by comparison. The fact that the risk can't be known with certainty to be absolutely zero is not a sufficient reason to prohibit high-energy particle physics research. I agree. Are we done yet?
    No we do not know that. We BELIEVE we know. That snotty reaction is precisely the reason why I posted this topic.
    There is a risk. A slight risk, I agree. But as that risk involves all of us, it should be OPENLY discussed in society : with all the pro's and all the con's.
    Scientists are not free to research beyond questioning, beyond responsibility to whom they could harm. That goes for every format of research, and the bigger the POSSIBLE risk, the more open the risks involved have to be discussed, and agreed upon by humanity at large.
    ;)
  • Mar 31, 2008, 09:49 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    Scientist have discussed it and there is no risk. As far as the society discussing it, most people aren't able to comprend most of the basic science behind the super collider so why would you discuss it with them?
    The answer to that is so simple that your question shows your total lack of comprehension of the ethical problem involved here.

    BECAUSE EVERY HUMAN BEING AND EVERY LIVING LIFE FORM IS INVOLVED HERE.

    We are not talking about the moral point of part of humanity (or part of life on earth) running the risk of total extinction. We talk here about TOTAL EXTINCTION - even more precise : TOTAL DISAPPEARANCE of planet earth and every on and in it (at least in the format as it is, and that is supportive for the only life we know to exist in the universe.
    Of course scientists should discuss the risk involved, but they should not be allowed to decide if that risk is acceptable for all those involved with their existence. They should advice to some organization that controls this type of research, and in this particular CERN case that should be the EU.
    Actually taking into account the construction of other possible (future) even more powerful colliders elsewhere on earth, that demands an even higher control organization, like the UN.
    All future new scientific developments involving experiments with such possible disastrous consequences should be decided by "the people" (in whatever proper format), not by the (often) blinkered specialist scientists involved.
    ;)
  • Apr 1, 2008, 08:50 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    There is a risk. A slight risk, I agree. But as that risk involves all of us, it should be OPENLY discussed in society : with all the pro's and all the con's.
    Well, it IS being OPENLY discussed in society. Is there something more you want?
  • Apr 1, 2008, 08:56 AM
    Benjimeister
    I think it's the same as when they thought the atom bomb might ignite the atmosphere. In reality, they knew it wouldn't happen, but people get nervous about that stuff, and the media loves to fear-monger. Its not just like Hawking has given his predictions about micro black holes and everyone is like, "ok, cool". There have been many many studies done to rule out possible 'side effects' of the LHC.
    Quote:
    All future new scientific developments involving experiments with such possible disastrous consequences should be decided by "the people" (in whatever proper format), not by the (often) blinkered specialist scientists involved.
    ;)
    Please enlighten me on how you expect "the people" to figure out the extremely complex physics involved in making this decision?
  • Apr 1, 2008, 11:38 AM
    michealb
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    The answer to that is so simple that your question shows your total lack of comprehension of the ethical problem involved here.

    BECAUSE EVERY HUMAN BEING AND EVERY LIVING LIFE FORM IS INVOLVED HERE.
    First of all who do you think is giving them the funding to do these experiment. Don't you think that the governments giving the funding know the risks involved here.

    Second if there was any chance that they would destroy the world there would be an ethical problem but since there is no chance at them destroying the world there isn't an ethical problem. It's like saying that clapping your hand together could cause a hurricane; so we shouldn't clap just in case. The idea that cern is going to cause a black hole that will eat the planet and clapping will cause a hurricane both have about equal intellectual arguments.
  • Apr 2, 2008, 02:57 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    Well, it IS being OPENLY discussed in society...
    No : the problem I mentioned was NEVER discussed openly. The decision takers were never informed, and nowhere this possible problem was ever openly discussed. Even the EU decision to fund the Cern development did NOT include discussions on that possible problem.
    Politicians are not scientists. All they heard from the scientists was that the experiments were needed to further Physics research, to keep European research ahead, and that it was completely safe. For politicians with a 4 year only memory that was sufficient.
    .
    Your point of departure here is completely incorrect and unsupported. Where ever was the problem of black hole formation ever mentioned in any discussion ahead of the final decision to start updating the facilities at Cern?
    .
    ;)
  • Apr 2, 2008, 03:23 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjimeister
    I think its the same as when they thought the atom bomb might ignite the atmosphere. In reality, they knew it wouldn't happen, but people get nervous about that stuff, and the media loves to fear-monger. Its not just like Hawking has given his predictions about micro black holes and everyone is like, "ok, cool". There have been many many studies done to rule out possible 'side effects' of the LHC.
    The "Atom Bomb" never drew any such discussions, as the general public and actually the majority of Government was completely unaware of any development of that bomb, because it was a TOP SECRET DEVELOPMENT in view of it's strategic importance during WWII.
    The development of the Hydrogen Bomb was in view of it's strategic importance during the cold war also a TOP SECRET DEVELOPMENT.
    That caused of course a lot of fear based nonsensical discussions in the public domain, mainly due to lack of information.
    .
    As mentioned in my reply to OrdinaryGuy the ultimate and unsolvable problem of the possible creation of a black hole was never discussed in the discussions involving the Cern upgrading. Maybe in inter-scientist discussions, but NEVER was that a point of discussion in the final funding debates on Cern. It was kept away from all political and financial decision takers than, and still is being blown away as "nonsensical" from the side of the scientists now. There never was any real open communication about the possible consequences of colliders as Cern and future even more powerful ones.
    And THAT is wrong. It is IMMORAL not to have that small possibility discussed openly, as all life we know to exist in the universe is involved.
  • Apr 2, 2008, 03:47 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    First of all who do you think is giving them the funding to do these experiment. Don't you think that the governments giving the funding know the risks involved here.
    So you agree with me that there is a risk involved?
    The point is : is the public involved in that decision. Was there ever any open debate about the extreme small but still possible creation of a black hole? I say no : the public is not aware of that. I say the politicians who took the final decisions were not aware of that neither. That aspect was kept away from them by the scientific community. As they knew that this would delay - if not block - any upgrading of the Cern facilities. Some scientists are prepared to do anything, to take any risk, to further their funding.
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    Second if there was any chance that they would destroy the world there would be an ethical problem ...
    In your first statement you acknowledged that "governments giving the funding know the risks involved here". So there is an ethical problem...
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    ...but since there is no chance at them destroying the world ...
    You make a claim here. A claim you can not prove. A claim nobody can prove.
    And I stated clearly several times before : maybe it won't happen at Cern. Maybe neither in the next future more powerful colliders after Cern. But how long can that go on? And who will decide if the chance that it will happen becomes too big? Scientists? The same people who want these colliders? How reliable will their forecasts be? And what about the rest of human society? Don't they have a right to discuss this? Why no open discussions about this all?
    .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    It's like saying that clapping your hand together could cause a hurricane; so we shouldn't clap just incase.
    Incorrect : a hurricane will not destroy all known life in the universe. A black hole somewhere produced in a collider may just cause that. The difference between these two is so huge that I am astounded that you even dare to come up with this nonsense.
    .
    ;)
  • Apr 2, 2008, 08:42 AM
    michealb
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    Incorrect : a hurricane will not destroy all known life in the universe. A black hole somewhere produced in a collider may just cause that. The difference between these two is so huge that I am astounded that you even dare to come up with this nonsense.
    .
    ;)
    No nonsense is you not understanding the energy required to create a black hole. Currently all of the power the human race has ever created is not enough power to create a stable blackhole. There are bigger things to worry about then something that isn't possible but what ever you have apparently made up your mind, without a bit of knowledge on the subject so I'm done.
  • Apr 2, 2008, 11:51 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    Your point of departure here is completely incorrect and unsupported. Where ever was the problem of black hole formation ever mentioned in any discussion ahead of the final decision to start updating the facilities at Cern?
    I didn't say it WAS discussed earlier, I said it IS BEING discussed presently, apparently because some guy in Hawaii filed a lawsuit to try to stop the LHC. Maybe you should file an amicus brief in that case.
  • Apr 3, 2008, 04:46 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michealb
    There are bigger things to worry about ...
    That is what you BELIEVE to be true (this board seems to be filled to the brim with BELIEVERS of all kinds...
    I have stated several times that I agree that the chance a black hole will develop is very small. However there is no guarantee that one can NOT occur.
    .
    I am not against physics research. Neither am I against colliders like Cern and in the future it's even more bigger and stronger brothers.
    But I am against the construction of such facilities to be based on the egocentric ideas of scientists and politicians, while ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW TO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE RUNS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RISK OF TOTAL ANNIHILATION.
    At least without a proper and open general international debate on the pro's and con's involved in such projects by all involved.
    .
    ;)
  • Apr 3, 2008, 05:11 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    I didn't say it WAS discussed earlier, I said it IS BEING discussed presently ...
    I stand corrected on that !
    .
    My point is that it should have been discussed PRIOR to the go-ahead for this project many years ago.
    As stated to michealb I am not against elemental physics research, nor colliders like Cern and stronger future facilities.
    All I suggest is that there should be some international body that - together with ALL PARTIES INVOLVED - decides on the need for such projects versus the possible dangers for all life on earth.
    .
    Any terrestrial research should be discussed openly, whenever it carries a seed of possible total annihilation risk for all life on earth.
    They may build such facilities on the moon or elsewhere. That is another matter. I could do without moonshine (though all youngsters possibly disagree with me on that one! :D
    ;)

    • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.