What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?The answer of this question has a two sides: the AWT one and the mainstream science one. From AWT perspective this question is rather nonsensical, as the alleged strangelets and micro-black holes don't exist, or better to say, they're represented with common atom nuclei, which are pretty safe. The other side renders the mainstream scientists as highly irresponsible, because the strangelets and their danger is mainstream science invention and the microscopic black holes were proven to be more stable by computer simulations, than the CERN safety analysis claimed. So by mainstream science criterion the black hole risk at LHC is real and physicists are playing Russian roulette with the rest of civilization. IMO they're just missed the concept in similar way, like the search for WIMPs and SUSY and we're safe.
7.3 GeV cosmic rays are far more abundant than 100 GeV cosmic raysThe products of 100 GeV cosmic rays with Earth atmosphere have both nonzero momentum with respect to Earth (the products of collisions will still have high enough speed for being trapped with Earth), both they occur in sparse stratosphere, so that if such black holes could be formed there, it would have nothing to swallow anyway. But the atom nuclei and another particles are formed with cosmic rays collisions, in this sense these microblack holes are already formed routinely - they just appear quite differently, than the scientists are expecting. The black holes are product of general relativity, which predicts the matter collapse - but the quantum mechanics leads to quite different predictions and it predicts the fast expansion of particle wave packet. The predictions of these two theories are just averaging/compensating mutually at the case of massive bodies at multiple nested scales.
What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?
If their fears turned out to be true, then the whole Earth and everyone on it will be gone in secondsThis is just one of theories. Some other scenarios consider instead, that such a black hole could reside at the Earth core for years, while revolving its center and causing earthquakes only. My problem with it is, all these scenarios are mainstream science scenarios. The scientists don't realize, what I know. They do realize all that shit instead - yet they're willing to risk the destiny of human civilization for it.
Sounds like another instance of the strange libido for the Precautionary Principle
Stranglets and blackholes don't take half-meals.
*cut*
A black hole created from a few particles would be immensely small.
It'd fall right through
from this article
http://www.birmin...-2823710
The killer strangelet produces a chain reaction that causes the rest of matter on the planet to turn into strange matter," said Prof Evans, speaking under a shower of photons in the sunlit grounds of Restaurant 1 at Cern, the European Centre for Nuclear Research.
With a characteristic twinkle, he adds: "Not only would this destroy the Earth in five minutes, but it would go on to destroy the universe.
Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1–10 MeV), while the collisions in the RHIC release energies of up to 100 GeV. Thermodynamics very strongly disfavors the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. As an example, it is far more probable that ice will form spontaneously in boiling water
I started to read this without noticing the author. Then, I figuratively slapped my forehead and mentally intoned the words Lisa Zyga. Ah yes... It had to be her. (Sigh)
would the forces remain after the particles have become a mini BH and still able to interact with surrounding particles?
I started to read this without noticing the author. Then, I figuratively slapped my forehead and mentally intoned the words Lisa Zyga. Ah yes... It had to be her. (Sigh)
The answer of this question has a two sides: the AWT one and the mainstream science one. From AWT perspective this question is rather nonsensical, as the alleged strangelets and micro-black holes don't exist, or better to say, they're represente...The other side renders the mainstream scientists as highly irresponsibleThis is curious... Zephyr/jigga/alizee/osteta are you saying that awt may not be right? Are you losing faith, or are you just hedging your bet? I know hedging bets may be difficult for you because probability requires maths, but I'm curious anyways.
I authored a sci-fi novel that deals with the scenario of tiny black holes being created in the ALICE collider at CERN and falling to the Earth's core. As a result, the core begins to gradually destabilizeIm sure you're familiar with a similar scenario Greg bear presented in Forge of God?
My problem with scientists isn't, that they're doing dangerous things (because these things are just nonsensical waste of money instead) - but that they're doing things, DESPITE they're expecting, they can be dangerous. If you bring an unexploded grenade in your children bedroom, it's would be irresponsible behavior from you despite that some smart alleck already knows, that this grenade is actually harmless. The problem is, it's you, who doesn't know about it - or even worse - who even believes, that he could make fame and glory with attempts for exploding it.
If the scientists would continue in their job with black hole collisions, they will be forced to admit the intentional safety breaching or intentional money wasting of the rest of civilization - they will have no other option.
If you bring an unexploded grenade in your children bedroom,
that this grenade is actually harmless
that he could make fame and glory with attempts for exploding it
If the scientists would continue in their job with black hole collisions
Just scroll down!
..many planets that can support life and yet all withing scanning range appear inert or dead. This hints at some catastrophic technological threshold in civilizations that either destroys them utterly or propels them so far beyond human senses that they are effectively invisible. So there is either a catastrophic lunge of knowledge forward at some tipping point, or a catastrophic failure destroying..OR, you have absolutely no study, experience or training at any substantive level of; probability, permutations/analysis, statistics, actuarial or risk assessment issues & thus automatically "feeling" all those empty particles 'of planets' had an inherent purpose - when there are billions upon billions of particulates, whether tiny (atoms) to planets existing in massively random interactions of collisions & require no personified deity whatsoever to form an umbrella of comfort confirming you desperately need a parent figure :-(
ou need a Reaction to produce something that could destroy earth.
Otto you forgot Nestle-And perhaps 2 dozen others-
My problem with scientists isn't, that they're doing dangerous things (because these things are just nonsensical waste of money instead) - but that they're doing things, DESPITE they're expecting, they can be dangerousWell thats not an answer. You say your theory says that black holes are harmless yet you think LHC should be shut down. This does not compute.
The idea is (probably) that they think the tiny black hole will somehow have "super gravity attraction"'Probably'?? Was that a guess? Why not find out for real?
What they forget is that a black hole will have the gravitational attraction of that which formed itWhat you forget is that these 2 gentlemen know all about gravitational attraction but have written papers based on the possibility of catastrophe at CERN. Many other physicists disagree with them. I wonder why? Do you wonder why aa?
…conditions that existed a few seconds after the big bang
You can never understand the Secret of Universe unless we involve life and over selves into the Picture
@Mike_Massen OR, you have absolutely no study, experience or training at any substantive level of; probability, permutations/analysis, statistics, actuarial or risk assessment issues & thus automatically "feeling" all those empty particles 'of planets' had an inherent purpose - when there are billions upon billions of particulates, whether tiny (atoms) to planets existing in massively random interactions of collisions & require no personified deity whatsoever to form an umbrella of comfort confirming you desperately need a parent figureMaybe my English is not so strong but I cannot understand your writing. It would seem you did not address or understand my post
Maybe my English is not so strong but I cannot understand your writing. It would seem you did not address or understand my postYou seem to be writing, albeit you used the word 'hint' that many worlds don't have life "because" there a catastrophe or they are so advanced & invisible !
What about the probability there is no life because it never had the chance to develop ?
No, you imply (and partly from your earlier posts) that some god/deity put it there & the life-forms then (must have) killed themselves.
ie.You seem to be coming across with the philosophy of 'determinism' - some god/advanced being "Did It" & put life everywhere but, some killed themselves & THAT is why we see many worlds with no life - even if they are old.
"You could get strange matter floating around in space"IMO all strange quarks and particles are inherently unstable According to the strange matter hypothesis, strangelets are more stable than nuclei, so that the nuclei are expected to decay into strangelets. In the same "logics" we could say, that if many nuclei are more stable than the chemical molecules, then these molecules should decay into atom nuclei - which is an apparent nonsense. But If such a hypothesis will help the mainstream physicists to reconcile the true utility of collider experiments (which are just a product of cold war era, when each of both governments hoped, it develops a more powerful weapon than its enemy), then I indeed welcome the strange matter theory too.
Yet I believe it's incredibly naive to think that scientists can be trusted when their egos want to do something that "might" be disasterous and they attempt to assure us it's not
Scientists said, with total assurance, that nuclear power plants would never fail.No !
I'm science oriented and very liberalUnfortunately that view is one huge cause of misunderstanding.
Mayday
Feb 12, 2014