If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Will we ever create a black hole in the laboratory?   (bbc.com) divider line 54
    More: Scary, black holes, exotic particle, Atomic Nucleus, weak forces, strong forces, fundamental forces, Planck, supermassive black holes  
•       •       •

2440 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2013 at 10:43 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 10:21:11 AM
Why would we do this?!?
 
2013-07-16 10:46:58 AM

Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?


Because we can.

Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.
 
2013-07-16 10:47:17 AM

Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?


a) science
2) zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy
iii) take over the world

/Alex Lustig approves
 
2013-07-16 10:50:13 AM
Oh noes, science is scary! Oh, wait no it isn't.
 
2013-07-16 10:51:01 AM
Because it's cool
images.wikia.com
 
2013-07-16 10:51:56 AM

meat0918: Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?

Because we can.

Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.


???????
 
2013-07-16 10:52:46 AM
Just, whatever you do... don't drop it
 
2013-07-16 10:56:42 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-16 11:03:06 AM
Can someone post the text, I'm too 'British' to read the BBC website, apparently, and too lazy to faff with proxies everytime one of these links comes along.

Since black holes emit radiation, a tiny black hole should only last a very short time, not long enough to do any serious harm, so what's the problem? It's not like it'd feed, grow, and start swallowing the Earth.
 
2013-07-16 11:03:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Just, whatever you do... don't drop it


or touch it
 
2013-07-16 11:04:31 AM
We're a type 13 planet in it's end stages so it will happen any day now.
 
2013-07-16 11:10:15 AM
Yes.
Or maybe no.
Who can say for sure?
 
2013-07-16 11:14:46 AM
We do what we must, because we can.
 
2013-07-16 11:16:18 AM
If not we can just wait a few hundred years and then steal a Romulan ship for the quantum singularity power source.
 
2013-07-16 11:27:54 AM
Not scary. Next?
 
2013-07-16 11:28:02 AM

FrancoFile: zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy


You're not going to get more energy out of a black hole than you put into creating it.  The laws of thermodynamics win again.
 
2013-07-16 11:30:18 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????


It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.
 
2013-07-16 11:31:54 AM

Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?


wearscience.com
 
2013-07-16 11:32:10 AM
Any blackhole created in the lab would evaporate via Hawking Radiation in an extremely short timespan, and would have such a fantasically small event horizon that a proton would be as big compared to it as the sun is to a small rock from your backyard.

You'd have to create a blackhole from a Mt. Everest worth of mass before there was any potential that it could grow faster than it would evaporate.

There is no danger here.
 
2013-07-16 11:33:09 AM

The Crepes of Wrath: Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????

It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.


That's more like it.
 
2013-07-16 11:34:54 AM
Wicked cool, actually.

NASA also can 3D-print rocket engines, now. And researchers are attempting micro-ion engines for CubeSats.

We're close to getting efficient routes out of this gravity well.
 
2013-07-16 11:35:09 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: meat0918: Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?

Because we can.

Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????


An object with the density of less than 2 of the particles used to create it will not have the gravitational pull to do much damage.  Even if the thing did survive the Earth's gravity, and also did not evaporate, it would take thousands if not millions if not billions of years for the thing to get large enough to do any damage.
 
2013-07-16 11:36:01 AM

The Crepes of Wrath: Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????

It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.


shiat, evaporate not ripped apart.

I always get that messed up.
 
2013-07-16 11:38:06 AM
www.ls1gto.com
 
2013-07-16 11:41:01 AM
Slaxl: Since black holes emit radiation, a tiny black hole should only last a very short time, not long enough to do any serious harm, so what's the problem? It's not like it'd feed, grow, and start swallowing the Earth.

1) Black holes will have the same mass as the material that was collapsed to create them.

2) Gravitation follows the inverse square law.

3) The reason that regular black holes are difficult to escape is because the mass of the sun (really big) is collapsed to a singularity (really small). So that all of the gravitational strength is concentrated on a tiny little point.

Therefore, if you want to create a black hole that's going to cause trouble here on earth, you need to start with a big mass ... like your mom.
 
2013-07-16 11:42:12 AM
s/the sun/a sun/

// said too much already
 
2013-07-16 11:47:41 AM

meat0918: The Crepes of Wrath: Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????

It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.

shiat, evaporate not ripped apart.

I always get that messed up.


Having a wee alt moment, are we?
 
2013-07-16 11:48:17 AM
The real danger of a tiny blackhole is that creating one is a virtual total conversion of mass to energy in a short time frame.

Pretend that the "red matter" from Star Trek existed. Two kilograms of it converted rapidly into a blackhole would almost immediately explode with the power of a Tsar Bomba.
 
2013-07-16 11:50:19 AM
Anything that improves our chances of becoming a space-faring species, I say.
 
2013-07-16 11:51:47 AM

Ambitwistor: FrancoFile: zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy

You're not going to get more energy out of a black hole than you put into creating it.  The laws of thermodynamics win again.


I know that.
But the micro black hole is portable.  Create the black hole in a fixed facility, drop it in a container, and put the container on a boat/plane/whatever.
 
2013-07-16 11:52:34 AM

PartTimeBuddha: meat0918: The Crepes of Wrath: Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????

It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.

shiat, evaporate not ripped apart.

I always get that messed up.

Having a wee alt moment, are we?


Nope, just admitting I got a few terms mixed up when responding to QA.
 
2013-07-16 11:56:59 AM
Not possible.

Maybe you could cram some shiat together into a dense ball.... but an actual black hole?  This makes my science side lololololololololol.
 
2013-07-16 11:58:40 AM
Came for the Event Horizon reference...

Thanks, Dinobot...
 
2013-07-16 11:59:09 AM

FrancoFile: Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?

a) science
2) zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy
iii) take over the world

/Alex Lustig approves


Oh, and dumping our garbage into it.
 
2013-07-16 12:00:03 PM

FrancoFile: But the micro black hole is portable.  Create the black hole in a fixed facility, drop it in a container, and put the container on a boat/plane/whatever.


If you want a portable energy source, build a battery.  Or a modular nuclear reactor.  Or whatever.  Not a black hole containing a micro-Joule of energy, which will evaporate instantaneously upon its creation, that requires a 5-mile wide, 100-megawatt supercollider to create.
 
2013-07-16 12:03:44 PM

lordargent: Slaxl: Since black holes emit radiation, a tiny black hole should only last a very short time, not long enough to do any serious harm, so what's the problem? It's not like it'd feed, grow, and start swallowing the Earth.

1) Black holes will have the same mass as the material that was collapsed to create them.

2) Gravitation follows the inverse square law.

3) The reason that regular black holes are difficult to escape is because the mass of the sun (really big) is collapsed to a singularity (really small). So that all of the gravitational strength is concentrated on a tiny little point.

Therefore, if you want to create a black hole that's going to cause trouble here on earth, you need to start with a big mass ... like your mom.


Oh yeah? Well... if you want my comeback you'll have to scrape it off your mothers teeth.

i98.photobucket.com

What about using it as a way to dispense of garbage? If only a Mount Everest of material could make a black hole of dangerous proportions why not just make Mount Kilamanjaro's of trash, and black hole them up? Aside from the whole "gotta learn how to do it first", and the resources and effort required might not be that efficient a use of the energies... but still, less trash lying around?
 
2013-07-16 12:24:51 PM

FrancoFile: But the micro black hole is portable. Create the black hole in a fixed facility



A blackhole big enough to provide stable power through evaporation without blowing up like a bomb would be too heavy to carry around.

A black hole weighing 228,000 kg lasts only a second.
(my earlier red matter evaporation time was off by several orders of magnitude)
 
2013-07-16 12:27:45 PM

FrancoFile: Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?

a) science
2) zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy


Finally find a reliable source of ZedPMs and move on to other plot points and scripts.
 
2013-07-16 12:34:06 PM
Actually they did. It's under the passenger seat so please don't drop my sunglasses.

www.orble.com
 
2013-07-16 12:35:19 PM
Just put your mom in the lab.
 
2013-07-16 12:41:53 PM

FrancoFile: Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?

a) science
2) zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy
iii) take over the world

/Alex Lustig approves


You're going to need a bigger tuneable nanocrystalline gravity wave generator.

/probably my favorite Brin novel.
 
2013-07-16 12:50:11 PM

meat0918: PartTimeBuddha: meat0918: The Crepes of Wrath: Quantum Apostrophe: Also, we would not be able to create a black hole that is large enough to withstand being ripped a part by the Earth's larger gravity.

???????

It's more that the black hole would evaporate, not get ripped apart by Earth's gravity.

shiat, evaporate not ripped apart.

I always get that messed up.

Having a wee alt moment, are we?

Nope, just admitting I got a few terms mixed up when responding to QA.


Well, the gravity gradient is the problem, that's what does "ripping". Absolute gravity does "squashing". That's what it says in my Physics for Luddites.
/Earth has neither
 
2013-07-16 01:03:45 PM
From TFA: known as the Planck length, is approximately 1020 times smaller than an atomic nucleus. (In numbers, the Planck length is about 1.6 × 10-35 metres, compared to the 1 x 10-15 metre size of a nucleus.)

Article/Math fail.

Aside from the nanoscopic black holes are probably being made on a daily basis from high-energy collisions in the upper atmosphere, we just are never able to detect them because of their extremely short lifespan.
 
2013-07-16 01:11:36 PM

Joe USer: Why would we do this?!?


Perhaps with Subby's mom, shortly after the lab Christmas party.
 
2013-07-16 01:20:09 PM
 
2013-07-16 06:10:14 PM

FrancoFile: Ambitwistor: FrancoFile: zero-point fluctuations around a very small black hole could provide nonpolluting energy

You're not going to get more energy out of a black hole than you put into creating it.  The laws of thermodynamics win again.

I know that.
But the micro black hole is portable.  Create the black hole in a fixed facility, drop it in a container, and put the container on a boat/plane/whatever.


I think the point is that if black holes evaporate by giving off Hawking Radiation, and you can create a situation whete you have a very tiny black hole and you feed it matter at the same rate it boils off, you can actually get very efficient matter to energy conversion.

/ Very speculative, of course.
// But as the article mentions, it's not believed to be remotely feasible.
 
2013-07-16 06:12:14 PM

born_yesterday: Anything that improves our chances of becoming a space-faring species, I say.


You want to so rapidly spread the disease that is our species to the cosmos?

We're still just babies playing in our playpen. We need to grow up first.
 
2013-07-16 08:29:50 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Any blackhole created in the lab would evaporate via Hawking Radiation in an extremely short timespan, and would have such a fantasically small event horizon that a proton would be as big compared to it as the sun is to a small rock from your backyard.

You'd have to create a blackhole from a Mt. Everest worth of mass before there was any potential that it could grow faster than it would evaporate.

There is no danger here.


Plus. I thought we'd already done it.
 
2013-07-16 08:34:50 PM

FrancoFile: I know that.
But the micro black hole is portable.  Create the black hole in a fixed facility, drop it in a container, and put the container on a boat/plane/whatever.


Portable hole, you say?
 
2013-07-16 11:58:20 PM

bbfreak: Oh noes, science is scary! Oh, wait no it isn't.




www.funnypictures.net.au
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report