Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

However, the biggest reason for this scare was the fact that the black hole, at the predicted rate of expansion, would take 4 years to completely devour the earth, and the experiment was undertaken in 2008... Coincidence?

No.  They quite obviously said "Hmm, I'm convinced the world's going to end in 2012, I'm also convinced that the LHC is going to end the world with a singularity, which gets switched on in 2008.  Thus I must necessarily calculate a 4 year timespan in-between the black hole creation and its final consumption of the Earth."

And I suspect that this is the total limit to the mathematics applied in order to derive any "predicted rate of expansion".  i.e. 2012-2008=4.

(IMO, a picoscale-singularity that forms and does not evaporate will exponentially grow in size, as it consumes the planet, so to last an entire four years inbetween creation and devouring the Earth it must basically sit there doing (virtually) nothing for 1460.95 days, or thereabouts, with imperceptible increase in size (perhaps barely fighting the avaporation by Hawking Radiation) until the rate of mass increase becomes immediately and radically noticable in the last few minutes or so of the Earth's existence, as the growth rate finally accelerates out of control as more and more mass finds itself accreted.  You can probably do some maths to come up with any growth curve you like, as long as you don't mind having to make wild assumptions due to surprisingly little practical study of black holes at the short-range/small-scale relevent to this situation...  Not that some won't suggest that someone hasn't already 'tamed' a black hole, that it's sitting in a jar (metaphorical or otherwise, this isn't my conspiracy theory...) on a shelf in some lab, but that in four years' time some over-eaget assistant will knock the jar over while dusting, thus initiating The End Of The World.)

[Ampersand]

Except that, a Picoscale-singularity would evaporate. There is no "If it didn't", because it would.


Further, we know that such things would not form or that if they would, they won't cause black holes, because cosmic particles fly through the universe at far faster speeds and energies than the LHC could ever hope to generate, and slam into particles in the earth's atmosphere, and we've yet to be annihilated.

[Starver]

Except that, a Picoscale-singularity would evaporate. There is no "If it didn't", because it would.

Indeed.  I really wanted to have a quick look up at what size (nanoscale, microscale?) a singularity could be expected to finely balance input (ripping the odd electron or even nucleus from the surrounding matter) and Hawking Radiation output, but I'm a bit rusty about current theory on that point, probably need to look up the Schwarzchild radius equation, for a start.

Consider it shorthand.  I am largely going on the principle that while the smaller stellar-quantity massed black holes can deplete relatively easily in the vacuum of space (are unlikely to have enough nearby mass, in appreciable quantities, outside of the occasional unlucky star and/or its planetary system/protoplanetry disk that wander too close), depending on how busy the area of space is/becomes, it's possible that one can be much smaller if created on (i.e. just below the surface of) a planetary mass which manages to sustain itself (and at this point I was going to say "asymptoticly", but I mean this 'time-reversed') just above the 'inevitable evaporation' point, until the factor of increase drags the infinitesimal difference of mass far enough away to zoom off into full planet-consuming glory.

But, as I said, I'm a bit unsure as to what scale could be supported by (say) the density of mass found at the Earth's core (where a loose black hole may have drifted, munching away), and besides the odd electron or bunch of nucleonic hadrons might well be significant enough so that the absence means quick death and the presence means quick inflation, especially upon the rapid time-scale of such a small body, with such a large proportion of 'surface area' to volume (or, perhaps I should say, mass... given that a singularity would technically contain infinite volume) that is surely a factor.

Perhaps the art of 'taming' a black hole would involve careful and regimented feeding to keep it 'simmering' within a managable mass-range.


Anyway, the point is that I really doubt the whole "OMG, the LHC will end the world!" idea, in the first place, but even if it does, it would end it quicker than four years.  It's just too hard to be inevitable but so much delayed.  Which is very much the direction of your objection to the petard that I'm supplying the design for, interested as I am to see if they find themselves hoist by it.

[Leafsnail]

I know this is bastardish, but I can't wait to phone my gullible friends on the 22nd December, 2012 and laugh at them.

[Starver]

I know this is bastardish, but I can't wait to phone my gullible friends on the 22nd December, 2012 and laugh at them.

Lessee, the 22nd is a Saturday.  Depending on Sunday Opening Hours (and the likliehood[1] of relevent stores being open on some/all of 24th, as well), then there might not be enough time for said friends to get you your presents, that year.  Or that might be their excuse, at least.

(OTOH, there might be some bigger-than-usual credit card balances from those not expecting to have to repay anything!)


[1] 100%, here, but depends on ratio degrees of seculism and commercialism where you are.

[Luke_Prowler]

There's a doomsday theory every other year. If we were to listen to all of them, we would never leave the house.

[Starver]

There's a doomsday theory every other year. If we were to listen to all of them, we would never leave the house.

Houses collapse.  And 90%[1] of accidents occur in the home.  Stay outdoors, that's what I say!

[1] The figure quoted from your nearest Office Of Arbitrary And Scary-Sounding Statistics may be different.

[Sappho]

My mother hasn't shut up about this doomsday theory for over a year now.  I sent her the link to the article, though I doubt it will help much.  She's very much one of those people who has been disillusioned with Western mainstream religions and therefore is so desperate to find SOMETHING to believe in that she latches on to anything Eastern or Really Old (using whatever information she can find about them in Western books).  Basically, anything far enough removed from her by either time or space that she can't see all its glaring flaws.

The worst part is, when I call her on 22 December to ask if she's still alive, she'll tell me that, well, the Mayans may not have said that the world would END necessarily, but the certainly knew SOMETHING big was going to happen, and then she'll choose some random semi-significant event for the day and proclaim it a prophecy fulfilled.

Sigh.

[redacted123]

-

[Myroc]

Pfft, like something so small like the end of the world is going to do us in.

(Cookie to the one who gets the reference.)

[Siquo]

The end of the world? Oh, nothing so trivial as that.

(another reference cookie in the offering! yay!)

[Croquantes]

*disregarding entire thread*

Man, I can't wait to see this movie!

[Jetsquirrel]

all i can say this is bullshit
they said multipipe times that the world would end But it didnt!
its just good money , like the global warming idea.
but the is no global warming! the world heats up with a few degrees and cools down with a few degrees since we all know it.

[Vester]

I'm just gonna sit here in my hurricane ravaged country and pretend you didn't say anything about global warming.

[Siquo]

You did not expect this, but the end of the world is caused by... THE 80's!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17956-melting-glaciers-bring-1980s-pollution-revival.html