Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
nutcracker
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by nutcracker » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:45 pm

Stephen wrote: I love your new nickname, by the way.
[/quote]
It reminds me of that old Hawkwind song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFPLgGWMndc

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:57 pm

Stephen wrote: We discussed magnetic fields in neutron stars, and reached the conclusion that they should have trapped black holes regardless of that. However, the people who reached this conclusion acknowledged the fact that this educated assumption could very well be wrong. So while it makes me feel better, it would be even more great to find additional information on the subject and to address the issue of white dwarfs as well.

It's definitely important to remind ourselves that we're going to be alive after the collisions 5 days from now, and not eaten by strangelets, magnetic holes, vacuum bubbles, chain reaction, black holes, something unknown, hungry whales etc. I love your new nickname, by the way.
Stephen :D it pleases me so much when you say you are feeling better :thumbup: and yes we will still be alive in 5 days time have to be anyways i bought myself Exploring The Mystery Of MATTER the ATLAS Experiment \o/ that need to be read hehehe as well as why does E=mc^2 and i have the War of the Worlds on CD to listen to so much to do ;) so much to look forward to aswell :thumbup: remember keep smiling and think it's nearly my birthday :P and i am pleased you like my new nickname :happy-jumpyellow:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Kasuha » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:22 pm

CharmQuark wrote:E=cm^2
Is that about photovoltaics? :D

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:29 pm

Kasuha wrote:
CharmQuark wrote:E=cm^2
Is that about photovoltaics? :D
sometimes i think i need a good :violence-stickwhack: for all the typos i make :oops: :lol:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:12 pm

I swear i should win an award for my bloody typos :oops: :D E=mc^2 better :violence-stickwhack:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:34 pm

For anyone interested, I found out that white dwarfs and neutron stars are only partly protected by their large magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are indeed helpful in preventing some cosmic rays from harming these stars, but other cosmic rays still manage to penetrate these fields. Basically, it all depends on the energy of the cosmic rays compared to the strength of the magnetic fields. If dangerous black holes or any other objects could be produced by cosmic rays, magnetic fields wouldn't be enough to prevent neutron stars and white dwarfs from being destroyed throughout millions of years.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Shadowdraxx » Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:44 pm

Stephen wrote:For anyone interested, I found out that white dwarfs and neutron stars are only partly protected by their large magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are indeed helpful in preventing some cosmic rays from harming these stars, but other cosmic rays still manage to penetrate these fields. Basically, it all depends on the energy of the cosmic rays compared to the strength of the magnetic fields. If dangerous black holes or any other objects could be produced by cosmic rays, magnetic fields wouldn't be enough to prevent neutron stars and white dwarfs from being destroyed throughout millions of years.

So how are you finding things atm? did you have the chance to find all the answers you were looking for?

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:11 pm

I talked to physicists who answered all of my questions.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Shadowdraxx » Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:36 pm

[/color]
Stephen wrote:I talked to physicists who answered all of my questions.
Has it helped? do you feel that you are in a better position not to be so worried?

I ask out of my own personal experience really

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:07 pm

I definitely feel more calm after professors reassure me over the phone.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Post by Shadowdraxx » Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:53 pm

ahh that's nice to hear matie

BTP
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by BTP » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:33 am

CharmQuark wrote:Came on Danny the poor guy is scared stiff......... he can't help feeling like this.........and yes it has been explained to him over and over again, but maybe he just don't understand enough physics to get a grip on things.......must be really horrible for him.......... :ugeek:
And you do completely understand the physics of this to the point where you can, say, come up with a value of probability that something catastrophic could/could not happen here?

I doubt it. Because if you/we did know enough about the physics of this stuff we wouldn't need to build the thing in the first place. But if you can, then please give us aa estimate.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that it is not safe. Or that it will suck this corner of the known universe beyond some kind of event horizon.

But I have yet to find a risk analysis that attempts any kind of quantification of the risks in a truly objective way. Mostly, it's just one group of physicists claiming that the arguments of another group of physicists are "illogical" or "inconsistent". That's not a true risk analysis.

Insurance companies compute risk as the cost of an event occuring multiplied by the probability of that occurence. The cost of the earth being sucked up its own backside would be infinity. What's the probability? 10 ^ -9? 10^-12? 10^-30

Still leaves a pretty big number...

Post Reply