Tuesday, March 30, 2010

As the Scientists Crank-Up Their $20 Billion Science Experiment...

I forgot to mention one of the points I made to the two scientists I talked-to about the Large Hadron Collider.

It was a one-word argument: Tunguska.

They argued that cosmic rays from space -- 90% of which are extremely-high-energy protons, similar to what the Collider will generate -- don't cause a problem on Earth, so why worry?

In response I said, "Tunguska."

In 1908, the largest explosion in the history of the world -- some estimates are in the 100 megaton range -- flattened a vast, vast area of Siberia -- about 1,200 square miles.

The impact point was very obvious -- trees radiated away from the impact point very revealingly.

But, there was no crater. Just a little lake.

In any event, Tunguska is probably the best candidate for being the event when an incipient mini black hole passed through the Earth.


  1. you see black hole, i see meteor(ite).

    You see trees radiating away as a sign of a black hole forming. I would think the opposite, they would be drawn towards the event (I'm sure you'll think of some response for that)

    Why would you wander away from the standard explanation that this was caused by a meteor(ite). The theory of why no huge crater is that the meteor fell apart in a very powerful air burst.

  2. Hi, Tom.

    Gravity decreases geometrically, by the square of the distance from the object. When an object is so tiny that the initial Event Horizon (the innermost point of the accretion disk) is less than the diameter of an atom (and probably beneath the Heisenberg limit), then the initial gravity impact arena is microscopic. We just won't feel the gravity even an inch away. The thing has to really slam against the nuclei of your atoms to have an effect. I suspect that, by and large, an IMBH has trouble even touching air molecule nuclei.

    So, you wouldn't get a dramatic attraction effect upon the trees so long as the thing is sub-molecular in size.

  3. But, I still have to say that your point is effective "out-of-the-box" thinking. The problem with the Collider scientists is that they aren't doing ANY "out-of-the-box" thinking. They all lined up at the federal court hearing and thought and said what good little lined-up employees of the Collider were supposed to think and say.

  4. For goodness sakes, what can we expect. if they flinch the slightest and say, 'yes, there is a 1 in a million odds that if we regularly slam these protons together for 100 years, there may be some uncontrollable event, the nature of which we can neither describe or know how to control/contain . . .'

    Well, there goes their 'bread and butter'.
    Court will shut them down . . . gov't funding lost . . .