I can’t watch something and take it seriously when its title is “Large Hadron Collider – Messing with the Unknown” and the next thing is a screen that misspells Switzerland right off the bat.

SHODAN Posted:

I can’t watch something and take it seriously when its title is “Large Hadron Collider – Messing with the Unknown” and the next thing is a screen that misspells Switzerland right off the bat.

ha, good point..plus the music on it is dumb..but it seems like it may have

a point about the stuff, near the end there

MOCK-CONGLERS **** Posted:

ha, good point..plus the music on it is dumb..but it seems like it may have

a point about the stuff, near the end there

Nice back pedal.

banhammer, you better move this thread, because ppl just cant stop trolling here, srsly..

I will admit I’m not too well-versed in particle physics, so can someone enlighten me a bit about how Hawking Radiation supposedly works? I understand it comes from a quark-antiquark pair being positioned along the edge of the event horizon in such a way that one gets sucked in and the other flies away, and these antiquarks could annihilate some of the matter that makes up the black hole, thus causing it to lose mbum and possibly fade away eventually. But what I don’t get is the idea that more antimatter gets sucked in than matter. Shouldn’t they be roughly equal-ish, so the black hole stays in a fairly stable equilibrium? Also given where these holes would be hypothetically be surfacing, there wouldn’t be as much antimatter to suck in as there is regular matter.

I’m sure there’s some mistake in my bumumptions, given how every scientist is damn confident this won’t happen. I’m just not sure what it is that I’m misunderstanding here.

BirdofPrey Posted:

cool video!

heres another one i found i think you might enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

very interesting video

1338h4x Posted:

I will admit I’m not too well-versed in particle physics, so can someone enlighten me a bit about how Hawking Radiation supposedly works? I understand it comes from a quark-antiquark pair being positioned along the edge of the event horizon in such a way that one gets sucked in and the other flies away, and these antiquarks could annihilate some of the matter that makes up the black hole, thus causing it to lose mbum and possibly fade away eventually. But what I don’t get is the idea that more antimatter gets sucked in than matter. Shouldn’t they be roughly equal-ish, so the black hole stays in a fairly stable equilibrium? Also given where these holes would be hypothetically be surfacing, there wouldn’t be as much antimatter to suck in as there is regular matter.

I’m sure there’s some mistake in my bumumptions, given how every scientist is damn confident this won’t happen. I’m just not sure what it is that I’m misunderstanding here.

You’re almost right. This is still simplified as ****, but it’s not that a particle and anti-particle pair are positioned at the event horizion, it’s that a virtual particle and anti-particle pair is being created on the event horizon. One of them falls into it and the other escapes. Since the one that escapes must have positive energy, the one falling into it needs to have negative energy for there to be equilibrium. The black hole is only losing energy from hawking radiation.

Excuse me, ARE YOU BEING A TROLL?

Thegoose Posted:

Excuse me, ARE YOU BEING A TROLL?

nope, im speaking my on-topic opinion. and quoting yet another

off-topic troll post.

This is just an excuse for the American government to bomb Switzerland “awmaygawd you guys! Swiss terrorists are trying to doom us all! BOOM! BOOM!”

While in fact it’s all bull****, the machine is used to make Chocolate cream pie. Ya rly!