|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 6:56 am
So, in about 12 years time, NASA is planning to renew its space exploration program by sending several missions to the moon, I believe they will also be using a new two stage space exploration vehicle. Do you think that manned space exploration is unnecessary for scientific research, and robots should be sent instead? Or do you think it is important to develop methods for human survival in a space environment, in the case of future colonization? Or do you belive it's all in the good spirit of exploration?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 1:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 1:52 pm
I don't think it's a stunt......... they reported it on Daily Planet!!!! (I was going to say they wrote an article on it in Popular Science, but I found out their 'LHC will make mini balck holes' story was bull so... ) I don't know where you are, but here in Canada Daily Planet is a pretty trusty source of Science news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 2:06 pm
Oh, I didn't mean that the announcement did not happen. I'm saying that Bush's "We're going to the Moon, then Mars" speech was a PR stunt on his part.
Anyway, the LHC is going to be forming mini black holes when it is operating in its heavy ion mode, or so I was under the impression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 2:28 pm
A Lost Iguana Oh, I didn't mean that the announcement did not happen. I'm saying that Bush's "We're going to the Moon, then Mars" speech was a PR stunt on his part. Anyway, the LHC is going to be forming mini black holes when it is operating in its heavy ion mode, or so I was under the impression. hm Prof. Amanda Peet at my university said that the chances of that happening are really small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 2:54 pm
poweroutage hm Prof. Amanda Peet at my university said that the chances of that happening are really small. That may just be her particular view of the situation [Academic bias? It does happen]. I'll restate my original comment: the LHC's Heavy-Ion mode will search for mini black hole events. Let the theorists fall over themselves saying what is and is not likely to occur given their particular bias. Not that I'm accusing her of anything like that but the LHC is meant to test beyond the Standard Model, and beyond the Standard Model is quite up in the air as there is no real data to back people up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm
A Lost Iguana poweroutage hm Prof. Amanda Peet at my university said that the chances of that happening are really small. That may just be her particular view of the situation [Academic bias? It does happen]. I'll restate my original comment: the LHC's Heavy-Ion mode will search for mini black hole events. Let the theorists fall over themselves saying what is and is not likely to occur given their particular bias. Not that I'm accusing her of anything like that but the LHC is meant to test beyond the Standard Model, and beyond the Standard Model is quite up in the air as there is no real data to back people up. then I can see she was talking about the possibilities of finding it, however they will test for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:16 pm
poweroutage then I can see she was talking about the possibilities of finding it, however they will test for them. Detectors are built with certain production processes and decay modes in mind, sometimes you do not see the signal for which you were looking. Then the data analysis will let you gauge whether it was significant or not [it may have been good/bad luck or just a statisitical fluctuation]. Anyway, you are at Toronto? Hmm, it's a little random and not that relevant, but my college's group is sharing information with the CDF W Mass Working Group and there's a guy from Toronto U. [Ian Vollrath] who seems to be working on something similar to my current work [I am estimating the systematic error on the W boson width that is coming from the boson's transverse momentum; he, or the W Mass WG, appears to be using RESBOS to model the pT whereas I am fitting to data]
Haha, it's a small world, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:20 pm
A Lost Iguana Anyway, you are at Toronto? Hmm, it's a little random and not that relevant, but my college's group is sharing information with the CDF W Mass Working Group and there's a guy from Toronto U. [Ian Vollrath] who seems to be working on something similar to my current work [I am estimating the systematic error on the W boson width that is coming from the boson's transverse momentum; he, or the W Mass WG, appears to be using RESBOS to model the pT whereas I am fitting to data]
Haha, it's a small world, I guess. haha, cool. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 4:50 am
A Lost Iguana poweroutage hm Prof. Amanda Peet at my university said that the chances of that happening are really small. That may just be her particular view of the situation [Academic bias? It does happen]. I'll restate my original comment: the LHC's Heavy-Ion mode will search for mini black hole events. Let the theorists fall over themselves saying what is and is not likely to occur given their particular bias. Not that I'm accusing her of anything like that but the LHC is meant to test beyond the Standard Model, and beyond the Standard Model is quite up in the air as there is no real data to back people up. You can make something that has the local density required to be considered a Black Hole, but it won't last long - the critical mass of a Black Hole is about the mass of Mount Everest, so anything smaller will blow up again when you form it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:28 pm
rugged You can make something that has the local density required to be considered a Black Hole, but it won't last long - the critical mass of a Black Hole is about the mass of Mount Everest, so anything smaller will blow up again when you form it. What in the world is a black hole's critical mass? They all decay at a rate proportional to inverse-square of the mass. It's not like fission. I'd estimate the mass of Mt. Everest to be around 1e15-1e16kg; the corresponding black hole would have Hawking radiation of around 1e2W or less. That's definitely not "explosive", but then something even a hundredth of that should not be considered such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 10:01 pm
My personal belief? I would love to see even more manned space flights, but first I believe we need to find a more reliable method of transportation than strapping a man to the top of a giant rocket full of a highly-explosive liquid and sending him directly through the atmosphere. sweatdrop Maybe it's just me, but I'd love for us to learn as much as possible about the universe around us. It's time we knew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:30 am
VorpalNeko rugged You can make something that has the local density required to be considered a Black Hole, but it won't last long - the critical mass of a Black Hole is about the mass of Mount Everest, so anything smaller will blow up again when you form it. What in the world is a black hole's critical mass? They all decay at a rate proportional to inverse-square of the mass. It's not like fission. I'd estimate the mass of Mt. Everest to be around 1e15-1e16kg; the corresponding black hole would have Hawking radiation of around 1e2W or less. That's definitely not "explosive", but then something even a hundredth of that should not be considered such. No, you don't get what I mean... See, form what I heard, a black hole made at below that mass will be unstable, because it doesn't have enough gravity overall to overcome the repulsion of the particles that make it up - so it will fly appart again. In other words, it needs to be beyond that critical mass when it forms in order to be stable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:34 am
SoloOfDarkness My personal belief? I would love to see even more manned space flights, Absolutely. That's the jist of my belief as well... But I'd be satisfied with less flights, as long as each one holds thousands of times the cargo as the Shuttle currently does - yes, people, I'm talking about Project Orion again. It's the answer to all our problems... SoloOfDarkness but first I believe we need to find a more reliable method of transportation than strapping a man to the top of a giant rocket full of a highly-explosive liquid and sending him directly through the atmosphere. sweatdrop How do you suggest we get to Space then, if not directly through the Atmosphere? SoloOfDarkness Maybe it's just me, but I'd love for us to learn as much as possible about the universe around us. Erm, I'm no Psychologist or anything, but... what with this being the Physics Guild, I'd guess that everybody here shares that opinion or something closer to it. Or, from the Engineers perspective, it's time we grew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:45 am
rugged VorpalNeko rugged You can make something that has the local density required to be considered a Black Hole, but it won't last long - the critical mass of a Black Hole is about the mass of Mount Everest, so anything smaller will blow up again when you form it. What in the world is a black hole's critical mass? They all decay at a rate proportional to inverse-square of the mass. It's not like fission. I'd estimate the mass of Mt. Everest to be around 1e15-1e16kg; the corresponding black hole would have Hawking radiation of around 1e2W or less. That's definitely not "explosive", but then something even a hundredth of that should not be considered such. No, you don't get what I mean... See, form what I heard, a black hole made at below that mass will be unstable, because it doesn't have enough gravity overall to overcome the repulsion of the particles that make it up - so it will fly appart again. In other words, it needs to be beyond that critical mass when it forms in order to be stable. Perhaps what you are referring to is the Chandreshakhar limit. Which is the amount of mass a star needs to have to become a black hole, rather than just explode. is this what you meant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
