LHC Shut Down Again — By Baguette-Dropping Bird 478
Philip K Dickhead writes "Is Douglas Adams scripting the saga of sorrows facing the LHC? These time-traveling Higgs-Boson particles certainly exhibit the sign of his absurd sense of humor! Perhaps it is the Universe itself, conspiring against the revelations intimated by the operation of CERN's Large Hadron Collider? This time, it is not falling cranes, cracked magnets, liquid helium leaks or even links to Al Qaeda, that have halted man's efforts to understand the meaning of life, the universe and everything. It now appears that the collider is hindered from an initial firing by a baguette, dropped by a passing bird: 'The bird dropped some bread on a section of outdoor machinery, eventually leading to significant overheating in parts of the accelerator. The LHC was not operational at the time of the incident, but the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down the machine.'"
Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
OK. That proves it.
Multi-world interpretation is correct and LHC is just a variant of quantum-suicide experiment.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Multi-world interpretation is correct and LHC is just a variant of quantum-suicide experiment.
That's what the birds want us to think. The truth is, they planned this, and there's more to come. We cannot allow even one more baguette to fall on the LHC. We must strike back.
That's right. I'm calling KFC.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty cock-sure all the birds have it in for us.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, you guys don't even have a plan for this bad joke thread, do you? Probably best to just wing it, anyway...
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, you guys don't even have a plan for this bad joke thread, do you? Probably best to just wing it, anyway...
Would you ladies quit your clucking? We have a serious problem at hand!
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah! Al those tits flying around! We must do something!
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Well looking at past experiences; we might be able to get something done, on a wing and a prayer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Embarrassment of being raised by natural science geeks #322: When people talk about "tits and ass", you think they are talking about the taxonomic family of passerine birds and the domesticated beast of burden Equus africanus asinus.
Embarrassment of being raised by natural science geeks #323: when embarrassment of being raised by natural science geeks #322 happens, you get more excited than the other people present.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
If we ever capture any, we had best not let them out on bail. I'm sure they pose a flight risk.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, the fear detector won't work. They're unflappable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, what does KFC have to do with actual birds?
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
It has a lot to do with birds, just not much to do with chicken.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
They're both foul?
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
> Wait, what does KFC have to do with actual birds?
Think pigeons and seagulls.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
You can jump from a plane with a parachute and start defecating. If a bird got caught it would be an awesome revenge.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Your poor simple bastard. Fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
The birds DID NOT plan this at all!!! They were *hired* by the Squirrels!
Even more insidious is the fact the Squirrels KNEW people like you would turn to KFC for revenge.... where addictive chemicals would make you crave it fortnightly!
It's all part of their PLAN!!! Wake up!
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Pigeons:
we were only kidding [xkcd.com]
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a joke.
In a park far away, two statues stood staring at each other across a fountain. One was a beautiful woman, the other a handsome man, both naked. One day, an angel appeared, waved his hand, and brought the statues to life. "You have been staring at each other for so long," said the angel, "that I would like to give you 30 minutes to enjoy each other's company."
The two people grinned at each other and ran into the bushes. The angel heard much giggling and merriment from them as he waited. Then, sweaty and out of breath, the two came back.
The angel looked at his watch. "You still have another ten minutes!"
"Awesome!" said the man to the woman. "This time, you hold the pigeon and I'll shit on his head!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it's obviously a pre-emptive strike by crows on quantum physicists.
Isn't that part of the long range plot line of the TV show Flashforward ?
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Interesting)
this theory has actually been proposed: That activating the LHC would actually destroy the universe, that is, the whole universe, even reaching back into the past. That would mean that the only possible universes are ones in which the LHC is never activated, which means that if we keep trying, implausible events will continue to occur, preventing the LHC from activating- after all, we're here now, right. That's _proof_ that the LHC will never be activated!
ObSimpsons (Score:5, Funny)
I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you ...
Re:ObSimpsons (Score:5, Funny)
I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you ...
Please, this is the 21st century... there's an App for that.
Re:ObSimpsons (Score:4, Funny)
But what about pointed sticks?
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
So then is this the improbability drive? Eee gads!!!! Douglas Adams was a prophet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It also answers the Fermi Paradox (why in an enormous Universe that's been around for a very long time, we've yet to see signs of Intelligent Life) - sufficiently advanced species are improbable because its still more probable than a sufficiently advanced species that doesn't collapse it's existence due to creating Higgs Particles. To paraphrase Donnie Darko, every advanced civilisation, lives alone.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
I imagine finding anything that expires on the 23th of any month would be very weird...
+1, Informative (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if the universe cannot tolerate a paradox.
There is no proof that the universe won't allow paradoxes, such as going back in time and shooting your grandparents before your parents are born.
*WE* think its paradoxical, and therefore it "can't happen that way". One doesn't necessarily lead to the other - we just assume it does.
Maybe the universe simply "doesn't give a shit" ... and that actually appears to be the case, not just from this, but from the whole "arrow of time" perspective. To someone whose frame of reference isn't constrained by a unidirectional arrow of time, paradoxes cease to be paradoxes. To them, if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you were born, you continue to exist. No paradox, it just is what it is. It's allowed.
It's certainly a better explanation of everything than the "infinite multiple branching worlds" theory (and gives rise to a universe where the branching worlds theory would actually appear to be true).
and yes, you can subscribe to my newsletter explaining our baguette-flinging overlords :-)
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Interesting)
Grandparent is not talking about paradoxes. Suppose that a free Higgs boson simply destroys the universe. Then the only remaining universes will be the one where boson is not created.
It's a bit tautological as is the whole business of 'interpretations' of the quantum mechanics.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Interesting)
What if the higgs only destroys *some* of the universes?
what if the higgs just "re-arranges" the universe?
what if the higgs just destroys itself?
what if the higgs doesn't exist?
Optimal outcome, with no paradox: Two Higgs walk into a bar. One destroys the bar. The other one goes back in time and destroys the other Higgs. Two Higgs walk into a bar ...
From the point of view of the rest of the universe, the bar continues to exist. However, how many Higgs EXIT the bar? Is it
#3 and #6 both open up some interesting possibilities ... especially if you replace "Higgs" with "People". People wouldn't "merge" when their time lines rejoin. #4 "could" work, in some strange way, but you would have to allow for a universe that tolerates non-continuity (which ours does in some respects, strange as it seems at the macro level) #5 is definitely out. #2 is just boring. #1 doesn't work, if you think for a few minutes - it requires the rest of the universe to agree to stop "observing", or that time stop for the whole universe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The unimportant aspects of reality appear to be essential. The essential aspect is both invisible and omnipresent.
It is a circle, who's circumference is nowhere, and who's center is everywhere.
I could go on, but I assume you aren't really listening, and would be just as dismissive.
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:4, Funny)
.. let's weaponize the shit out of implausability !
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What if the theory is correct except for the part about reaching into the past? Or maybe if the theory is accurate, it would be impossible to even build the machine or think of the theory that would actually destroy the universe, and the LHC isn't even potentially dangerous (unless you stick your head in the beam). Here com
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Multi-world interpretation is correct
Douglas Adams is now in an alternate universe, controlling this one. Proof? Well, I had no idea what a "Baguette" was; French for birdshit, maybe? So I looked it up at [wikipedia.org], where I was presented with a picture of a breadstick.
The first sentence of the article is "Not to be confused with Breadstick.
For the architectural ornament (decorative), see Baguette (disambiguation)."
Ok, I'll be sure not to confuse this breadstick with a breadstick. French people, sheesh... Or did the bird drop a decorative architectural ornament (not to be confused with a breadstick) down the hole?
Re:Evacuate this universe! (Score:5, Funny)
Did you not the dimensions on that wikipedia article? A baguette is not a bread stick. It's that long loaf of bread that people on TV are always carrying in their grocery bags when something interesting happens to them.
Birds dropping baguettes? (Score:5, Funny)
Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but what's its unladen airspeed velocity?
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but what's its unladen airspeed velocity?
I am more interested in the terminal velocity of the Baguette.
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
I also want to know why the only thing the Baguette thought on the way down was oh no, not again.
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, the universe might reset if we found out.
Or perhaps it already ha*&@#!(.. <NO CARRIER>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Captain Bob [captainbob.com], it is quite low.
I soon found out however, that I had not counted on the terminal velocity of French baguettes. Even when I stretched the elastic band dangerously close to the breaking point (its and mine), the [baguette] would flutter out of the air, like a wounded duck, only a few meters down range.
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming it is french and not swiss. The french are always carrying baguettes..
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
A gag?
Re:Cosmic Time Travelling Karma? (Score:5, Funny)
A spit obviously.
Large Bread Collider (Score:5, Funny)
Impossible to operate? (Score:5, Informative)
This article [timesonline.co.uk] gives more information
A lot of things will drop on sections "of outdoor machinery". It seems that this LHC machine has been designed in such a way that will never get a chance to work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, something called "Rain" comes to mind...
Pretty unlikely in Europe don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, something called "Rain" comes to mind...
The LHC is on the Swiss/French border, not in the UK...
But birds could have dropped something funnier than a slice of bread...
Bird briefing... (Score:5, Funny)
The bird's briefing:
The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station.
Re:Bird briefing... (Score:5, Funny)
The bird's briefing:
The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station.
If the bird has been hitting womp-rats back home there should be no problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the scientists at CERN can discover some hidden force of nature, a Force that may be with them in their fight against the Avian Empire?
What about gravity? We could build a machine so powerful that it is theoretically capable of creating a black hole, and.. oh, wait.
Re:Bird briefing... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe the scientists at CERN can discover some hidden force of nature, a Force that may be with them in their fight against the Avian Empire?
You don't understand your position. We are the ones with the planet destroying technology. Besides, any attack by the Avians against the Collider would be a useless gesture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no other fauna shown on his desert homeworld that is "about two meters" Everything was much larger or much smaller, even in the remastered edition.
You didn't watch the real version: Super Star Wars for the SNES. The first level with luke is you whompin' whomprats. :)
--Jimmy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Admiral Platypus: At that close range we won't last long against those particle beams!
Pidgeo Pidgrissiann: We'll last longer than we will against that quantum suicide event! And we might just take it down with us!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have been reading too many Greg Egan books.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the subject at hand I recommend Quarantine [wikipedia.org]
Put a roof over it or something? (Score:5, Interesting)
One wonders how much it would take to put some kind of roofing over the most vulnerable exterior equipment. Something like corrugated tin on a steel frame or whatever.
Or maybe a roof over the cafeteria and the rubbish bins, so that birds can't just come and steal baguettes.
I've never heard of such deleterious effects of a bird dropping anything on outdoor power station switchgear ... what kind of vulnerable kit is this anyways?
Re:Put a roof over it or something? (Score:5, Funny)
One wonders how much it would take to put some kind of roofing over the most vulnerable exterior equipment. Something like corrugated tin on a steel frame or whatever.
You slashdot wise guys! Do you REALLY think PROFESSIONAL scientists would leave critical equipment exposed? That professionals paid to design and engineer a multi-billion dollar piece of equipment would forget a basic piece of covering? That you sitting there and speculating behind your keyboard sitting in your underwear in your mother's basement might have a better idea of how to protect delicate scientific equipment than hundreds of scientists and engineers with post graduate degrees?
Well in this instance it looks like you might be right?
Re:Put a roof over it or something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope
The bread was discovered on a busbar - an electrical connection inside one of eight buildings above ground on the 17-mile (27km) circuit in the Swiss countryside.
They don't need to invest in roofs, what they really need are doors.
Re:Put a roof over it or something? (Score:5, Funny)
The bird breadboarded a busbar inside a building.
The problem is Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is Windows.
Thankfully, the EU is looking into the anticompetitive practices of Windows, and is demanding that pidgeons have a menu of choice between Windows and Doors, as well as Apple(s) for ammunition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well maybe the bird flew through the door?
I live in a small town rather than a city. I've seen wild birds inside shops no less than... 5 times?
According to the people I know that work in retail, it's quite common for birds to fly indoors. (Looking for things?)
Re:Put a roof over it or something? (Score:5, Funny)
“Nobody knows how it got there,” she told The Times. “The best guess is that it was dropped by a bird, either that or it was thrown out of a passing aeroplane.”
If they've regularly got aeroplanes flying unnoticed through their buildings, they probably have bigger problems than birds and pieces of bread...
Obviously they should put up "no flying in buildings" signs.
Re:Put a roof over it or something? (Score:4, Funny)
put some kind of roofing over the most vulnerable exterior equipment.
There was a roof over it... but unfortunately they forgot about the tunnel effect...
You go tell them that. (Score:2)
whatcouldpossiblygowrong
This is a joke right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading summary title (Score:5, Insightful)
The LHC was not operational at the time of the incident
and the TFA
This incident won't delay the reactivation of the facility later this month
Re:Misleading summary title (Score:4, Funny)
I hate you for that misleading headline! (Score:2, Funny)
the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down the machine.
And had I been there at the writing of this headline, I would have kicked his ass! ^^
Wait for the next article's headline to be: Someone Kicked Philip K Dickhead's Ass Again! (Because I bet, with that name, it happened more than once already. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
In the other universe where the LHC was running and about to violate causality you were at the writing of this headline and you did kick his ass.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothesis: There are multiple universes. Many of them build the LHC. In those that build it, most turn it on, destroying themselves. Not only do they destroy themselves, but they take out their planet, their galaxy, and their universe, including time, such that they essentially never existed.
Obviously we can't live in one of those universes, so a series of accidents, bizarre or mundane, probably take place until someone decides it's not worth the effort and the project is scrapped.
That would explain the long delays and the mind-bogglingly arbitrary accidents.
Alternative hypothesis: The LHC is an internationally-funded, politically-changed science experiment of immense complexity. That alone would explain the delays and problems, and would also lead to it probably never being switched on.
3rd hypothesis: The LHC is switched on eventually, gives us much scientific knowledge, and doesn't kill us all. But really, that's boring and doesn't make for compelling science fiction. Just compelled science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now apply Occam's razor to those multiple hypothesis.
Hmm (Score:2)
Just how many of these freak accidents in a row would be necessary to provide incontrovertible proof of the "universe doensn't want us to switch LHC on" theory?
I can imagine an objective demo : once we're sure that the principle exists, there would be a special room with a red button to turn on LHC. Skeptics would be invited to attempt to press the button...
LHC not actually shut down (Score:5, Informative)
There's a saying (Score:4, Insightful)
"Never attribute to a time traveling malicious Higgs boson what can easily be attributed to human stupidity."
Physicists spend too much time in the lab in theoretical situations. It's amazing that when they design a machine that will go outside, they forget that birds tend to crap on everything.
The temp rise in question (Score:5, Interesting)
http://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_main.php?region=Sector81 [web.cern.ch]
Pretty wild to think that a rise up to 8 kelvin is a "serious overtemp event".
(And fancy CERN having all their engineering data online like that, open to everyone..... anyone'd think they invented the internet or something.)
All the universes where the bread missed a busbar! (Score:3, Interesting)
I too was pretty skeptical at first but now things are starting to get spooky.
Face it, the odds are really small that this would happen. It is more likely you have a scientist who is very worried about bad things happening, and who has actually intelligently sabotaged the system by trial and error, ending up with the old baguette-on-the-busbar trick which must be a physics joke among French speaking countries.
On the other hand, if the LHC is really a universe suicide machine then there must be an uncountable number of universes which died, due to the baguette hitting the wrong exterior portion of the LHC, etc.
Particle physics is one place where extremely big or small numbers are a matter of everyday discussion I expect. Unless a perpetrator is found soon (and boy I really hope one is), I doubt this will cause consternation among the public. Maybe if there are some smart people at LHC they may be freaking out now.
But consider what if the "running the LHC kills the Earth or maybe Everything" theory is true. First of all, almost all but a small fraction of all universes stemming from our many universes existing as of say a year ago must be extinguished by now, the odds of a bird with baguette causing a short-circuit being so small. If one more freaky incident occurs (as must happen according to the theory) then I think you will start seeing a lot of people freaking out and trying to stop the thing.
Also, if "LHC kills Earth" is true, and "there is a multiverse built like an ever branching tree" is true, then building the LHC is an act of pruning the tree and the number of universes in which you may potentially exist. In other words, there are way less alternate histories now, so existence for us is a lot less richer according to one way of looking at it (the number of multiverses). Another way of looking at that might be, is that it might become easier or harder to do things like quantum computing, or evolution, or scientific advancement toward a singularity, assuming that some connection among the multiverses, such as gravity, exists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean do you know what we are on that scale? We're specks even compared to the miniscule star we orbit. Itself a speck inside a cloud of billions of specks, amongst billions of billions of clouds of billions of specks.
And we can destroy all this? Heh, no.
A bird carrying a baguette - I think not! (Score:4, Funny)
Two African swallows with a piece of string between them... maybe.
The official CERN comment on the incident (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone should have one... (Score:4, Funny)
The LHC... the worlds most sophisticated toaster!!!
Higgs boson, not Higgs-Boson. (Score:4, Informative)
'Higgs-Boson' sounds like a particle discovered by two people named Higgs and Boson, which is not the case.
The Higgs particle was predicted by Higgs, amongst others, in '64. Its statistical behaviour classifies it as a boson (i.e., a particle that follows Bose-Einstein statistics), which are named after Bose.
A bird? A lazy WORKER. (Score:3)
It's an indoor piece of equipment. Above ground, but still in a building. Stupid reporter thought above ground meant outdoors.
It's a slice of bread. Birds don't SLICE bread. Nor do they carry around whole slices. Some lazy-ass contractor was sitting on a catwalk having lunch, dropped a slice, looked down into a mess of gear, shrugged, and went back to his sandwich. They're covering for his ass with stupid theories so they don't have to launch a full scale investigation and fire somebody for jamming up the works by being first clumsy and then criminally negligent by not reporting the incident and getting it taken care of.
They need to perform the full scale investigation. If the schlub drops a slice of bread somewhere else, they could lose something a lot more expensive and difficult to replace than 5 degrees kelvin.
Re:le sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because if it was, it would had been the roof collapsing that would had disabled it, and that would had caused a lot worse mess.
As a side note, I think that this confirms my pet theory concerning time travel: any attempt to do it will change the past, which changes the conditions of the travel slightly, which changes the past, and so on, until the travel never occurs and the past stops changing. In other words, a spacetime where time travel happens is unstable and decays into one where it won't. Quantum uncertainty would, in this interpretation, be there to allow causality to "stretch" enough to allow such decay; a hypothethical universe without quantum uncertainty but with sentience and time travel (which is an inevitable outcome of the Theory of Relativity, which in turn is an inevitable outcome from the laws of physics being the same for all observers) would tear itself apart. You can thus deduct the Uncertainty Principle from the Anthropic Principle (we are here, so this universe must be able to support sentient life).
I wonder if you could calculate the minimum required amount of uncertainty for spacetime to stay consistent, and how it would relate to observed/otherwise calculated values? Assume that the first singularity formed at t=0, and has been moving infinitely close to lightspeed ever since, and connects to every other time period through a wormhole, and go from there. The math is beyond me, does anyone else care to try?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I read your post five times and I still have no fucking idea what you just said.
Re:le sigh... (Score:4, Interesting)
The part you quoted already answered that, but I'll reiterate:
If you travel into the past, and end up causing any changes, then those changes cause the conditions at the point where you start your travel to be slightly different (because laws of physics treat past and future symmetrically [wikipedia.org], so each current state has not only just one possible future, but also just one possible past, so any change in the past is guaranteed to change the current state slightly). Since the conditions are different, your actions in the past will also be different. This then causes further changes to the conditions of your travel, and so forth.
Since the period of time that forms the loop keeps on changing, it's guaranteed to eventually hit a sequence where your time travel doesn't happen. Once it does, it'll stop changing, since the loop has been eliminated.
Another way of looking at this is to remember that, according to the Theory of Relativity, time is a property of the universe rather than something that exists independently of it. Consequently, the view of universe as a system evolving according to a set of rules is misleading. A more accurate model would be a jigsaw puzzle, with locations in space and time as the pieces and laws of physics as the rules that dictate how they can be connected together. In this view, time travel is unlikely to happen because the more neighbours a piece has, the more difficult (maybe impossible after a certain limit) it is for it to satisfy the consistency - or causality - requirements of them all.
However, that model requires one to give up the simple notion of causality as past events influencing future ones, since which piece can be fit where in a jigsaw puzzle depends on all neighbouring pieces, including the future ones. This is actually more consistent with the laws of physics, which don't discriminate based on teh direction of time, and also used all the time by humans to try to piece together past events from evidence, but it's also somewhat counter-intuitive and easy to mistake for time travel.
Different orbital paths might cross at the same point, put the objects following them have different velocities, so they'll continue on different paths.
True. However, please understand that universe tolerating a paradox would also logically invalidate the whole of science, including anything the LHC might find. In fact, it would likely invalidate logic itself.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your complaining might, in some very specific circumstances through a weird chain of consequences, mean the destruction of the entire planet. Wouldn't it be safer if you stopped whining?
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you keep complaining when this possibility clearly exists.
Re:Confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Can any1 explain why it's a good idea to be messing around with a machine that 'might' produce teeny-tiny black holes that 'shouldn't' cause any problems?
Because a black hole with the mass of a carbon atom exerts exactly the same gravitational force on other particles as a normal carbon atom. You don't see normal carbon atoms causing the collapse of the galaxy, do you?
While we're mixing geek references... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Listen, a 4 ounce bird could not possibly hit a small thermal exhaust port. It's impossible!"
"It's not impossible, I used to bullseye wamp rats - wait, do you mean a European or an African swallow?"