What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Oninion: two incredebly stupid scientific projects

  • #21
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The same thing happens with metabolic processes that produce hydrogen as a by-product.

Ah but see were not talking about natural procesess that produce hydrogen as a byproduct, ere talking about hijacking a DIFFERENT procss tht doesnt naturally do that.
 
  • #22
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 07 2005,10:25)]Blah blah yadda yada yada. Ok what am talking about? something that i feel are being pushed a head recklessly with potential for disaterous results.

The next generation of particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, is hoped to be powerfull enough to produce mini black holes within it.

Hes, you heard right: black holes.

Apparently it would be a stunning and exiting physics discovery and prove that the existence of other dimensions is fact and not just a theory. A exiting prospect, certainly. But what do we do with the black holes?

Well physicist say that if they are produced, that they should last a billionth of a billonth of a second and then evaporate. should. and that probably (hopefully) should be too breif to swallow surrounding matter. probably.

You know, physicists have been wrong before. Even if theyre right, what if two of these mini-black holes collide with each other and merge before they disappear? What then? They say thats "unlikely".

Does anyone else find it a litytle unnerving that we are having the potential of creating black holes in our back yard and that the best we can get is a "most likely" that they will evaporate before they can cause a problem? Well we'll know when its opened next year.

The other one is genetically engineering species of alge to produce hydrogen instead of oxygen as a by product of photosynthesis as a new source of fuel. Does anyone remember the last time a new byproduct was emitted by life-forms from photosynthesis? a little something called oxygen? As i understand it it cause quite a bit of problems for the other life forms about then. What if this gives the alge a edge other oxygen-producing alge in the wild? Why wed be screwed. Alge produces lots of the oxygen we breathe.


So thats my worries. what are some scientific endeavors that worry you?
Finch, that should be the last of your worries. Only a true pessimist would sit there dying of fear that a black hole, miniscule beyond imagining, will swallow the earth. I am pretty sure the physics is right. It will nevertheless be interesting to watch. And if it does swallow the earth, we would be gone even before we had time to contemplate upon our stupidity, not to mention correct the wronged physics.

Even if that happens, at least I will be safely tucked away in this island raft of singapore. Oh, no, wait...I just remembered I'm going to the US for uni...
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
  • #23
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 07 2005,10:25)]The other one is genetically engineering species of alge to produce hydrogen instead of oxygen as a by product of photosynthesis as a new source of fuel. Does anyone remember the last time a new byproduct was emitted by life-forms from photosynthesis? a little something called oxygen? As i understand it it cause quite a bit of problems for the other life forms about then. What if this gives the alge a edge other oxygen-producing alge in the wild? Why wed be screwed. Alge produces lots of the oxygen we breathe.


So thats my worries. what are some scientific endeavors that worry you?
This may be a little more credible to worry about. Although I don't see how they could gain an edge. If it did, then, well...we'll think about that later.

At first I thought that it was the buildup of hydrogen that you were concerned about.
smile.gif


Jason
 
  • #24
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 13 2005,9:26)]Ah but see were not talking about natural procesess that produce hydrogen as a byproduct, ere talking about hijacking a DIFFERENT procss tht doesnt naturally do that.
Are you sure?!?! Creating an entire metebolic pathway from scratch is a pretty daunting process. It isn't like building a better mousetrap, it is like building a whole new machine that spits out a better mousetraps as byproducts. In fact, to the best of my knowledge (and I am in the field of microbiology) no one has ever created an entire new metabolic pathway.

If you have a link to that article on this algae? I'd like to see just how they plan on creating the pathway without using a pre-existing system.
 
  • #25
Aren't the conditions for making a singularity (mini black hole or whatever you want to call it) pretty well known, within the realm of theory? I think we should be glad that a responsible organization is beginning work with them, because particle accelerators aren't going to be unreasonably expensive for long; eventually someone will get curious and start playing with singularities. It might as well be a reputable body of physicists. Besides, black holes are just very dense particles, so there's no reason to think that they behave any differently from the other heavy hadrons they work with in colliders every day. I think they even shrink when exposed to antimatter.
The algae is definitely the more worrisome possibility. Algae is ubiquitous - it grows anywhere and everywhere. I think genetics research is important, but I think applied GM technology is foolhardy - our understanding of genetics (and organic chemistry at large) is far too weak to go growing these things out in the wild. It's just too dangerous. Would you breed a race of really big, violent dogs and then turn them loose to live in the wild?
I once read an article in Wired or Scientific American about the pros and cons of GM crops... part of the 'con' discussion was a story about some field crop, I think it had some shellfish gene for cold resistance, whose genetic modifications 'broke' - IE they would detach from the rest of the cell's chromasomes - and wound up spliced into the chromasomes of a pest that ate the crop in test fields (I think it was grasshoppers.) That idea just creeps me out. I don't want to get some genetic shrimp cooties from my Corn Flakes. The real scary part is now all this stuff is loose in the wild, evolving and competing with the natural world.
I think a lot of this genetics stuff is just a few decades too soon. In another twenty years or so we'll be able to go put all this stuff on Mars or the moon or some place where it won't be able to kill everybody. In the mean time, there is responsible and viable research to be done in genetics with controlled breeding experiments. Somehow GMs just seem to be in vouge, despite their dangers; probably because anybody with a high school biology lab can do them.
~Joe
 
  • #26
Ok pyro. its a magazene article in discover magazine and heres the gist of it


“Some scientists are looking at genetic engineering as a mean s to turn various living organisms into harnessing the sun’s rays and making them into MORE efficient energy producers. Photosynthesis, energy from the sun. Normally, no hydrogenase (a natural enzyme that promotes the formation of gaseous hydrogen) is not involved in the process. But with microbes, it is possible to intervine genetically in ways that... er.. Encourage the activation of hydrogenase . Its not a new metabolic pathway at all.
The end result would be a altered photosynthedic process that produces LESS oxygen and MORE hydrogen.  Researchers at National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado have already succeeded in converting solar energy directly and continuously into hydrogen by manipulating photosynthesis in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a common species of green alge. There are lots of exited companies by the prospect of energy form possible biocells. “


And with enhanced efficiency, these things could be VERY competitive if they get out.

As for the black holes, i dont beleive that we know for a fact that they wont suck up matter before evaporating because its all in the relm of hypothesis, not theory.
 
  • #27
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 14 2005,6:00)]Ok pyro. its a magazene article in discover magazine and heres the gist of it


.
Which month? I don't get Discover anymore but I know someone who does. I'd like to read the full thing.

Also, Discover magazine is not necessarily the most reputable of scientific journals (I am not even soure I would go so far as to call them a scientific journal, more like science tabloid) so you have to take what they publish with a grain of salt. The age old saying I think applies here: "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]“Some scientists are looking at genetic engineering as a means to turn various living organisms into harnessing the sun’s rays and making them into MORE efficient energy producers. Photosynthesis, energy from the sun. Normally, no hydrogenase (a natural enzyme that promotes the formation of gaseous hydrogen) is not involved in the process. But with microbes, it is possible to intervine genetically in ways that... er.. Encourage the activation of hydrogenase . Its not a new metabolic pathway at all. The end result would be a altered photosynthedic process that produces LESS oxygen and MORE hydrogen.  Researchers at National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado have already succeeded in converting solar energy directly and continuously into hydrogen by manipulating photosynthesis in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a common species of green alge. There are lots of exited companies by the prospect of energy form possible biocells."

And with enhanced efficiency, these things could be VERY competitive if they get out.

Here is, at least in part, the source of the confusion. The efficiency of the process of getting hydrogen from photosynthesis has been enhanced (i.e. the organism are more efficient at producing the energy source, hydrogen.) The organisms themselves do not have enhanced efficiency.

Do you see the difference?

Running out basic stoichiometric equations would suggest the organisms would be significantly depressed for growth.

Basic photosynthesis makes sugar and oxygen from water and carbon dioxide:

6CO2 + 6H2O --sun--> C6H12O6 + 6O2

The sugars produced are then used for cellular respiration to create the bulk of energy used for growth.

Now if you tip the system to make hydrogen the equation looks like this:

6CO2 + 14H2O --sun--> C6H12O6 + 10O2 + 8H2

If you balance the equations then you will see that the later process yields less sugar. Sugar that the organism needs for cellular respiration. With less sugar available for cellular respiration the organism will not grow as fast. Hence, it will not be compeditive if it should "get out"

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for the black holes, i dont beleive that we know for a fact that they wont suck up matter before evaporating because its all in the relm of hypothesis, not theory

It is the process of sucking up matter that accelerates the evaporation of the micro-blackhole. The more it sucks in the faster it evaporates.
 
  • #28
Ah i see what you mean now, but i still cant say i like it.


Interesting. what is a more reputable sorce then>

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]it is the process of sucking up matter that accelerates the evaporation of the micro-blackhole. The more it sucks in the faster it evaporates.

And we obviously know so much from studing and testing micro black holes to make such a asshured statement. Most black holes start off far larger than mico black holes. how would we know how things react at this scale with a complete lack of observations on it? And large volumes of matter sucked up into larger black holes more than offsets the incresed evaporation rate, allowing for them to grow larger. Why is this not the case for micro back holes, and how do we know, not having any observations on them? Its in the realm of unteasted theory.
 
  • #29
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 15 2005,8:39)]Ah i see what you mean now, but i still cant say i like it.
Never said I was trying to make you like it
smile.gif
Just trying to clear it up that it is less of a bogey man than it was purported to be.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Interesting. what is a more reputable sorce then

A more reliable source in the popular media... Hmmmm... Scientific American is about the only journal commonly found in the book store that I would call reputable. If you can find Science or Nature or Cell (I occasionally see these in book stores) those would be even better. After that it depends on the field you are looking to learn more on, for microbiology and genetics journals like Journal of Bacteriology and Molecular Microbiology are good bets. PubMed is also a great site for finding real scientific articles. It might sound idioticly obvious but you want something that has articles written as scientific reports (Intro, Mat/Meth, Results, Discussion) and not something with articles written like pop media items.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And we obviously know so much from studing and testing micro black holes to make such a asured statement. Most black holes start off far larger than mico black holes. how would we know how things react at this scale with a complete lack of observations on it? And large volumes of matter sucked up into larger black holes more than offsets the incresed evaporation rate, allowing for them to grow larger. Why is this not the case for micro back holes, and how do we know, not having any observations on them?

Actually according to theory, most black holes in existence are micro-black holes. This is another case of general public knowledge being impared by the media. Since all the general public really hears about are macro-black holes (i.e. supernovae byproducts) then they assume that that is what the majority of black hole out there are. If you read the scientific literature you will find that macro-black holes are just a small part of the singularity family.

And macro-black holes behave differently than micro-black holes so their activity cannot really be compared. I am not really one for math so I have not comitted the equations to memory or even really bothered with the fine details of them but it is generally accepted that a black hole has to be a certain minimal mass to be stable, something on the order of a small planet I think. Super colliders of the present don't have the capasity to make something that large.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Its in the realm of unteasted theory

That is the way it is with most everything. That is what science is about, testing theories. But life is about that too. There is a statistical chance that just by walking out the door I am going to trip and fall on the stair down to my driveway and die from it but I don't let that miniscule chance keep me from ever leaving my house. Every day I test that theory. And I know that might sound somewhat ridiculous but the statistical odds of me dying in my driveway are huge compared to the odds of the black hole going nutso and eating the world for dinner. So if I am willing to risk my life every day then I say let the scientists do what they want to as well. Just my view on life though.
 
  • #30
IHow do we know micro black holes ecist at all? Arnt they undetected so far? then HOW would w eknow they act differently? becaus ethe models project that it would? There are many things in space science that wasnt what the theorist predicted them to be. Even some current basic theoies need revising because the observations are proving them wrong. Not entierly. But somewhat.

Oh i've heard about those journals! id absolutely LOVE to have them, but they are expensive. The subscriptions are pretty high.
 
  • #31
Sorry, but I don't have time to read the previous posts. I just wanted to say, that if we create a black hole, it wont really be harmful if it's contained, and it has no possibility of growing in size unless it consumes massive amounts of matter. Even if somehow it dropped to the ground... it shouldn't do too much, as it would be so small, as would its gravitational well. Although, I guess if for some reason it was getting massive amounts of raw energy from something, it could grow in size due to E=mc2 (equivilent exchange of matter and energy). Are black holes spherical? I mean, they should be, shouldn't they?
 
  • #32
Wouldn't the hydrogen produced rise into the upper atmosphere and get blasted off by solar winds? Zongyi
 
  • #33
really. and how are black holes contained? by matter boxes? Even if that were possible, no container lasts forever. Do you really exoect us to be there to keep replaceig containers indefinatly? That would require a stable political system.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] Even if somehow it dropped to the ground... it shouldn't do too much, as it would be so small, as would its gravitational well.
It would come in direct contact with matter. How could that not suck it up?
 
  • #34
How much mass does a micro black hole have, anyway? As much as a grain of sand? Less? Is anyone really afraid of the gravitational influence of that much mass? It's not like they work like a magic vacuum or something... it's just the knee-jerk reaction caused by the term "black hole".
 
  • #35
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It's not like they work like a magic vacuum or something... it's just the knee-jerk reaction caused by the term "black hole".

Exactly. It's not like they're some sort of endless abyss, they are objects. As they said, the tiny singularity that they create probably wouldn't last even a second. I'm sure it would be created and contained within some sort of energy field that would essentialy keep it from hiting anything. I'm not particularly worried. Damage just doesn't seem plausible.
 
  • #36
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm sure it would be created and contained within some sort of energy field that would essentialy keep it from hiting anything.  I'm not
and do you expect anything like that to be conatined by some sort of enegry feild indefinatly? i find that highly unlikely.

It would need a constant power sorce and knowledgeable personell to prevent it from breaking down. All those often dont hold up. Would you expect that to hold up to something like a world war?


Also, remember a singilarity is a almost infenetly dense object, far denser than a a grain of sand. Remember, mass from a neutron star has a density of 4.8 billion tons a square inch. A matter from a black holw would be almost indefinatly denser.
 
  • #37
Ok Finch. What they are attempting to create is an extremely small POINT of singularity. It would probably be more of a point in space than what we call a black hole. Ontop of that, you do know that black holes can evaporate in time right? An object or whatever that small would indeed fade away very fast, and there is no chance this thing is going to grow any, because I'm sure that they wont be feeding matter or energy into it. Give theese people some credit, they are scientists after all. This is their field, and they know quite a bit more details than we do. I'm sure they wont do anythi9ng that would jeapordise their life. I seriously dont know why you're so worried. Also, I would gather that there is a difference between a cingularity, and the black hole that forms around it, unless the entire black hole is a cingularity itself, which I doubt. Sarraceniascott needs to get his but back in this conversation!
biggrin.gif
 
  • #38
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 18 2005,4:08)]Also, remember a singilarity is a almost infenetly dense object, far denser than a a grain of sand. Remember, mass from a neutron star has a density of 4.8 billion tons a square inch. A matter from a black holw would be almost indefinatly denser.
How much matter is squished into a singularity you measure in Angstroms? In that context, a grain of sand is massive. If that isn't enough, how about 10 grains of sand? 100? It's roughly comparable to suns vs. black holes/neutron stars.

So why are we worried about a grain of sand just because the matter is arranged differently?

EDIT: I figured I'd just look up some numbers instead of guessing. A black hole smaller than an electron could have a mass up to that of a pond or a small lake. Somehow I doubt they're going to have nearly that much matter (or certainly energy) to even put into the thing... so it's going to be much much much smaller than that (though still more massive than my sand grains I guess... I'm not sure).

Even if it was a bigger one... how much of a gravitational pull does a pond really have? If a macro black hole has the mass of millions of suns, of course it's going to warp space drastically (just like a million suns would, cumulatively). But a pond? How does the density change the effects it has on the macroscopic world? What happens at the event horizon?

I guess we're just asking the same questions now.
smile.gif
 
  • #39
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 16 2005,8:30)]How do we know micro black holes exist at all? Arn't they undetected so far? then HOW would we know they act differently? because the models project that it would? There are many things in space science that weren't what the theorist predicted them to be. Even some current basic theoies need revising because the observations are proving them wrong. Not entierly. But somewhat.
Technically we don't know that micro-black holes exist. But at the same time we don't actually know that macro-black holes exist either. Neither have ever been observed. They have seen things that might be macro-black holes but it is very possible that what was seen was something that acted like we predick a macro-black hole to behave but that is not actually a macro-black hole. Without direct observation we can not be sure and without an interstellar space program we can't have direct observation.

Yes there are many things in all science that have turned out to be wrong but that is the way of science. It is a matter of dergees though, Newton's laws turned out to be wrong but that does not mean that suddenly the apple falls up.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh i've heard about those journals! id absolutely LOVE to have them, but they are expensive. The subscriptions are pretty high.

Try libraries all the access with marginal cost. If you are a student you can usually get a discount too.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]really. and how are black holes contained? by matter boxes?

A micro-black hole would be contained by a magnetic box or pinned with lasers. The nature of both have them working best under conditions of vacuum. Being trapped in a vacuum there would be nothing for the blackhole to consume and it would evaporate that much faster.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Even if that were possible, no container lasts forever. Do you really expect us to be there to keep replaceig containers indefinatly? That would require a stable political system

This might sound trite but science tends to transcend politics. Just because a political system breaks down does not mean that the scientists are going to just toss a black hole out the window to destroy the world (if that is what it would do in the first place.)

On to points of singularity and all that jazz. Just to touch on this quickly (I have a ton of cultures I am attending too.) With angstrom or smaller width "mouths" micro-black holes have a limit to how fast they can "consume" matter. You also get a sort of odd increased travel time to the actual "center" of the singularity. Again, I don't know the math off hand but I think it is something like 3 weeks to cover the distance from the event horizon to the center of the singularity due to the deformation of space time. Basically what it comes down to is that a singularity of the type we are talking about would be really hard pressed to "eat" its way to big boy status before "popping" into a haze of exotic radiation.
 
  • #40
Well, about the black hole containment. I dont know if it could be contained with any electromagnetic energy. Supposedly, black holes have no charge because they so rapidly absorb all electromagnetic energy. If it had a charge, then it would so quickly attract an opposite charge that it would essentially be neutral. But, however they form the cingularity, it would be equidistant sphericaly from what ever exerted the pressures to create it, and with it lasting miliseconds, it should form with no momentum, and thus form at a point in space and disapear at about the same point so containing it probably wouldn't even be an issue. If only sarraceniascott could help...
smile_n_32.gif
 
Back
Top