Oh crap, I changed my mind — we're doomed. <br><br>Gordon Freeman's been spotted in the lab...<br><br>[color:red]Work With ____!</font color=red>

Actually, all of this is moot. Ask any woman paired up with a man and they'll tell you there is black hole in their man's mind which sucks most relationship-related information in it...<br><br>I've been cracking up while reading peoples' assumptions on the LHC on a few internet forums. Man's imagination is as infinite as man's stupidity. <br><br>I guess most have indeed been worried about the possible miniscule black holes it might create and lot of referring to that video in youtube. Makes me almost wish Mongol was still around, but that would be just cruel.<br><br>

CGS?! You mean all this time expecting the Overlord to show up has been a waste of time? Ray Bradbury only wrote a piece of fiction? Damn!<br><br>All hail CGS!<br><br>

If speed of light is 299,792.458 km/s, it works out to something like 299,792.457999999 km/s (that's not exact but probably close), but still less than speed of light.<br><br>However if they are traveling at 1C, closing speed would be 2C. Remember, it's relative to frame of reference.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

Your math is right, but you're answering the wrong question, I think. The "near the speed of light" business becomes a measure of the energy of the particles, so that the smashing together of the two streams at those speeds means that the mash up will be more energetic than what, say, Fermilab can perform. The amount of energy will, presumably, be converted to the huge mass expected of the Higgs boson. The possibility of creating black holes depends on the same idea--the expectation would be that the mass of the particle(s) created in the mash up will be so large that the the whole business will implode into a singularity.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your math is right, but you're answering the wrong question, I think. <p><hr></blockquote><p>No, he was asking at what velocity does the collision take place if they particles strike each other head on at the speed of light. The formula to use is the relativistic addition of velocities, which BTW is the proper formula to use for every collision but for speeds much slower than light (i.e. two cars hitting head on) you can simply sum the velocities and get a close enough answer.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

Yep . . . I was just saying that the concern is the energy of the collision, signaled by the speeds to be sure.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

"An interesting hypothesis which won't really be tested until the end of the month when the ring is turned up to ten. (Or maybe even eleven.)"<br><br>This is what irked me, the media had it wrong (this time, heh), and after all the jokes we made at the office like, "Are we still here?" etc. (my personal favorite joke of mine was "the end is ni(gh)ne"), it turns out they aren't going to start doing anything real for another few weeks. Oh well, we can rehash the jokes again in a month or so.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle