Scientists Planning to Dig Through Earth's Crust in 2020
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
In the borehole pressure mines 100km beneath Planetsurface,Blue_vision said:
at the Mohorovicic Discontinuity where crust gives way to mantle,
temperatures often reach levels well in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius.
Exploitation of Planet's resources under such brutal conditions has
required quantum advances in robotic and teleoperational technology.
-- Morgan Industries, Ltd.,
"Annual Report"
My thoughts as well, feels like a bad idea. Catastrophic movie bad idea where they blow up the crust or something haha. It also prompts the question, what is the point of all this? To what end does this serve us, aside from knowing what pure lava looks like...redisforever said:
Besides, with the immense amounts of money, resources and talents being dedicated to this, I can help but think: wouldn't all of those things be better suited elsewhere?
CAPTCHA: worat INFINITUDE
the hell?
Is that a joke, or do you really believe that one can "infect" a massive, 1800 mile thick layer of 2000°-4000°F solid rock?vid87 said:
If that is what you believe, then you are uneducated enough that you don't understand the mechanics of the project, the geology and physics involved, or the comparative scales of the project and the earth, and your feeling that this is a bad idea is a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't understand.
I don't believe your opinion is worthy of respect. In fact I think that this kind of thing should be shunned in the same way that a man who defecates in public should be shunned. Indeed, the two are at least figuratively similar.
See, people who do this sort of thing- rejecting ideas out of hand simply because what they don't understand scares them- can and have done a lot of damage to societies in the past. People often wonder why we don't have some of the technologies we were promised by books and movies several decades ago. Part of the answer is people doing what you just did.
Science doesn't work like the technology trees in games. Most revolutionary discoveries, and especially the technologies that are born from them, are accidents born from research that had no intention of doing what they did. The man who discovered penicillin had absolutely no intention of making the first antibiotic. The people who first worked on Quantum Mechanics had no idea that their work would lead to the silicon chip. The man who worked out the structure of the atom and initiated the field of nuclear science was actually trying to prove an incompatible hypothesis, and he certainly couldn't have imagined how his work would change the world, both for better and worse.
In the 90s, people were griping about the increasingly (seemingly) abstract work of physics, muttering about how it didn't do anyone any good for the physicists to find this or that new particle that could only be measured or made with billions of dollars of equipment. Those particles are now the basis for new medical scanners.
Your approach to discovery does harm in other ways as well. Much has been made about the "danger" from the Large Hadron Collider. Everyone is worried about it making black holes, but the media never ever bothers to mention that black holes are nothing more than clumps of matter with an unusually high density, and therefore, in many cases, unusually strong gravity. Since the black holes the LHC would produce would be the product of a few subatomic particles colliding, they would therefore have only the mass of a few subatomic particles, and therefore, the gravity of a few subatomic particles.
Furthermore, the media never mentions that gravity is the weakest known force in the universe, and that the gravity created by even the mass of a human being is too small to measure, let alone the gravity created by the mass of a few subatomic particles. The electrostatic repulsion and attraction of particles, on the other hand, may as well be infinitely greater (that force, by the way, is what prevents you from walking through walls and what holds objects together. When you overcome the electromagnetic force in an object, it breaks). This force, along with a few other, slightly weaker ones, is the reason that no particle-scale black hole will be able to do much of anything, as any matter the hole ingests, if the hole manages to do so at all, will repel other matter more strongly than the black hole can attract it.
It gets better. They also fail to mention that black holes lose mass over time in the form of faint radiation, and the smaller the black hole, the faster this loss occurs. Since micro black holes are as small as you'll ever find, they won't last long. In fact, they will vanish nearly instantly.
But the media is not much concerned with accuracy in science articles and stories, as shown on this very page by the author saying that the Kola well, the deepest well ever, is 1 km deep (it is more like 12 km) while also saying that most oil wells are 2 km deep. Can't get much more unconcerned with accuracy than that. They still like to blare the sirens though, and whip their readers into a terrified frenzy. This lead to the death by suicide of at least one person (a young girl in India), because they figured death by suicide is better than death by black hole. So far, the LHC has killed no one, and the media, in their eagerness to hype Hollywood-science disaster-movie scenarios, has indirectly caused at least one death through fear of the LHC.
One death is hardly a statistically significant figure, and I suspect that one so easily persuaded might have killed herself for some other reason later, but it does illustrate the harm that can be done by people becoming hysterical about things they don't understand. Had the media had some tiny quantity of journalistic integrity, they would have educated themselves about the physics of the situation, then educated the public to the extent that the public was willing to listen, and then they could be as hopeful as we are that this machine will reveal things to us that we had no idea we didn't know. Instead, there are probably people getting ready to commit mass suicide on the day that the collider runs its first full-power test, assuming someone doesn't bomb it or kill the researchers involved first.
And yes, I'm aware that an argument could be made that one of the things we have no idea we don't know could be that the LHC will be dangerous for some other unknown reason. But the same was feared about the first nuclear bomb. The issue was studied, much as the "dangers" of the LHC have been, and the best minds in the field concluded, as they have today, that the means to destroy the world or break physics are not nearly as accessible as people are afraid they are. Of course, there are other ways to destroy the world with nuclear bombs, provided one has enough of them, but the worry at the time was on the danger of setting off just one bomb, and it was mostly about whether the first bomb would ignite the atmosphere.
There is a wide suite of possible outcomes that people are expecting from the experiments at the LHC, some taken more seriously than others. No one with any credibility has taken any of the doomsday scenarios seriously since they were given the scrutiny that was demanded at the beginning of the hysteria. Scientists, being residents of the physical world like everyone else, have no interest in being sucked into black holes or converted to new forms of matter or winking out of existence, no matter how fatalistic and obsessive the uneducated might like to think they are. They have looked at the possibilities seriously and have found the fears to be groundless.
Everybody here likes to talk about digging too deep or causing zombie apocalypses or opening the gates to hell or whatever. I invite you to consider: How many times, in the 2000+ years since philosophers first started having real discussions about the natural world, has any of that actually happened? Now think about how many real horrors there are or were in the world that you will never have to face, or are better prepared to face, because of the work of scientists: The plague, smallpox, polio, cholera, typhoid, predators, starvation (still a problem for many but not nearly the problem it used to be, and we're working on it, despite your stubborn efforts to ban GM foods because they scare you), hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami (obviously hard to do much when the source is nearby, but warning systems save a lot of lives farther out) diabetes, paralysis, all sorts of genetic disorders, AIDS and other STDs, Influenza (this killed A LOT of people back in the day, now it's just something that happens every winter or so), tetanus, infection from minor wounds, marauding nomads, bitter cold, oppressive heat, drought, and manually calculated pen-and-paper taxes.
I think our record speaks for itself.
The fools don't they know the earth is a huge balloon? dig too deep and it will pop! THE POPING IS UPON US!
Oh well I suppose it would be cool to know what it is made of just before we pop.
I am going to build a pop proof shelter who is in?
THE POPING IS NEAR!
Oh well I suppose it would be cool to know what it is made of just before we pop.
I am going to build a pop proof shelter who is in?
THE POPING IS NEAR!
Agreed. Furthermore, this project would go a long way in helping us harness geothermal energy on a massive scale, which would reduce pollution and give us a constant and inexhaustible source of power.McMullen said:
The only time scientific endeavour can be unjustifiably dangerous is when it's used to achieve political ends or make money. But even that has changed the world we live in for the better.
"
Like what? It's not like they can do much more damage than what the earth does to itself all the time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary]NLS said:
o god am i the only one that is perturbed by that glaring typo XD if it was mid paragraph it wouldn't be so bad but jebus man lol
i wonder if they just want to see if those Giant diamonds they predicted would be down there actually exist, if so bringing one up should fund their entire expedition XD
i wonder if they just want to see if those Giant diamonds they predicted would be down there actually exist, if so bringing one up should fund their entire expedition XD
McMullen Post: -RAGE-
I appreciate you taking your time (by the length of the post, quite a bit) to try to educate me, but I'm not particularly pleased with your tone. If I'm wrong, say so; comparing me to a crazy public deficater isn't necessary.
That said, you're right: I was being glib and melodramatic. I tend to do that, especially with matters concerning science. True I don't really know much about science, but yes the earth's mantle will most likely not be "infected." Again, I tend to ponder the worst. You're absolutely right that much of science happens by accident, but I still can't help but wonder when things could be taken too far. The rumors about the LHD do actually worry me a bit, because chance and probability can surprise even the most confident scientists. I'd like to think there can be a threshold where doubt and worry can be completely unnecessary, but I feel nature can be volatile, and mankind, for all it's achievements, can still be wrong.
I apologize if I've sounded like I've spit in the face of science or something. Just please don't rip my head off next time.
I appreciate you taking your time (by the length of the post, quite a bit) to try to educate me, but I'm not particularly pleased with your tone. If I'm wrong, say so; comparing me to a crazy public deficater isn't necessary.
That said, you're right: I was being glib and melodramatic. I tend to do that, especially with matters concerning science. True I don't really know much about science, but yes the earth's mantle will most likely not be "infected." Again, I tend to ponder the worst. You're absolutely right that much of science happens by accident, but I still can't help but wonder when things could be taken too far. The rumors about the LHD do actually worry me a bit, because chance and probability can surprise even the most confident scientists. I'd like to think there can be a threshold where doubt and worry can be completely unnecessary, but I feel nature can be volatile, and mankind, for all it's achievements, can still be wrong.
I apologize if I've sounded like I've spit in the face of science or something. Just please don't rip my head off next time.
In my experience, pondering the worst is not a successful strategy for life. It may keep you safe, true, but it will also prevent you from experiencing many of the things life has to offer. People who ponder the worst and shy away from courses of action they may have taken otherwise do not go into business for themselves, start companies, pursue careers in the arts, achieve their dreams, innovate, or change the world. They merely become people no one knows about. If all we did was ponder the worst, we'd still be up in trees or hiding in caves. Realizing life's potential requires a willingness to take risks. You still want to evaluate those risks ahead of time, but if you only look at the worst possible outcome, including outcomes that you can't know about, then you won't ever do anything that hasn't been done before.vid87 said:
I used to say to people that I didn't understand why everyone was so afraid of death that they avoided life. After a few losses at roommate roulette, and the financial destruction that caused, I too began pondering the worst, and chose to do only what was safe. My life didn't go anywhere for 5 years. I recently became aware of what a crippling thing fear is and I'm starting to take risks again. And you know what? I'm much happier and closer to my goals than I was a year ago.
Society works in the same way. Societies that ponder the worst are the ones no one ever hears about. Societies that didn't ponder the worst, and then start doing so, are the ones that held places of prominence in the world, and then fell behind everyone else. You know, kind of like the US.
So I don't think pondering the worst is the way to go. It's been tried many times by many people, both individually and in groups, and has never been shown to be an effective long-term strategy. I do think it's important to evaluate risks so that you avoid acting rashly, but not to obsess over them. CERN and the mantle borehole drillers have more than satisfied their obligation for risk analysis. You can go there and read the fact that they have on their site if you want to see for yourself.
As for my harshness, you have no idea. I deleted several paragraphs in my last wall of text because I thought they were excessively harsh. My first impulse was to tell you to hush and let the grown-ups do the talking. That should give you an idea of the tone of my initial reaction. What made it into the post was strongly worded because I felt that your opinion was of a kind that should not be treated with respect.
Opinions matter. Everyone likes to say how things are just opinions, but opinions shape the world, whether they are connected with reality or not. People fly to the moon or commit mass suicide in South American jungles based on opinions. People create great works of art or commit atrocious murders because of opinions. Because they have such an impact, I do not think that bad opinions should have the exemption from criticism that people are often willing to give them. That is why I made it clear what I thought of yours.
The other thing that annoys me about your post and a depressingly large number of posts like it, even on this same thread, is that to make that post, you had to be on the internet. If you're on the internet, that means that educating yourself on what you are speaking about can be done immediately, easily, for free, and within minutes. Despite the fact that learning has never been easier or faster or cheaper, so few people take the time to do it before spouting hysteria based on ignorance. In my mind, there's just no excuse for that. Posting without any knowledge of the topic you're speaking about is just lazy.
If, for example, you are afraid of the LHC black holes, google "CERN black holes". The very first result is "The safety of the LHC - CERN", which will tell you everything you need to know.
While I'm fairly sure someone has taken dangers from mantle boreholes seriously enough to study them, that is likely to be a bit more obscure, as the only hype I've seen is in comments on this page. You could start by learning what the mantle is, what it's made of, what its properties are, how big it is and how deep. That alone should imply enough other information to put many of your fears to rest. That can be done in about... 3 minutes or so. Despite what they say about Wikipedia, it's generally a good resource for science, as most of the things you'll read in such articles are non-controversial, and the vandals are usually busy elsewhere. The US Geological Survey is also a decent source for primers on various geology topics.
A search for "mantle borehole dangers" turned up this article: http://www.helium.com/items/2125229-scientists-vow-to-drill-into-earths-mantle
A bit lacking in details but it'll do. As the article states, the major hazard is the loss of a lot of expensive equipment or the possibility of getting several hundred meters in and then having to give up. The possibility of an artificial volcano is mentioned, but the casual mention of it doesn't come near to a serious discussion.
See, volcanoes and the systems that create them are more dynamic than people realize. Yes, a hole from the surface to the mantle will become a conduit for magma. However, any such hole will quickly collapse and be sealed shut by the pressure of the surrounding rock. In order to get a sustained column of magma, there must be some other mechanism causing the magma to rise. There are many places in the world where such mechanisms exist. You can find them easily on a map because that's where the volcanoes are. Magma is good at making its own path to the surface if it really wants to, it tends not to need help. There are places where paths have been opened for it though, and while volcanoes did form in these places, they were small, had one episode of activity, and then never erupted again. You can find them as cinder cones along fault lines.
Man-made volcanoes aren't common, but they aren't new either. Magma once erupted through a pipe in a geothermal plant in Iceland, I imagine the well was no longer operational after that, but nothing else significant came of it. The large, active volcanoes that we see in the world are there because there is a reason for the magma to rise of its own accord. Where there is no such mechanism, volcanoes do not occur unless a path is opened for the magma, and even then, eruptions are small, short lived, and so far, harmless. Keep in mind that Iceland is VERY volcanically active, and even there the artificial volcano was short lived.
So the worst in this case is that magma rises through the borehole to the ocean floor and is quenched immediately by the seawater, forming a plug. With no further mechanism to push it upwards, the magma will be unable to breach the plug, and the entire conduit will eventually solidify. If for some strange reason the magma continues to rise, it will be thousands of years before the volcano breaches the ocean's surface, assuming it stays active for that long. New volcanic islands are not exactly common, but not very rare either. I know that at least one has been born in my lifetime, but received so little attention that I can't even remember its name or where it was.
Anyway, try to avoid dwelling on the worst possible outcome. Your life will be better for it. And please, please try to educate yourself before spreading hysteria or deciding whether something is "good" or "bad". If you're not a voter yet, you will be someday, so if you find yourself in a position to vote on a science related issue, make an effort to learn about the subject yourself. It only takes a half-hour at most to get enough information to make an informed decision. DO NOT rely on the press to give you good information. Journalists are the worst authorities on scientific ideas and knowledge. I suspect that they are just as bad at informing the public on other topics as well, but it's easier to prove in absolute terms just how bad they are when they deal with science.
Hope this is more helpful than offensive to you. I apologize for the walls of text. I just don't like the possibility that I've left something unsaid that was important to the points I was trying to make. Pondering the worst is a hard habit to get out of.