To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Concern over Cern's attempt at blackhole creation
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General
Pages: 1, 2

ubavontuba
Group,

Pardon my ignorance , but I was wondering if any of you might be able to inform me as to any possible danger in the attempt to create nano-blackholes here on Earth.

I know that they are supposed to evaporate almost immediately via Hawking radiation, but what if this doesn't happen?

In the worst case scenario where the blackholes form together and fall into the center of the Earth where all that heavy uranium, lead and iron reside, what might be the result? How long would the Earth survive? Keep in mind that the the Earth's gravitational pressure could "force-feed" the blackholes.

Also, how do they intend to control them? It seems to me that a blackhole can't be susceptible to electromagnetic manipulation since any charge it has would be contained within the event horizon. Is this correct?

Lastly, if this works I presume they'll want to do it again, only bigger. Then again, only bigger. Then yet again, only bigger. When does someone start to draw lines here?

Wouldn't it be best to pursue these experiments off-world sometime in the future? Someplace far away?

I just finished watching the tape of "A Brief History of Time" wherein Stephen Hawking explains Hawking radiation. My opinion is that his conclusions are illogical.

As he stated the virtual pairs are broken apart by the event horizon, but it's a 50-50 chance whether the particle or anti-particle falls in. Therefore there can be no net change to the mass. Half of something minus half of something equals no change.

The radiation certainly should exist, but it should be the result of space itself radiating free particles and anti-particles, not a result of a loss of mass of the black hole itself.

Does this make sense? blink.gif

Eric
Guest_Steve
Yea that makes alot of sense, like I know concrete equations can predict all they want but just that off chance kinda makes u think for a second.... then really curious smile.gif
Steveo
The event horizon for one of these little black holes is going to be so small that it wouldn't even be able to "eat" a proton, and maybe not even an electron. Black holes are not these strange, death causing beasts as some people think (although they they could be sometimes.)
Costs is where people draw the line. The new collider at CERN costs in the neighborhood of 8 Billion dollars. To go bigger is going to cost much much more than this, and cost will stop them from going to big.
ubavontuba
Steveo,

Right, it will indeed be very small, at first. But it will grow exponentially as the pressures in the Earth's core ram countless quantum particles into it, then atoms, then molecules, then specs, then chunks... then the whole darn thing.

Eric
Guest_Steve
well what classifies a black hole as a black hole, does it have to emit hawking radiation, or does it need a certiain effect on sp/light on the cosmic scale or does it have to do what we "all" know they do and that is suck in stuff, so if it cant suck in a proton or election then does it still have a pull on them? and if it cant suck in a proton or election then how do we phsically know its there or measure it besides the math behind it.... please someone define :Black Hole:
steveswin
A black hole is a region of spacetime from which nothing can escape, not even light. This region has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull.

The idea of a mass concentration so dense that even light would be trapped goes all the way back to Laplace in the 18th century. Almost immediately after Einstein developed general relativity, Karl Schwarzschild discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an object. It was only much later, with the work of such people as Oppenheimer, Volkoff, and Snyder in the 1930's, that people thought seriously about the possibility that such objects might actually exist in the Universe.

In general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Massive objects distort space and time, so that the usual rules of geometry don't apply anymore. Near a black hole, this distortion of space is extremely severe and causes black holes to have some very strange properties. In particular, a black hole has something called an 'event horizon.' This is a spherical surface that marks the boundary of the black hole. You can pass in through the horizon, but you can't get back out. In fact, once you've crossed the horizon, you're doomed to move inexorably closer and closer to the 'singularity' at the center of the black hole.

Black holes are formed when we compress a material to such an extent that both electron degenercy and then neutron degenercy pressure cannot resist further collapse. At this point nothing else can stop further collapse to a singularity.

A black hole, in theory, can have any mass. Most are formed from the collapse of a stellar core that was about 10 times the size of our Sun. i.e. 10^31 kg. Galactic cores are thought to also contain massive black holes, several million to several billion times the mass of our Sun. But small tiny black holes are equally possible, although only theorised and not observed. These could have been produced early in the evolution of our universe.

According to Hawkings the amount of radiation from a black hole is inversely proportional to its size. Hence a small black hole will radiate faster than a large one. Whether Hawkings radiation is in reality true has yet to be proved.

The only way I know of detecting a black hole is by its effect on surrounding matter. Black holes cannot be viewed directly but if we can detect a massive concentration of matter, in a very small area, we can infer the existence of a black hole. Also if matter is present in the region of the black hole and is in the process of falling on to the event horizon it emits radiation which we might detect.

Not sure if this helps the discussion, but it summarises what I think is known about black holes to date.

ubavontuba
Steveswin,

That is a good synopsis.

One must also consider that even if Hawking's math works (though I don't think so) he could still be wrong.

One only needs to consider the lagrangian math upon which Emmy Noether used to prove conservation in symmetrical systems. We already have proof that this is not always true in the CP violation which has been verified and measured in colliders.

So if math isn't always trustworthy to begin with, and people are prone to error, should we risk our world and all it represents in one science experiment?

Eric
steveswin
ubavontuba,

I fully agree.

There are acceptable levels of risk we can and should take and unacceptable ones. This definitely transgresses into an area where we do not yet have the skills or the knowledge to play with such a powerful process.


steve
ubavontuba
Steveswin and other agreeable parties,

Then join me. E-mail everyone and post messages in every corner explaining the danger. Feel free to use my original post.

Let's start a chain-reaction of our own.

Eric
ubavontuba
Group,

I just wanted to follow-up on whether anyone else was interested in helping me get the word out on this danger.

You may e-mail me privately with a response if you like, just click on "ubavontubna" to the left and navigate to the upper right box. You can send me a private e-mail message by clicking it in the list.

Eric
cow
actually they think they already made some.. just dont have definate proof..
some theorise these will only be short lived but yeah I would still feel safer if it was another planet or better yet me instead.
ubavontuba
Cow,

Yes, I know. Frankly, this frightens me. I'm hoping that it was only nuetron matter or a weird sort of BEC.

Eric
Zorlont3
I can just picture aliens studying us like we study animals. Inside our homes are small cameras that we are not intelligent enough to detect, like many animals in burrows that have cameras in them. So the aliens watch and study us, learning what little we have to offer. As some alien scientists watch earth from a window in their space ship, taking notes, they notice something. The earth is gone! They go back to their high-speed cameras and replay what their eyes could not detect. Earth is sucked into itself and becomes a blackhole! The aliens laugh as "Another One Bites the Dust" plays softly in the background.

Of course I am sure alot of equations have different opinions, but this is mine. Why study what we believe is the most powerful, dangerous, most mysterious and downright mindboggling thing known to exist? Why here on earth? Sure, lets make a small nuclear explosion and watch it with a microscope? "OW, MY EYE!"

My thought is this....Why don't we finish mapping the ocean floor, exploring the caves here on earth, maybe even land a person or 2 on mars before we go playing with dynamite. Cause in reality, a black hole as we know it is SUPER ULTRA MEGA dangerous. "Only if your close to it"....Well DUH! If we make one well be close to it. I know that the stuff we learn will be valuble to science and mankind...but I can just picture those aliens...


"Lol, like handing dynamite to a baby and pointing at the BIG, RED, Detonate button."

O well, just my thoughts.
solidspin
all-

Does anyone know offhand what Hawking's radiation rate is? Preferably the actual derivatives. The reason is that if the correlation is inverse, we could easily figure out how quickly the synthetic BH will dissipate. I seriously doubt we have to worry, depending on the slope of the curve, given that the size of this thing will be in the 10^-18 range.

-gleefully spinning solids
Steveo
Hey Everyone

I did a little bit of research today to see if your fears of creating a black hole here on earth is anything nearly as bad as you all feel it is. I crunched a few numbers for an experiment that wouldn't be done, and there is still nothing to worry about. At CERN the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), according to their website when they are opporational can accelerate protons to 14TeV, and they can also collide lead with collision energy of 1150TeV (according to their website) so I used the lead collision number for all of my calculations (the colliders doing this research would have much less energy, more on the order of 1Tev, or less). I discovered that the Swartzchild radius of this black hole would be 3.035*10^-48m. This is approximately 13 orders of magnitude smaller than the planck length (planck length = 1.6*10^-35m) And apparently the planck length is the smallest something can get......weird (I only used the most simplistic equations for this......I did a search for black hole radius and used the simple equation that you learn in highschool for a black hole radius, so it might not be entirely accurate, but you get the idea right?) Also, the classic electron radius is 2.8*10^-15m, so an electron would be to big to fit inside of the event horizon. Also, the mass of this black hole (assuming that all of the collisions energy went into the formation of the black hole would be about 2*10^-21kg. I used Newton's universal law of gravitation and a simple kinematics formula and integrated over a distance. If a particle was 1nm away from the this black hole it would take 80 seconds to fall into it based only on the gravity of the black hole (it would have to be at rest and without earths gravity) In a real collider everything is under a vacuum so it is very unlikely that a particle would ever get that close to the black hole, and if it did it would always be moving close to the speed of light.

There would be a better probability of hitting a single, stationary atom with the sun for a distance similar to that between the sun and pluto. It is a physical improbability, if not impossibility for a created black hole in a collider to ever gain any mass, let alone enough to swallow the earth. There should be no unneeded fear here. As black holes are theorized, they are not this mystical physical object. They still follow the same laws as everything else does, plus one extra one (once you have crossed the event horizon you can't come back out).
Steveo
Hi solid Spin,

I hadn't thought about considering the evaporation rate, and the actual life of the black hole. If you are correct on your estimate within about 18 orders of magnitude or so (what an awesome margin of error eh?) then there are definately no worries. And thats assuming that there are plenty of particles that aren't moving that are around 1nm away from said black hole.
solidspin
Steveo -

Your calc does seem weird, due to the discrepancy you pointed out b/t the Schwarzschild r and the Planck length. But this, I would imagine, would confirm that we have nothing to worry about.

If you know the derivative eq. for Hawking rad., we could figure out the mass of the hole, relative to its dissipation rate, which based on your numbers would be realllllllllllllllly quick. The nice thing is that Hawking photons would be easy to see, given that photon detection is trivial. Would be a cool experiment, right? I chose 10^-18m since that is the approximate maximum diameter of a proton - i.e. a hydrogen nucleus. We don't actually know the correct diameter, but it is smaller than this. Given that the compression b/t at least 2 particles to have a temporary BH, you have to figure it would be around there...

Jeez I love science.

-ss
steveswin
Hi,

Can I just ask a question or two here?

From what you are saying it seems that a mini black hole that is smaller than a particle - proton, electron etc. cannot absorb that particle. Is that correct?
I thought that as matter approached the event horizon it was subjected to extreme gravitational forces that ripped the matter apart. Presumably down to the sub-atomic level and further - quark, gluon, photon. We are not so sure that there are not more levels beneath the quark are we? What is the size of the smallest then and can this pass through?
Guest_Steve
Yea just like I said to Steve smile.gif are black holes not the most destructive force in the universe by all understanding. I mean what if black holes also feed on the ZPE field then I think were all screwed. But more to the point an electron or any other particle is not just a ball that will not fit in that whole, it's alot more complicated than that. Im no black hole expert nor do I think I am but dollars to doughnuts something that powerfull no matter how small is gonna try like hell to suck some form of energy into it. On the other hand I could be totaly wrong and it will be a stable means of discovering the misteries of the quantum world.
ubavontuba
Steveo and forum,

Right. We are safe IF the current hypotheses are true. We can't know that they are true without performing the experiment, and if they aren't true, then... well , you know.

The real problem in understanding here seems to be in realtion to its size. It's a point mass. By definition it has no size. Only its event horizon has a dimension.

Can an electron be to big to be absorbed? My bath water seems too big to go down the drain, and yet it does. Size doesn't matter.

Should these things escape into Earth's core they will be in an environment where the average densisty is 811.6 pounds per square foot, the pressure is about 52 milliion pounds per square inch and it's about 11,000 degrees farenheit!

Imagine all of that crushing pressure just looking for an escaper route!

The real concern isn't what might "fall" into the black hole, but rather what might be pushed in.

Eric
dragongoddess
Lets see. You don't build bonfires on site at a refinery because of safety reasons. You therefore can adopt this model when it comes to trying to create a blackhole in your lab. Its just something you don't do for safety reasons.
guiding_light
There are some questions to think about here.

One is how confident we are in the Hawking radiation taking care of black holes not getting too big. That is, are we confident in the decay estimates? huh.gif

Two is can cosmic rays of comparable energies generate the said black holes which we may be able to observe astronomically? dry.gif

Finally if black hole generation is a concern do we need to start scaling back particle experiments in the TeV range? ohmy.gif
steveswin
As we know according to Hawking the smaller the black hole the faster it evaporates. Looking into this a bit further it seems that the life time of a black hole is proportional to M^3.

t = M^3/3K

Where K = 3.98 x 10^15 kg^3 s^-1

So for a black hole of say the size of an electron it would last only t = 6.33 x 10^-107 secs. Now this is an unbelieveably short time, not even measureable!!

Also, although I haven't worked it out, the energies we are playing with at present in MeV/TeV range I think would not be sufficent to produce a black hole.

I still subscribe to the idea though that when we do want to get around playing with these things they must be way off planet and no danger to mankind.

regards
Steveo
QUOTE
Yea just like I said to Steve smile.gif are black holes not the most destructive force in the universe by all understanding. I mean what if black holes also feed on the ZPE field then I think were all screwed. But more to the point an electron or any other particle is not just a ball that will not fit in that whole, it's alot more complicated than that. Im no black hole expert nor do I think I am but dollars to doughnuts something that powerfull no matter how small is gonna try like hell to suck some form of energy into it. On the other hand I could be totaly wrong and it will be a stable means of discovering the misteries of the quantum world.


I do not understand how they are the most destructive force in the universe? Maybe a supermassive black hole, but one that has a mass in the 10^-21 range (with collision energies in the 1000's of TeV range) Blackholes 'destructive' power come from HUGE gravitational fields, and we know we can approximate the gravitational force with Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation (F=GMm/r^2) When you have such a small mass gravity can be neglected. There is a reason in all quantum theories that gravity is neglected. Because it has such an insignificant effect compared to the other forces. I am also not a blackhole expert, but the word blackhole has become almost a synonym for death it seems. I was in a nother message board and people thought that if our sun was 'magically' replaced by a black hole of the same mass that our solar system would be swallowed to pieces, but this just isn't the case.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Yea just like I said to Steve smile.gif are black holes not the most destructive force in the universe by all understanding. I mean what if black holes also feed on the ZPE field then I think were all screwed. But more to the point an electron or any other particle is not just a ball that will not fit in that whole, it's alot more complicated than that. Im no black hole expert nor do I think I am but dollars to doughnuts something that powerfull no matter how small is gonna try like hell to suck some form of energy into it. On the other hand I could be totaly wrong and it will be a stable means of discovering the misteries of the quantum world.


I do not understand how they are the most destructive force in the universe? Maybe a supermassive black hole, but one that has a mass in the 10^-21 range (with collision energies in the 1000's of TeV range) Blackholes 'destructive' power come from HUGE gravitational fields, and we know we can approximate the gravitational force with Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation (F=GMm/r^2) When you have such a small mass gravity can be neglected. There is a reason in all quantum theories that gravity is neglected. Because it has such an insignificant effect compared to the other forces. I am also not a blackhole expert, but the word blackhole has become almost a synonym for death it seems. I was in a nother message board and people thought that if our sun was 'magically' replaced by a black hole of the same mass that our solar system would be swallowed to pieces, but this just isn't the case.

The real problem in understanding here seems to be in realtion to its size. It's a point mass. By definition it has no size. Only its event horizon has a dimension.


Your right, and maybe I didn't explicitly state that my calculations were for the event horizon, not the singularity, but that was what I was doing, sorry for the confusion. My whole point about the size is more that you will never hit the black hole than a particle couldn't go into the black hole (I don't think it can, but I have seen nothing to say that I am right or wrong) Just imagine that you have a dart board and the bullseye is the black hole. Now in this game of darts you have to throw from several light years away, and your dart is the size of the sun. This is a pretty tough target to hit.....and the example I have given is actually much MUCH more favorable to hit the target that the numbers I calculated earlier.

QUOTE
As we know according to Hawking the smaller the black hole the faster it evaporates. Looking into this a bit further it seems that the life time of a black hole is proportional to M^3.

t = M^3/3K

Where K = 3.98 x 10^15 kg^3 s^-1

So for a black hole of say the size of an electron it would last only t = 6.33 x 10^-107 secs. Now this is an unbelieveably short time, not even measureable!!


THanks, I couldn't find an equation for the time, but using the mass I found and posted earlier the life of this black hole would still be in the range of 10^-79s, which is way to short to measure or worry about. Of course we don't truly know if black holes evaporate, or if the rate we think they do is correct, but Quantum Mechanics has never really been wrong, and its been around for nearly 100 years, so its looking pretty good that this is a fairly accurate prediction (from Quantum mechanic's track record)
solidspin
all -

what about the recent Au - 2H experiments they have completed @ BNL? The mass of the gold is 196au....

I'm treading lightly here, since it's not my field. Perhaps the Goodly Elvish One is around for some BH help here.

-ss
ubavontuba
Forum,

Here are some interesting questions to consider:

Does a black hole HAVE to obey the conservation laws? That is, since it is postulated that time might be reversed within the event horizon, might not causulty be reversed? Might entropy itself be reversed? Might they grow in response to conservation rather than shrink?

Think about it. On the outside they react to the universe in an entropic way, spewing out particles and anti-particles ripped from the ZPE. On the inside, they "suck" in particles and anti-particles riped from the ZPE.

Outwardly, they are adding mass and energy to the universe. In symmetry to that, inwardly they are adding mass and energy to themselves.

A weird hypothesis, I know!

Eric
ubavontuba
I'm not the only one concerned. Here's a site:
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/luisada1.htm

"The upcoming Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN could be dangerous. It could produce potentially dangerous particles such as mini black holes, strangelets, and monopoles."

Even the "experts" have doubt:
http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/publ/cup.pdf

"John Nelson, professor of nuclear physics at Birmingham University who is leading the British scientific team at RHIC, said the chances of an accident were infinitesimally small - but Brookhaven had a duty to assess them. ”The big question is whether the planet will disappear in the twinkling of an eye.
It is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk - but I could not prove it,” he said. The London Times, July 18, 1999"

This is a list of papers. Note this particular reference to CERN's own study and the part that says, "The idea that Hawking radiation might not work is not explored."

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

"J.-P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, G.G. Ross, P. Sonderegger, and H.-J. Specht, "Study Of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions At The LHC: Report Of The LHC Safety Study Group" CERN, 2003 http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf This is a CERN risk assessment study. It considers many scenarios, and concludes that there is no risk. However, it assumes that mini black holes will evaporate by thermal processes (Hawking radiation), and concludes that there is no danger. (See page 12, equation 18.) The idea that Hawking radiation might not work is not explored. Also, while discussing cosmic rays the report concludes that "the worst-case scenario cannot be excluded based on these data alone."

So, is there reason to be concerned? I think so. You may disagree all you want, but the concern is apparently a valid one.

Eric
Steveo
If the Earth gets swallowed by one mini black hole, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong, but since scientists already think they might have made them and not detected them, I would suspect its safe.
oracle
Pardon shoving my big toe where it doesn't belong and certainly doesn't know any better by asking a dumb question or two. At any time post creation is a blackhole able to increase its mass(is it measurable)? Do blackholes eject other forms of energy? My point being if a blackholes mass is locked in at its point/time of creation it doesn't acquire mass but converts it. Any energy that "fell in" would have to be ejected in some fashion for it to maintian equilibrium. If its energy signiture is locked in then any matter that did fall within its sphere would be converted to other forms of energy without any net increase in mass to the blackhole. A microblackhole, should it form on the scale you all are discussing, would have a nice steady measurable rate of absorbtion/regurgitation(eating). With this in mind it would take more mass then is in this entire solar system to produce the kind of compressed energy nexus nessessary for destabilization of this planets energy wave. If it does not increase in size would it pose a planetary threat? Reading your posts it seems your not concerned with specifically blackholes so much as some sort of uncontrolled gravity point destabilization that could increase in size.
Guest_Steve
Question here, what proof do we have that blackholes die or whatever besides numbers and Theory?
steveswin
We have no hard evidence that black holes die, only theory.
Our only evidence on the existence of black holes is on the scale of massive ones that are produced by stellar collapse and we observe the effects it has on a close neighbour. Or in the centre of galaxies that supposedly hold super massive ones, such as in Andromeda with a estimated mass of 140 million solar masses, where again we can observe the effects it has on matter circling it.
Certainly we don't know whether mini ones evaporate as per Hawkings, but since all of physics uses numbers and theory as its building blocks and has helped us get to this point in our understanding of the universe. We must accept it with reservation and use observation and experimentation until a more plausible theory takes its place or evidence shows it to be valid.

ubavontuba
Steveswin and forum,

Right, "We have no hard evidence that black holes die, only theory."

Do we really want to risk it all on an unproven theory?

We need to get active and stop this from happening.

Eric
ubavontuba
Any thoughts on the concept that "dark matter" and perhaps "dark energy" might be loose clouds of nano black holes emmitted by cosmic ray collisions from solar systems at high relative velocity to the galaxy? Wouldn't these solar induced nano black holes tend to stream outward from galaxies and effect galactic orbits?

These things could be zinging around everywhere and be as invisible as nuetrinos, wouldn't you think?

Eric
steveswin
Wouldn't these clouds of mini black holes tend to coalesce over time to form larger black holes and move inward not outward?

ubavontuba
steveswin,

Naw. They'd have too much relative velocity to the galaxy to fall inward (for the most part).

If they are slow enough to be captured by a galaxy, they'd likely reside at the outer reaches of the galaxy in the form of a "cloud."

They can't coalesce becasue they are generally too small to ever hit each other in real time. They'd need dead-on collisions and considereing they are many orders of magnitude smaller than an electron and space is really, really big, the odds of accretion in free space are against them.

It's something to consider, anyway.
The Spiral
Erm, sorry if this has already been said. I'm a physics graduate, and I've come across this before. Virtual particle antiparticle pairs are bubbling away in the vacuum all the time, and the reason they are virtual is because they can't exist for long without lots of energy. However near an event horizon one half of the virtual pair can be pulled into the black hole, and the other escape. Now because the escapee cannot annihilate, it must have energy. In order to conserve energy, the particle that fell in has negative energy (no shouting about that, this is a dumbed down explanation), and effectively removes energy from the black hole. So that's how it appears to evaporate.

I think the original post had some confusion. Antiparticles have POSITIVE MASS just like particles. So it doesn't matter which falls into the hole, because the one that escapes always has to have good ol' positive mass (and by extension positive energy).

For all concerned it's more than probable that micro black holes have already been created many times. After all, it's all a matter of probability. Trust us, we know this is safe. The evaporation of a black hole accelerates as it gets smaller. i.e. a normal black hole should last on the order of a 10^67 years, but a black hole of mass ~10^11kg takes only 3 billion years(ish) to evaporate (thanks wikipedia).

Here's another fact, some cosmic rays have been seen to have energies of about 4 Joules, enough to boil a teaspoon of water with only one particle! This is far far far far higher than any particle accelerator has ever come and will come for decades (if ever). Nature has yet to destroy the Earth with a cosmic ray induced micro black hole. Now that's a 100% solid argument! wink.gif

Always keep in mind too that A Brief History of time is starting to show it's age a little nowadays.

I hope that settles some concerns,

The Spiral
ubavontuba
The Spiral,

What you have written has been previously discussed here. I recommend that you read the discussions and then comment.

Anyway, the "cosmic ray bombardment/it's safe" analysis is off base. For a cosmic ray induced black hole to remain in the Earth, it must form, absorb about 53,000 times its own mass (while being many orders of magnitude smaller than an electron) and do this all in about 0.17 second!

If nano-black holes could absorb that much mass that fast, then there'd be no ordinary matter anywhere.

Simply put, they blast through the Earth (and other planets) so fast that they haven't the time to do any damage.

CERN black holes will have no or little relative velocity to the Earth and will have plenty of time to grow. This growth starts out slowly, but increases exponentially.

Eric
RealityCheck
Hello ubavontuba.

About your assertion that a cosmic-ray/air collision-generated micro black hole "would blast through the Earth etc.”...

I assume that if its formation-energy was supplied at least in part by the 'deceleration'/loss of momentum energy DURING COLLISION, then its 'on-going’ velocity exiting from that collision (as micro b.h.) may not be as 'relativistic' as would be the case for a significantly lesser-massed particle like, say, the usual Muons etc. produced by 'ordinary-energy' cosmic ray collisions...in which case, any hypothetical micro black hole MIGHT HAVE SIGNIFICANT 'DWELL TIME' WITHIN THE EARTH RADIUS. In which case their opportunity for 'leisurely eating' would be similar to that for any CERN COLLIDER-produced micro black hole. I could be wrong of course, but the energy going to produce any upper-atmosphere 'holes' would only come from the energy of incoming velocity momentum-mass plus rest-masses involved.

Best regards from: RealityCheck.
ubavontuba
RealityCheck,

It seems that you are unaware of the extreme velocities involved.

Let's say a cosmic ray (gold ion) enters the Earth system at near light speed (186,000mps, rounded).

The cosmic gold ion hits an Earth gold ion. A mini black hole is formed. The speed is halved to 93,000mps.

To halve it again, it must now absorb the momentum of two more equal masses. Let's say it does this even though it is tiny in the extreme. Now it's moving at 46,500mps.

To halve this, it must now absorb the momentum of 8 equivalent masses. Let's say it can do this too. It is now moving at 23,250mps.

To halve the speed again, it needs 16 masses, then 32 masses, then 64 masses, then 128 masses, then 256 masses, then 512 masses, then 1024 masses...

As it turns out, for it to slow to less than escape velocity, it must absorb all of the momentum of about 53,000 equivalent masses in total. It must do this while moving through the Earth which is a fixed diameter.

After the first forming collision, the black hole must slow from 93,000mps to approximately 7mps.

The average speed of the transit through the Earth is around 46,500mps.

The Earth's diameter is around 8000 miles. Time to transit: about 0.17 seconds!

So, it must form, absorb about 53,000 times its own mass and do this in about 0.17 seconds while being many orders of magnitude smaller than an electron!

Therefore, for the black hole to slow enough to stick around, it must grow exponentially so fast that this same black hole would absorb all the matter of Earth in short order!

Obviously, this model is completely in error. Therefore, Cosmic black holes cannot stick around (provided they are formed at all). They simply pass through the Earth and escape the solar system.

In fact, their velocity is so high and their size so small that they are virtually non-reactive to ordinary matter. They could zing around for 100s of billions of years, unnoticed.

A mini black hole passing through the Earth is analogous to shooting a bullet through a room filled with helium balloons. The balloons would have virtually no effect on the velocity of the bullet.
ubavontuba
post removed by ubavontuba
The Spiral
RealityCheck, I concur. These black holes have plenty of time to interact, as in CERN. CoM would slow the particle (although it's still very fast, you can resolve that in the usual SR treatment). It has more than enough time inside the earth to interact a few more times. The chances are, that one would have absorbed enough particles at some point in the Earth's existence to have become large enough to destroy the planet.

The reason we don't see micro black holes everyday is because they evaporate just after they are made. Even in the unlikely event that several particles trajectories place them at the same(ish) point as the new black hole (and they are absorbed by it) the thing is still going to evaporate extremely quickly, much faster than the next probable collision.

I argue that the cosmic ray argument is still solid.
Tyler the Student
i am a community college student, so pardon me if i misunderstand.

what i have gained from the current conversation (cosmic rays hitting matter on earth) is that you are trying to prove that micro black holes cannot expand because they do not have to the time to do so.

is it true then that every time this happens earth is loosing mass? - as the cosmic rays (gold ions) hits other gold ions here on earth collapsing them into a black hole?

how many times a day/year/century would you theorize this happens?


and how do these micro black holes (created by the cosmic rays) relate to the micro black hole that is theorized to be created at cern?

-Tyler the Student
ubavontuba
Tyler,

Correct, they don't have the time nor the starting mass to grow significantly during their transit of Earth.

The mass of such a collision is lost, but it is more than replaced by other energy and mass hitting the Earth. One meteor strike should cover us for billions of years.

Estimates to the frequency of this happening are vague at best. There's too many chaotic variables. Generally, our magnetosphere protects us from most of these particles.

Most of the other planets and moons are subject to direct strikes. How often it happens depends on solar activity.

The cosmic ray created black holes have tremendous relative velocity with Earth. The Cern black holes will have little or no relative velocity. Other than that, they should be pretty similar.

Eric

Tyler the Student
thanks much, i'm a beggining student in this field and i recently found this site... i apprieate the discussions that take place here a lot and i would like to thank all of you for furthering my knowledge of the universe and its properties.


i look forward to anything more you guys have to offer on this subject.


Tyler the Student
ubavontuba
Spiral,

The cosmic ray argument ONLY works if nano black holes evaporate. Black hole evaporation has never been proven and I'd rather not prove it here on Earth (in case the theory is wrong).

As far as planetary destruction is concernd, how do we know that the asrteroid belt wasn't the result of a black hole orbiting the center of mass of a former planet?

If it was caused by an astronomical collision, we'd see more asteroids in eccentric orbits.

Eric
RealityCheck
Hello ubavontuba, everyone.

Ubavontuba....I think you missed my point regarding energy/mass conversion requirements to form the 'extremely dense' matter necessary to 'form' a black hole event horizon effect. The mass required would have to 'bleed off' practically ALL the momentum-mass/energy so as 'create' a black hole in the first place. Therefore 'dwell time' is increased because of 'drastically slowed' kinetic-energy-bled (converted to rest mass) reaction products (i.e., black hole).

Your analysis asserting merely 'halved' velocity/momentum is based on the premise that ALL momentum/kinetic energy is conserved...which it wouldn't be in the scenario I just put above...since MOST of the momentum-mass/kinetic-energy is CONVERTED TO BLACK HOLE REST MASS.

So, since we observe NO destruction due to cosmic-ray-induced micro black holes; and since the 'dwell time' within Earth's diameter would (given my scenario) be comparable to that for any hypothetical CERN-CREATED black holes, then it is safe to assume that NEITHER CERN-collisions NOR cosmic-ray-collisions can produce such micro black holes. So the discussion seems to be based on an illusory 'subject'.

Best regards from: RealityCheck.
Phyzic



Hello ubavontuba and forum members,

I've gone over this conversation about the fear of black hole's running amok at your local particle accelerator and have to say that Realitycheck and Spiral are both correct. Cosmic rays are several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything we could create, if a particle accelerator could create a pico black hole then it has been done by cosmic ray collision. If it has been done and we are still here then we have nothing to worry about it.
Realitycheck is correct, most of a cosmic ray kinetic energy would go into creating the rest mass of the pico black hole. The relative speed of a newly formed pico black hole would be most likely in the 100 of kilometers a second, not halved as ubavontuba has said.

The one reason we have nothing to worry about hasn't been raised yet. A pico black hole (I know it's actually smaller than that but it's better than nano wink.gif ) won't have any effect on particles close to it. Why? because the Schwarzschild radius that creates the event horizon is so small, the gravitational gradient from the outside of the radius to inside would be incredibly extreme, so much so that on distances less than Planck's length you would go from an extremely weak gravitational effect to a gravitational effect that would stop light, if you could fit a photon into it, which you can't.

So no worries ubavontuba even if Hawking's is wrong, which he isn't, the gravitational pull from a pico black hole would have little effect on any atom's or particles near it.

Clear as mud? blink.gif
Steveo
Plus how do you think particle accelerators achieve such high energies? Its called a velocity that is very close to the speed of light. So that effectively tampers with your arguement that they would be still on a particle accelerator (they would with a perfect head on collision, but any glancing collision would have a very high velocity).
ubavontuba
Reality Check,

Can you cite references for the momentum being converted into a black hole?

My information is that momentum is conserved separately from energy as per Emmy Noether. Why would this not be the case in black hole formation?

Certainly kinetic energy can be converted, but momentum for the whole system should be conserved. Remember, momentum and KE are not the same thing (though they are related).

Also, we don't KNOW that there is no destruction caused by cosmic ray black holes. We just haven't seen it in the few hundred years we've been observing.

My contention is that any such destruction wouldn't be local anyway, as the mini black holes would just zip away.

Uba
ubavontuba
Phyzic

QUOTE
Realitycheck is correct, most of a cosmic ray kinetic energy would go into creating the rest mass of the pico black hole.


It seems apparent that you are confusing momentum with kinetic energy. They are not the same thing.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Realitycheck is correct, most of a cosmic ray kinetic energy would go into creating the rest mass of the pico black hole.


It seems apparent that you are confusing momentum with kinetic energy. They are not the same thing.

The one reason we have nothing to worry about hasn't been raised yet. A pico black hole (I know it's actually smaller than that but it's better than nano  ) won't have any effect on particles close to it. Why? because the Schwarzschild radius that creates the event horizon is so small, the gravitational gradient from the outside of the radius to inside would be incredibly extreme, so much so that on distances less than Planck's length you would go from an extremely weak gravitational effect to a gravitational effect that would stop light, if you could fit a photon into it, which you can't.


Right. This is why they can't absorb the momentum necessary to remain in the Earth during transit. However, think about what happens when one enters a particle and just hangs around in it. The stress on the particle will cause it to collapse into the black hole.

Uba
ubavontuba
Steveo,

QUOTE
Plus how do you think particle accelerators achieve such high energies? Its called a velocity that is very close to the speed of light. So that effectively tampers with your arguement that they would be still on a particle accelerator (they would with a perfect head on collision, but any glancing collision would have a very high velocity).


No, head-on is the problem. They use two oppposing beams that will cancel each other's velocity in a collision.

The glancing collisions aren't likely to have enough energy to create black holes since the angular momentum will just cause the particles to spin away from each other.

Uba

Guest
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 6 2005, 06:48 AM)
Phyzic

QUOTE
Realitycheck is correct, most of a cosmic ray kinetic energy would go into creating the rest mass of the pico black hole.


It seems apparent that you are confusing momentum with kinetic energy. They are not the same thing.


No, I'm not, and yes I know that.


Right. This is why they can't absorb the momentum necessary to remain in the Earth during transit. However, think about what happens when one enters a particle and just hangs around in it. The stress on the particle will cause it to collapse into the black hole.

Um

Uba

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Realitycheck is correct, most of a cosmic ray kinetic energy would go into creating the rest mass of the pico black hole.


It seems apparent that you are confusing momentum with kinetic energy. They are not the same thing.


No, I'm not, and yes I know that.


Right. This is why they can't absorb the momentum necessary to remain in the Earth during transit. However, think about what happens when one enters a particle and just hangs around in it. The stress on the particle will cause it to collapse into the black hole.

Um

Uba

It seems apparent that you are confusing momentum with kinetic energy.  They are not the same thing.


No I'm not and I do realize that.


QUOTE
Right.  This is why they can't absorb the momentum necessary to remain in the Earth during transit.  However, think about what happens when one enters a particle and just hangs around in it.  The stress on the particle will cause it to collapse into the black hole.


Your still thinking the stress will be high I am saying at the sub-atomic level gravity is incredibly weak compared to the other forces. Everything up to the event horizon would be negligible, it's once something reaches the event horizon that gravity would start affecting anything. With the pico black hole being so small very little would even get near it. Now let's say that you are correct, (and I'm 99.99999999999999999% sure your not) and a pico black hole sticks around after it forms, it would take millions if not billions of years for it to swallow enough mass to actually grow large enough to be a danger, just because of the size and what very, very few particles are small enough to be absorbed by a pico black hole.

Best regards.
Phyzic


Dang, sorry for the mess, each of these forums has their own way of editing.

blink.gif
RealityCheck
Hello ubavontuba (and everyone).

1) The incoming Gold Ion, being ‘charged’, would be SIGNIFICANTLY affected/slowed by the randomly oriented charge flux in Earth/Atmospheric matter environment LONG before it finally ‘collides’ with any particular planet-sourced ion. Which is why CERN and other Colliders have strictly-controlled/biased fields to steer, build up and maintain the desired velocities against the constant DRASTIC LOSSES which would otherwise ‘immediately’ drain momentum-mass energy from any particle not ‘protected/encouraged/sustained by a ‘focused’ and ‘homogenous field pattern. The ‘Cyclotron Radiation’ is the manifestation of the continuing ‘losses’ involved, which have to be constantly ‘made good’ by continued ‘active acceleration’ of the ‘cyclotron’ particles involved...this constant ‘energy replenishment’ does not occur in the case of cosmic ray particles only accelerated by gravity in the ‘random-field’ conditions encountered in atmosphere/earth environment.

2) The scenario in my last post was intended to convey my scepticism that a cosmic-ray-induced black hole COULD EVER FORM IN THE FIRST PLACE (especially given the ‘unsustained collision’ conditions) precisely because conservation of momentum would HAVE TO BE VIOLATED for sufficient rest mass to become available for the production of any putative extreme-mass-density ‘particle’ (micro black hole).

3) The scepticism in 2) also extends to the statistically-probable cases where TWO INCOMING BUT OPPOSITELY TRAVELLING cosmic-ray ‘ions’ meet in head-on collision within the atmosphere. In such cases, the situation would be identical to that occurring in counter-oriented ions meeting in the proposed CERN Collider. Meaning that in both cases the collision event’s NET MOMENTUM would be ZERO for equally energetic but oppositely incoming particles. So if the CERN ‘products’ represent a threat to earth, so would all those statistically --likely opposite-meeting cosmic ray events that must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the 4 billion years or so since this planet formed.

4) Now we come to extra-planetary considerations: ....Given that gigantic/massive stars can exist for at least millions of years before they ‘self-destruct’ due to ‘fuel exhaustion’; and given that such stars can be BOTH VERY DENSE AND VERY EXPANSIVE (so providing plenty of ‘food’ and ‘traversal time’ for any putative ‘micro black hole); and assuming for the sake of argument that micro black holes can form AT ALL under ANY TRANSIENT AND ‘UNSUSTAINED COLLISION’.....how can we account for the fact that such giant stars last THAT long? Given the probable abundance and widespread distribution of head-on cosmic ray collision events near/in such stars (which would have great gravitational attraction/escape velocities), then practically EVERY GIANT STAR WOULD BE ‘DEVOURED’ by at least ONE of these ‘putative’ ‘unsustained collision’-produced micro black holes. The readily observable fact that such stars live millions of years at least indicates that such ‘micro black holes’ do not form in the first place.

5) At various points in the foregoing treatment, I used the phrase “UNSUSTAINED COLLISION CONDITIONS”. I did so advisedly; for the ONLY ‘black holes’ we are ‘confident’ about ‘existing’, are formed under SUSTAINED, SPHERICALLY SYMMETRICAL, GRAVITATIONAL COMPRESSION CONDITIONS. So the ‘collapse’ of a stars ‘core’ into ‘black hole’ density/diameter’, while extremely rapid, NONETHELESS OCCURS BECAUSE OF ‘INESCAPABLE’ AND NON-TRANSIENT FORCES APPLIED FROM ‘GO TO WHOA’ , and such forces EFFECTIVELY ‘contain’ the resultant energy-density/pressure CONTINUALLY and SYMMETRICALLY and for a COMPARATIVELY INFINITE DURATION. Compare all that to the EXTREMELY TRANSIENT and ASYMMETRICAL ‘CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS’ involved in ‘unsustained collision’ particle meetings, and you’ll understand why one is sceptical of ‘micro’ black holes FORMING AT ALL, either in CERN or Cosmic Ray type collision conditions.

I hope this brief/rushed treatment helps to clarify my position regarding putative micro black holes existing/forming AT ALL outside sustained, symmetrical gravitational-compression/containment situations...which position could be wrong, of course; in which case I would not be averse to be proven wrong, ESPECIALLY if CERN’s proposed activities do indeed represent a danger after all!


Best regards from: RealityCheck.
ubavontuba
Phyzic,

QUOTE
Your still thinking the stress will be high I am saying at the sub-atomic level gravity is incredibly weak compared to the other forces. Everything up to the event horizon would be negligible, it's once something reaches the event horizon that gravity would start affecting anything. With the pico black hole being so small very little would even get near it. Now let's say that you are correct, (and I'm 99.99999999999999999% sure your not) and a pico black hole sticks around after it forms, it would take millions if not billions of years for it to swallow enough mass to actually grow large enough to be a danger, just because of the size and what very, very few particles are small enough to be absorbed by a pico black hole.


How strong is the gravity at the singularity?

According to GR, should one of these black holes inhabit a particle there will be an infinite gravitational force applied to that particle from the singularity.

In string theory, it is supposed that there is no singularity, but the force is still strong enough to keep everything in. How long do you think a particle might last as parts of it are permanently sucked in?

The answer of course is that the particle will collapse on itself into the black hole instantly.

Certainly, it will take time for the black hole to move from particle to particle, but the density of the Earth will provide abundant fodder for it.

Its growth will be exponential. That is it will start slowly, but it will end quickly.

Eric

ubavontuba
RealityCheck,

QUOTE
1) The incoming Gold Ion, being ‘charged’, would be SIGNIFICANTLY affected/slowed by the randomly oriented charge flux in Earth/Atmospheric matter environment LONG before it finally ‘collides’ with any particular planet-sourced ion.


Right, this is another reason to say the cosmic ray hypothesis is trash. The Earth is protected from them by a number of means (besides just our magnetosphere). Therefore you can't assume its safe, because it may very well have never happened before.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1) The incoming Gold Ion, being ‘charged’, would be SIGNIFICANTLY affected/slowed by the randomly oriented charge flux in Earth/Atmospheric matter environment LONG before it finally ‘collides’ with any particular planet-sourced ion.


Right, this is another reason to say the cosmic ray hypothesis is trash. The Earth is protected from them by a number of means (besides just our magnetosphere). Therefore you can't assume its safe, because it may very well have never happened before.

2) The scenario in my last post was intended to convey my scepticism that a cosmic-ray-induced black hole COULD EVER FORM IN THE FIRST PLACE (especially given the ‘unsustained collision’ conditions) precisely because conservation of momentum would HAVE TO BE VIOLATED for sufficient rest mass to become available for the production of any putative extreme-mass-density ‘particle’ (micro black hole).


Right, it has been supposed under GR that we'd need about 620 orders of magnitude more energy than CERN to create black holes. It can only work if string theory is correct and the energy required comes from other dimensions.

Unfortunately, it's looking like the energy requirements aren't as high as originally supposed. In fact, they think they've already created one at another collider.

----------

Naturally occurring opposing cosmic rays are unlikely. The sun's solar wind always heads outwards from the sun, towards free space.

----------

Giant stars have the energy and mass to sustain themselves against crushing gravity for extended periods. The Earth does not.

Side note: Did you know that if the sun became a black hole its event horizon would be like 1.9 kilometers wide, but if Earth became a black hole its event horizon would only be around a centimeter wide?

---------

You might doubt black hole formation at CERN, but the way they are talking about it, they have little doubt. They are expecting to make thousands of 'em at a time.

---------

Personally, I agree that the risk here is seemingly small. However since we are literally risking everyone and everything, I think the risk is too great. Just ask yourself: What if you're wrong?

I say let's wait to do these experiments off-world.

Eric
Guest
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 7 2005, 08:40 AM)


How strong is the gravity at the singularity?

According to GR, should one of these black holes inhabit a particle there will be an infinite gravitational force applied to that particle from the singularity.

In string theory, it is supposed that there is no singularity, but the force is still strong enough to keep everything in. How long do you think a particle might last as parts of it are permanently sucked in?

The answer of course is that the particle will collapse on itself into the black hole instantly.

Certainly, it will take time for the black hole to move from particle to particle, but the density of the Earth will provide abundant fodder for it.

Its growth will be exponential. That is it will start slowly, but it will end quickly.






Hello Eric,

The gravity wouldn't be that strong, I cannot see that a pico black hole would tear apart a particle. The black hole for one would be so small, even compared to a quark. All other forces, ie. Electromagnetic, strong,weak, even the charge of a particle, all will be more power than the strength of the gravity from the black hole. I can see more and more how unstable a pico black hole would be.


I mean if we can create one in a particle accelerator that is considerably weaker than cosmic rays, and if the theory holds that hi-energy particle collisions form pico black holes, then nature has done it several times over by now.

I just get the impression that you really are being an alarmist about this, sounds like you really want CERN to make a black hole, so you have something to worry the public.


Trust me, we have more worries about the depletion of fossil fuels ending civilization than a rampant pico black hole made from CERN!!!

Best Regards!
Phyzic





Most cosmic rays come from outside the solar system, some even from other galaxies. They are composed of most proton's, anti-proton's and even some nuclei with energies with peaks near 10^20 eV.

RealityCheck
Hello ubavontuba.

In your post of Oct 7 2005, 9:04am:

You suggest: “Unfortunately, it's looking like the energy requirements aren't as high as originally supposed. In fact, they think they've already created one at another collider.” Sorry ubavontuba, but, as the old saying goes, “you can’t ‘have' your cake and 'eat it' too”, hehehe. If I agree with your above assessment, then they CAN and HAVE made micro black holes---but where does that leave your contention that they will be dangerous? For if they have produced one and the Earth hasn’t imploded by now, your worry seems unwarranted/unnecessary.

You assert: “Naturally occurring opposing cosmic rays are unlikely. The sun's solar wind always heads outwards from the sun, towards free space.” Given the literally billions of years and the myriad numbers/energies and velocities of Cosmic Rays produced during that time, on what do you base your ‘doubts’ about the statistical likelihood that at least ONE head-on collision between such cosmic rays has occurred in ANY dense agglomeration of matter (giant protostar cloud; white/brown dwarfs; neutron stars etc)? And you yourself allude to the Relativistic velocities of incoming cosmic ray particles; against which puny solar winds would have little effect if the POSITIVE gold ions are ATTRACTED and then CHANNELLED/ACCELERATED FURTHER DOWNWARD into the GIANT/NEUTRON stars by the ‘relevant polarity’ lines of their strong ‘dipolar’ magnetic fields.

You say: “Giant stars have the energy and mass to sustain themselves against crushing gravity for extended periods....” NOT if an EXTERNALLY SOURCED black hole was to ENTER ITS BODY (or even only initially its polar surface layers). You are thinking perhaps of what the stars capabilities are BEFORE its fuel exhaustion allows a black hole to form FROM WITHIN...naturally any star that survives until it implodes can BY DEFINITION support itself against its own gravitation; BUT that says NOTHING about its ability to support itself once an INVADING BLACK HOLE starts eating it from the inside out. So I think this particular observation of yours is irrelevant; would you agree?

You closed with the suggestion: “I say let's wait to do these experiments off-world.” Reasonable prudence and caution would tend to lend weight to your preferred option. However, how LIKELY/SOON do you think it will be to do so? I myself take the view that nothing is forever, and that life IS risk-taking as well as prudence and caution. Given that it’s most unlikely that such experiments will be going ‘off-world’ any time soon, its most difficult to argue, based on the misgivings canvassed here at least, that such investigations should stop forthwith. I have a ‘realistic’ view of the ‘political’ and ‘scientific’ momentum you are up against. But you never know, if you can argue your case better, who says you may not succeed in ‘winning over’ the politicians and scientists to your position! If indeed there IS a danger here, ubavontuba, I’ll take out a little ‘insurance’’ by wishing you good luck!


Best regards from: RealityCheck.
ubavontuba
Guest, Phyzic, whomever,

QUOTE
I just get the impression that you really are being an alarmist about this, sounds like you really want CERN to make a black hole, so you have something to worry the public.


"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!" -R. Heinlein

Alarmist? Certainly. If alarm isn't called for in the case of a threat to the whole world, then when is it called for?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

So we can blindly go about our business trusting the scientists to foresee every inevitability, or we can realize that they are as human as you and I, and are therefore prone to error like anyone.

A really good example of scientific error is the CP violation. Why doesn't the math work? No one knows.

Originally, it was the "Charge Violation," but they found out there wasn't much antimatter in the universe so it became the Charge-Particle Violation. Next; (imagined scientist) "D'oh! Time is violated too! Let's change it to the 'CPT' violation!"

One wonders... how much more alphabet soup will they have to toss in before they are done?

Do we really want these guys playing with these dangerous forces? Forces they clearly don't understand well enough to assert that there is no danger? Heck, what happens if they accidently create a negative strangelet? Who knows what else could conceivably (or worse, inconceivably) happen?

Eric
ubavontuba
Phyzic,

QUOTE
Most cosmic rays come from outside the solar system, some even from other galaxies. They are composed of most proton's, anti-proton's and even some nuclei with energies with peaks near 10^20 eV.


Cosmic rays are everywhere, but for them to collide head-on with a solar ion on Earth, they must have exactly the right trajectory, at exactly the right time.

This requirement alone is enough to throw off your whole premise. Now add in the effects of being buffeted by solar wind as they enter the solar system, gravitational lensing of the solar system and solar system bodies, and finally that the Earth's magnetosphere will warp their trajectories, and it pretty much can't happen.

Eric
ubavontuba
RealityCheck,

QUOTE
You suggest: “Unfortunately, it's looking like the energy requirements aren't as high as originally supposed. In fact, they think they've already created one at another collider.” Sorry ubavontuba, but, as the old saying goes, “you can’t ‘have' your cake and 'eat it' too”, hehehe. If I agree with your above assessment, then they CAN and HAVE made micro black holes---but where does that leave your contention that they will be dangerous? For if they have produced one and the Earth hasn’t imploded by now, your worry seems unwarranted/unnecessary.


I'm hoping it was nuetron matter, rather than a black hole.

Anyway, I didn't say it absolutely would eat the Earth, and I certainly didn't suggest that it would happen in the blink of an eye. I'm just asking, "What if they're wrong?"

It's entirely possible that it IS eating the Earth. How long will it take? It might take millions or even bilions of years. CERN would hasten this process by making THOUSANDS at a time.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You suggest: “Unfortunately, it's looking like the energy requirements aren't as high as originally supposed. In fact, they think they've already created one at another collider.” Sorry ubavontuba, but, as the old saying goes, “you can’t ‘have' your cake and 'eat it' too”, hehehe. If I agree with your above assessment, then they CAN and HAVE made micro black holes---but where does that leave your contention that they will be dangerous? For if they have produced one and the Earth hasn’t imploded by now, your worry seems unwarranted/unnecessary.


I'm hoping it was nuetron matter, rather than a black hole.

Anyway, I didn't say it absolutely would eat the Earth, and I certainly didn't suggest that it would happen in the blink of an eye. I'm just asking, "What if they're wrong?"

It's entirely possible that it IS eating the Earth. How long will it take? It might take millions or even bilions of years. CERN would hasten this process by making THOUSANDS at a time.

You assert: “Naturally occurring opposing cosmic rays are unlikely. The sun's solar wind always heads outwards from the sun, towards free space.” Given the literally billions of years and the myriad numbers/energies and velocities of Cosmic Rays produced during that time, on what do you base your ‘doubts’ about the statistical likelihood that at least ONE head-on collision between such cosmic rays has occurred in ANY dense agglomeration of matter (giant protostar cloud; white/brown dwarfs; neutron stars etc)? And you yourself allude to the Relativistic velocities of incoming cosmic ray particles; against which puny solar winds would have little effect if the POSITIVE gold ions are ATTRACTED and then CHANNELLED/ACCELERATED FURTHER DOWNWARD into the GIANT/NEUTRON stars by the ‘relevant polarity’ lines of their strong ‘dipolar’ magnetic fields.


Astronomical objects implode, explode and dissappear all the time. We've only been observing for a short time and already we've seen lots of evidence of destruction. Heck, in our own solar system we have evidence of a destroyed planet (the asteroid belt). What caused it? It must have been an internal event, or we'd have more asteroids in eccentric orbits.

QUOTE
...naturally any star that survives until it implodes can BY DEFINITION support itself against its own gravitation; BUT that says NOTHING about its ability to support itself once an INVADING BLACK HOLE starts eating it from the inside out. So I think this particular observation of yours is irrelevant; would you agree?


No, the process isn't going to be instantaneous. Besides, my contention has been, and still is, that mini black holes generally have too much relative velocity to settle into mass. If it happens, it is very rare. Perhaps that's why we've only lost one planet in our system so far.

Or... Perhaps that planet had intelligent life and they blew themselves up by experimenting with ion collsions!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
...naturally any star that survives until it implodes can BY DEFINITION support itself against its own gravitation; BUT that says NOTHING about its ability to support itself once an INVADING BLACK HOLE starts eating it from the inside out. So I think this particular observation of yours is irrelevant; would you agree?


No, the process isn't going to be instantaneous. Besides, my contention has been, and still is, that mini black holes generally have too much relative velocity to settle into mass. If it happens, it is very rare. Perhaps that's why we've only lost one planet in our system so far.

Or... Perhaps that planet had intelligent life and they blew themselves up by experimenting with ion collsions!

You closed with the suggestion: “I say let's wait to do these experiments off-world.” Reasonable prudence and caution would tend to lend weight to your preferred option. However, how LIKELY/SOON do you think it will be to do so? I myself take the view that nothing is forever, and that life IS risk-taking as well as prudence and caution. Given that it’s most unlikely that such experiments will be going ‘off-world’ any time soon, its most difficult to argue, based on the misgivings canvassed here at least, that such investigations should stop forthwith. I have a ‘realistic’ view of the ‘political’ and ‘scientific’ momentum you are up against. But you never know, if you can argue your case better, who says you may not succeed in ‘winning over’ the politicians and scientists to your position! If indeed there IS a danger here, ubavontuba, I’ll take out a little ‘insurance’’ by wishing you good luck!


Thanks for the good wishes. I'd prefer action.

Anyway, risking oneself in an experiment may be foolhardy, but it is an acceptable action in the course of scienctific advancement.

Risking EVERYONE and EVERYTHING without their express consent is a whole 'nuther matter entirely.

Eric
RealityCheck
Hello ubavontuba (and everyone).

Sorry, ubavontuba, for the tardiness of my reply. Things have been ‘hopping’ at my end (so much life/learning to be ‘crammed’ in before the big bad black hole ‘get’s’ us, heh? hehehe). This will be my last reply in this thread because time and other commitments will not permit it. So what follows is by way of parting comments on your latest posted comments/views....

Regarding your conclusions re asteroid belt and other ‘rubble’ distributions in our solar system:.... Have you factored in harmonics/nodes of orbital/gravitational dynamics and interactions during protoplanetary/planetary collisions stage of solar system evolution? Consider the Lagrange/Libration ‘nodes’ and accretion-disk ‘ring’ formations which effectively and naturally collect/‘trap otherwise totally disorganised distributions of ‘rubble’. What we observe NOW is the latter stages, i.e., ‘mostly settled’, solar system development. Your pre-occupation with ‘man made’ catastrophe’ as explanation for the asteroid belt etc. is somewhat ‘contrived’ when one considers the ‘natural’ forces at play, which result in a whole range of ‘leftover’ and ‘ongoing’ rubble formations in and around our solar system at THIS late stage of its development.

Regarding your insistence on ‘exactly’ the right trajectory/time for cosmic ray collisions:....In my opinion, this ignores the ACTUAL probable collisions of precisely the required type/energies that MUST have occurred given the ACTUAL time/numbers involved. A helpful analogy: Think of the odds against any two PARTICULAR people on earth meeting at a certain age, at a certain time, at a certain place...the odds are astronomical, right?...but pairs of UNSPECIFIED people meet around the world every day, and what do you often hear them exclaim when they do?.. "fancy meeting YOU here”...and/or... "what a SMALL world”...etc. So, when we consider the INNUMERABLE numbers of cosmic rays and the billions of years, it’s not so farfetched that AT LEAST ONE ‘unspecified’ OPPOSING PAIR of cosmic rays may meet as suggested; which implies either that NO micro black holes can form this way OR that, if they do, they represent NO danger as you describe.

When you suggest that a micro b-hole may take millions/billions of years to 'eat' the Earth, have you considered that ANY ‘point’ of EFFECTIVE VACUUM would IMMEDIATELY AND CATASTROPHICALLY be the ‘focal-point/destination for ALL speeding ‘elementary particles’ (whether radiation or matter) inside the Earth...Imagine the pressure ‘released’ and directed towards such a PERFECT DRAINAGE POINT as a micro-hole would represent, if indeed they existed and were to invade ANY sizeable ‘gravity pressurised’ source of ‘food’, hehehe.

Regarding your counter argument that .....“Astronomical objects implode, explode and disappear all the time. We've only been observing for a short time and already we've seen lots of evidence of destruction.” . This misses the point that if such micro-holes could form as suggested, it would be a practical CERTAINTY that ALL vast/massive bodies would be destroyed ALMOST IMMEDIATELY...meaning that, given the time/numbers involved, we should be observing not just an OCCASIONAL implosion/explosion, but practically CONSTANT and WHOLESALE destruction.

You say:.. “Besides, my contention has been, and still is, that mini black holes generally have too much relative velocity to settle into mass. If it happens, it is very rare.”. Well, that may be so for anything in the vicinity of the micro black hole formation ‘event’, but given the relativistic velocities and numbers involved, the galaxy should be swarming with them, and they should be being incrementally ‘slowed’ by succeeding interactions to ordinary velocities which would result in the ‘critical’ DWELL TIME necessary to invade ANY planet/star.

I agree that... "Risking EVERYONE and EVERYTHING without their express consent is a whole 'nuther matter entirely.”. But so far, the case for such a 'risk' actually being PRESENT has not been made. The PERCEPTION that such a risk MAY exist is so far based on very tenuous/nebulous ‘fears’ not warranted by the available evidence. All your own arguments, in support of your contention that there IS a risk, have been reasonably refuted, I think. So unless you have more telling points to make, it is somewhat unfair to (effectively) accuse CERN scientists of risking everyone/everything, with or without their consent.

Final/parting observation: Given the ‘big bang’ scenario and your contention that micro-holes can form during ‘unsustained collision’ (non-gravitational-compression) conditions, then the wide range and countless numbers of ultra-high-energy collisions during the extremely dense initial/early ‘expansion’ of the ‘bang’ would have produced a ubiquitous swarm of innumerable micro-holes which would have ‘gobbled’ EVERYTHING up, and left nothing for us to ‘observe’, let alone evolve into what we obviously DO observe.

I hope this has served to allay your fears somewhat, if not entirely. I contributed what I thought was required by the discussion topic and I'll leave you and others to conclude for yourselves if a danger exists or not. Anyhow, that’s it from me, as they say. Sorry ubavontuba, everyone; but ‘time’ is short and there’s lots to do elsewhere! It’s been a pleasure discussing this topic with such obviously intelligent, involved and knowledgeable persons. I shall leave you all to it for now. Good luck and good thinking, EVERYONE!

Best parting regards from: RealityCheck.
ubavontuba
RealityCheck,

I'm sorry to be losing you in this discussion. Your questions have certainly taxed my abilities.

---

In regards to the asteroids, I didn't say it was a man-made disaster, but that it may have been a planet eaten from within by a black hole (of intelligent origin or not). The distribution is highly organized yes, but why?

If it had been caused by a major collision, wouldn't we see additional accretion rings in many other of the points you have specified? Why is it all so localized? Why is there no remaining large body?

It looks like a planet that fell apart, not like one that was struck by another large body.

---

I don't think I'm ignoring all the probabilities of cosmic ray collisions. I'm just saying that this would be extremely more rare than is currently surmised. This would be particularly rare in the Earth/moon system due to our magnetosphere. However, the asteroids may have been an unprotected planet...

---

"Vacuum" and "drainage" won't immediately apply on such a small scale. It must first grow as a result of happenstance meetings.

---

On "wholesale destruction:" I've used this very argument to suggest that black holes cannot accrue enough mass to be stopped by the Earth. They would be highly non-reactive at their normally high relative velocities (similar to neutrinos). It is the man-made slow ones that are of concern, not naturally occurring fast ones.

Perhaps you are right... natural mini black holes do swarm the galaxy (I've suggested them as a possible cause of dark matter). However, they are so tiny and so fast that they are virtually non-reactive. They therefore can't accrue mass or change their momentum (except by gravity).

---

I don't think it is my burden to prove that it is not safe, rather I think it is the burden of those proposing the experiment to prove that it IS safe (before conducting the experiments). If they can't do this, they should move it off-world.

---

On your parting thoughts. The Big Bang is too poorly understood to make these broad statements. Before we can state that mini black holes formed ubiquitously during the expansion, we have to know what drove the expansion first.

Why would mass and energy expand against what must have been infinite gravity potential?

Perhaps this very process prevented Big Bang mini black hole formation during this time. Think about it. Matter was coming apart against gravity. How could a gravitational event occur during such an event?

---

Thanks RealityCheck for your participation. God speed and good luck.

Eric
ubavontuba
Group,

Can Hawking radiation really work?

Here's an interesting citation regarding light escaping from a black
hole:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

Please note where it says:

"Why does she see things this way? The best way to think about it is
that it's really just an optical illusion. It doesn't really take an
infinite amount of time for the black hole to form, and it doesn't
really take an infinite amount of time for you to cross the horizon.
(If you don't believe me, just try jumping in! You'll be across the
horizon in eight minutes, and crushed to death mere seconds later.)
As you get closer and closer to the horizon, the light that you're
emitting takes longer and longer to climb back out to reach Penelope.
In fact, the radiation you emit right as you cross the horizon will
hover right there at the horizon forever and never reach her. You've
long since passed through the horizon, but the light signal telling
her that won't reach her for an infinitely long time."

It seems to me that if this is true, Hawking radiation couldn't work! Wouldn't it take forever for the signal to reach the universe?

Does this make sense?

Eric
guiding_light
Sounds like Zeno paradox to me.

The particles are supposed to be generated outside the event horizon with enough velocity to escape.

Still, now that I've looked into H. R. further, it seems that this prediction is still based on some assumptions which are not vigorously defended.

g_l
guiding_light
Here is an interesting link on Unruh radiation.

g_l
ubavontuba
guiding_light,

That Unruh radiation link was interesting.

Here's something to consider though:

The free VPs just barely on the outside of the horizon must annihilate in order to create the escaping photons. How long does that take?

Think about it. The free VPs are virtually frozen in time near the event horizon, right?

Eric
Joshua Schulter
QUOTE
I just finished watching the tape of "A Brief History of Time" wherein Stephen Hawking explains Hawking radiation. My opinion is that his conclusions are illogical.

As he stated the virtual pairs are broken apart by the event horizon, but it's a 50-50 chance whether the particle or anti-particle falls in. Therefore there can be no net change to the mass. Half of something minus half of something equals no change.

The radiation certainly should exist, but it should be the result of space itself radiating free particles and anti-particles, not a result of a loss of mass of the black hole itself.

I,m sorry, but I just had to correct you ubavontuba,
I know the topic has progressed pretty far, and your fears have been resolved, but I must inform you that your initial misgivings were baseless in and of themselves.

Although there is a 50/50 chance of the "matter" particle escaping, You must realize that antimatter still has mass. It also takes energy to create, which is the basis of Hawking's theory.

When a pair of virtual particles is created, they rely on the fact that they can borrow energy, as long as they return it on time by annihilating. when one particle is sucked in by the black hole, the energy needed to create the pair is taken from the black hole itself, but in the form of mass as calculated by Einstein's theory of special relativity.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Joshua Schulter+ Feb 9 2006, 12:00 AM )
I,m sorry, but I just had to correct you ubavontuba,
I know the topic has progressed pretty far, and your fears have been resolved, but I must inform you that your initial misgivings were baseless in and of themselves.


Naw my fears haven't been alleviated, I just got bored with being the only alarmist in this forum.

I will admit that I doubt there's any real danger, but even the hint of danger when the stakes are so high is concerning.

QUOTE
Although there is a 50/50 chance of the "matter" particle escaping, You must realize that antimatter still has mass. It also takes energy to create, which is the basis of Hawking's theory.

When a pair of virtual particles is created, they rely on the fact that they can borrow energy, as long as they return it on time by annihilating. when one particle is sucked in by the black hole, the energy needed to create the pair is taken from the black hole itself, but in the form of mass as calculated by Einstein's theory of special relativity.


This is supposedly true, but the physics beyond the event horizon aren't understood. What if entropy is reversed? Is it unreasonable to ask if both the mass in normal space increases and the mass inside the event horizon increases? I know it sounds unlikely, but black holes operate beyond the boundaries of normal physics. Why should we expect them to behave normally?

Besides, do we really want to trust our existence to a guy that once thought time would literally reverse in a collapsing universe? Common sense tells us that chaos makes it impossible to "put the genie back in the bottle" (so to speak). How could he have ever seen such order in the universe?
Guest
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 9 2006, 04:33 AM)
....the physics beyond the event horizon aren't understood. What if entropy is reversed? Is it unreasonable to ask if both the mass in normal space increases and the mass inside the event horizon increases? I know it sounds unlikely, but black holes operate beyond the boundaries of normal physics. Why should we expect them to behave normally?

Very important perception. You hit the nail half on the head. It's the half that you miss that perphaps can make our knowledge of black holes transparent.

You contradict yourself. We do know something about black holes. We know that they operate outside of normal physics. We know the half that doesn't work.

We can then say that there is, at least, a better than even chance that the "arrows" of physics move the opposite direction to which they normal operate. You pointed out the arrow of time. We should also start thinking about the reversal of the other concept arrows eg. the thermodynamic arrow (entropy), cosmological arrow (expansion), radiation arrow and evolution arrow.

Half the "right" knowledge is better than none. The black in the black hole is not the color. The balck is the blackness that comes when it falls out of our arrow of perception.
ktwong
Oops. Sorry. Last post on black holes and the arrows of time is mine,

KT Wong
ubavontuba
QUOTE (ktwong+ Feb 10 2006, 11:42 PM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Feb 9 2006, 04:33 AM)

....the physics beyond the event horizon aren't understood. What if entropy is reversed? Is it unreasonable to ask if both the mass in normal space increases and the mass inside the event horizon increases? I know it sounds unlikely, but black holes operate beyond the boundaries of normal physics. Why should we expect them to behave normally?


Very important perception. You hit the nail half on the head. It's the half that you miss that perphaps can make our knowledge of black holes transparent.

You contradict yourself. We do know something about black holes. We know that they operate outside of normal physics. We know the half that doesn't work.

We can then say that there is, at least, a better than even chance that the "arrows" of physics move the opposite direction to which they normal operate. You pointed out the arrow of time. We should also start thinking about the reversal of the other concept arrows eg. the thermodynamic arrow (entropy), cosmological arrow (expansion), radiation arrow and evolution arrow.

Half the "right" knowledge is better than none. The black in the black hole is not the color. The balck is the blackness that comes when it falls out of our arrow of perception.


Sure. Some might be reversed, all might be reversed, some might point in whole 'nuther directions. Who knows?
jal
Hi All!
For a different prespective see:
2d=black holes and follow the discussion.
QUOTE
The coveted Occam's Razor prize.(One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.)
Presenting a cycling universe from a membrane (2d) through a “Big Bang” by spinning an instanton at right angle to the membrane, then continuing the cycle through a “Dark Hole” (2d) and still continuing the cycles from 2d with small “Big Bangs”. (“gamma and cosmic ray”).
presenting a NEW MODEL of a universe without violation the known “laws of physic”.
It's a universe full of holes.
Yin_Yang

Who knows... mabe we'll be able to tap into a new source of energy.
jal smile.gif
Guest_josh
They aren't really trying to create black holes. Particle accelerators, in which particles collide trying to recreate the big bang and research other things. there are several of these and they have caused contreversy because people worry that micro black holes or strangelets could occur. there are other things that in theory could happen, such as a small rip in space-time. if a black hole did form, according o hawking radiation it would evaporate immediately but hawking radiation is proven so if it didnt evaporate it could be very dangerous. also if a strangelet formed, it would eat ordinary matter also leading to the demise of the earth. the chances of these things happening are probably minimal, yet the public should be aware of the potential.
joe sheldon
if theres any risk at all, why risk it??????

this whole idea of creating man made black holes is a very very scary subject and possiblity. there are too many what ifs. How can these scientists do this???

What gives them A$$holes the right to (highly unlikely) but possibly destroy mankind. 99.99% of the world havent even heard of these experiments and do not care for them. They are not needed. Not Yet..... These experiments should be banned by international law for say 50 years until more less risky research is developed.

Will somebody ease my fears and tell me this is all harmless????
ubavontuba
QUOTE (joe sheldon+Sep 7 2006, 11:45 PM)
if theres any risk at all, why risk it??????

this whole idea of creating man made black holes is a very very scary subject and possiblity. there are too many what ifs. How can these scientists do this???

What gives them A$$holes the right to (highly unlikely) but possibly destroy mankind. 99.99% of the world havent even heard of these experiments and do not care for them. They are not needed. Not Yet..... These experiments should be banned by international law for say 50 years until more less risky research is developed.

Will somebody ease my fears and tell me this is all harmless????

I don't even think the scientists conducting the experiments have a valid argument for the safety of these experiments. It seems the truth of the matter is that they would satisfy their own curiosity at any cost to society and mankind (there's no practical justification for these experiments, to begin with!).

Too bad no one has the guts to help me spread the word...
Guest_Seeker
So when's the big date when we all disappear? wink.gif

Anyone know when they are planning to do this? I would love to hear of the results...if there is anything left to result.
jal
Good Day!
Putting a few numbers from an initial structure that does not violate the Planck scale might help you understand what is going on.
Go ahead and come to the party.
User posted image
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
user posted image
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
user posted image
QUANTUM Gravity user posted image
SOLUTION

user posted image
User posted image

What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link that does not violate the Planck Scale = a new theory = science.
Jal
luis sancho
lets consider that gaga guy hawkings is wrong. He already apologized for a mistake. All the black holes we have spot in the Universe are highly stable. Lets consider the last theories about black holes, which include dark matter and dark energy we dont see, so we cannot verify. If so they will be stable too. And finally lets consider the absolute simple truth: hawkings radiation might evaporate only black holes that do not absorb matter faster than the evaporation they cause. It is like a man who evaporates sweat but drinks to substitute that sweat. So in all those highly probably cases the black hole will be stable and grow at an acelerated path eating first (god is just) the terrorist (scientists) who have done it. Now let us be optimists and put all those probablities as not the dominant probability, 25%. If you multiply that probability for the human species population, it means 1500 million human beings. so those people are going to kill 1 500 million human beings if they succeed. the people who destroyed the towers were going to kill 3000 people if they succeeded. They were called the biggest terrorists of the world. They were offered 25 millions for his capture death or a live. Question is, why we dont offer a similar quantity to capture death or alive the biggest terrorist team of human history? Including the ga ga guy. Because the tree of science which extincts the tree of life is the new religion of mankind. Do not eat of the fruits of the tree of science because the day you do you will die.
and if not they will make strangelets and we will die. And if not they will make metal nanobacteria and we will die. And if not... the list is growing as much as the arrogance of physicists . The harder they fall...
Mandillion
Hey, Luis - derka derka baca! Yeah, let's put a screeching halt to all human progress and scientific development because of religious, irrational, invisible guy in the sky nonsense. Monkeys, big fat fuzzy ones, to that. Do you understand what a revolution that the technology that this exeriment could yield could bring? Imagine that, everyone in the world being able to live freely and happily because we don't have to massacre each other for energy sources. All of a sudden, perhaps the world might actually be a better place. The real terrorists are the ones who don't recognize man's nature as a free, rational, individualistic being, and (be they republicans or al-qaeda) refuse to look past theistic wackiness and group identities. Forgive me for being Americentric, but since the USA is no longer the most free country on earth, I fear for the future of mankind - and if we're headed for a 1984 future, where mankind stagnates and noone is free, happy or productive, then perhaps the Earth disappearing into a black hole ain't such a bad thing. On the bright side, if it does happen, you won't have time to notice.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (luis sancho+Sep 14 2006, 02:44 AM)
lets consider that gaga guy hawkings is wrong. He already apologized for a mistake.

Hawking is quite sane. Just because he thinks about things you find hard to understand doesn't mean he's mad.
QUOTE (luis sancho+Sep 14 2006, 02:44 AM)
All the black holes we have spot in the Universe are highly stable. 
Because they are enormous in mass, not like the ones CERN might make.
QUOTE (luis sancho+Sep 14 2006, 02:44 AM)
Lets consider the last theories about black holes, which include dark matter and dark energy we dont see, so we cannot verify. 
No, black hole theorems don't require the consideration of dark matter or dark energy.
QUOTE (luis sancho+Sep 14 2006, 02:44 AM)
So in all those highly probably cases the black hole will be stable
How'd you work out it's 'highly probable'? Have you ever done any of the physics behind Hawking's black hole theorems? You'll find it's actually EXTREMELY unlikely the black hole would be stable.

The rest of your post is just BS paranoid gibberish.
Farsight
I feel extremely uncomfortable when I read phrases like probing energies not seen since the Big Bang. Some physicists do not understand what energy actually is, and are simply not qualified to offer reassurance. And some other physicists are highly-regarded in some circles, but are regarded as crackpots in others. "Unlikely" isn't good enough, and this is definitely not a subject where peoples' fears should be brushed aside as bullshit paranoid gibberish. Even if they are.
SL
Having emailed Greg Landsberg of this con"cern". I am appalled at the lack of understanding upon taking a black hole to task.My published theory of (time) as natures logical storage space for other matter(universe's) And that we are on somewhat of a flat plane projected only in(3d so to speak) by the intersection of space and ...this nanosecond.Black holes allow for "time pressure displacement" I think an artificial rent in time's fabric could cause???....And you worry of the headline news? My child is gone,I should not care..But what about yours? SL
sl
landsberg@hep.brown.edu




And what if this is correct...is not "time" the
perfect storage area for other matter(universe's).If
the black hole tear's the balance??

Steven Lestar



The Universe is a flat curve...We exist on a flat
plane that only manifests or ‘pops up’ at this given
nanosecond. We need no other moment. Time escapes
through black holes into the next chamber, or
Universe. It is only our egocentric view, once again,
either by emotion, or science, that always leaves us
with a notion that we must view a light to perceive
it. There are Big Bangs happening every second. A
fraction of a moment ahead or behind of us is
allocated to the next Universe, ‘They’ are allowed to
‘pop up’, as this is where the dimensional data is
stored in time. In other words space is a flat plane
where all our informational data is stored, much like
a flat computer disk storing 3D information, i.e., our
Universe, and us. Also when I speak of flat, space
could eventually curve to form a giant onion like
layer of one dimension, expanding in an outward motion
turning into shreds as it end it’s existence. We will
still refer to this space as being infinite for the
moment as the curved layer theory is basically the
same idea only with a closed loop on our local
Universe. Everything on this infinite flat surface of
space only becomes dimensional as it travels on its
allotted time-line or time-wave. Imagine each wave of
time pushing up a flat surface much like the sea. Time
is also nature’s infinite storage place. To keep this
infinity of time for one Universe is wasteful,
egotistic, and is not in keeping with nature’s
constant re-occurring patterns of birth and decay. As
each Big bang is fired a new universe born. It is
given it’s own timeline or strip of time to unfold on.
Black holes allow time to ‘breathe’ if a universe
should become too thick with time it would begin to
rub up into the next Universe. There may be spaces
between the Universe layers to act as a buffer, or
sense a change in ‘time pressure’. The spaces between
the Universes perhaps lead to central birthing chamber
(think of a radiator or multiple CD changer) with
spaces between to allow the universes to be monitored
and a central point for excess time to be collected to
be used as energy for new Universes. Also a decaying
Universe’s time could be re-collected at its ending,
to be used again. I have even taken ‘traditional time
travel’ into account, for we can only move forward or
back on the same timeline. Imagine you are on a train
moving faster than our time, as you approach your
future time (station) where you get off. You could not
walk across the platform to the train leaving ahead
(universe) or walk back to the one behind. You could
only step out into this future (the station.) In the
same Universe we are in. There would be no means to
travel though time and then move through space to
another timeline unless, you were perhaps very small.
A physics professor at USC once told me there are not
enough Black holes for my theory to exist
I politely asked well ‘How many black holes are
there?’ of which he had no reply. Anyway two months
later the Hubble Telescope discovers ‘Many more black
holes than thought discovered’ I believe many
different types of Black holes will be discovered
leaving our universe a gossamer thin fabric fraught
with holes. I believe “ local” black holes, tiny holes
all around us (this is a current theory anyway) will
be properly theorized. As the quantum problem
obviously adds up to much more than can be practically
perceived. The theory of “local” Black holes, in
conjunction with my theory of infinite multiple flat
Universes will explain all unknown phenomena whether
anomalies in space, Quantum phenomena or any local
phenomena. Our universe will always be affected by the
close proximity of the next universe ahead or behind
us (almost like weather patterns over a long period.)
For we literally do not know what we are up against!
Fear not, it only means, there is more. There are
infinite infinities. Things have always felt less to
me as you peer at the sky; it feels flat and one
dimensional to our imaginings. Inside us seems at
times, larger than this world. Knowing there are
limitless universes out there has a better ring to it.
Maybe when we become nothing, we will be small enough
to enter. SL 2003








MrMysteryScience
Unfortunately as was mentioned prior, the results of the CERN experiments of course are unknown. The experiment is being conducted due to a lot of mathematical concepts that actually are very vague. The results are likely to be no more understood than what has been conducted in prior experiments. Leave it to the CERN to define "waste of money" as a theoretical term in physics... All that money for nothing , certainly a hole of a type anyhow. It does look like a review of future experiments could be considered. I hope we don't all not wake up some morning because someone forgot to square the speed of light. Sleep tight.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (MrMysteryScience+Oct 18 2006, 06:08 AM)
Unfortunately as was mentioned prior, the results of the CERN experiments of course are unknown.

If you're working in the field though I'm sure it's possible to get ahold of a lot of the results. People from the same department as me who work in more experimental physics go over to CERN regularly. Part of the infrastructure that's being put in at the moment is to be able to send several hundred Gb/s of data to a couple of other research facilities in the world so that others can work on it.

The guy on the street though wouldn't know what to do with that data. It'd be a huge mass of numbers and a few diagrams.
QUOTE (MrMysteryScience+Oct 18 2006, 06:08 AM)
Leave it to the CERN to define "waste of money" as a theoretical term in physics...
They thought the electron would be useless to, now look where electronics are...
MrMysteryScience
Hello Alpha,
Gotta say I love that name, magnifi, Alpha, perhaps the greatest symbol in all of Physics. Perhaps the greatest chance at a unified theory as well, Alpha, the Fine Structure Constant; See Alpha link Beautiful! Best chance, I say. Better by far than String philosophy. Gotta say something nice that's my 12007.137th motto.
Anyhow won't quote your entire post, it's there, but I was relating to the concept of the new collider at CERN and the Black hole concept.(this thread) CERN has certainly done some fine work in the past, but do you think the US dropped it's plans for a mega-collider for no reason??? Yes there has been a break through, but no one including me is talking about it, can't imagine why no one at CERN hasn't heard, unless ... Anyhow the reason I said the results of the CERN experiments were unknown was because the experiment in question (Collider-blackhole) has not been conducted; unless digitalized time traveling particles are generated, I don't think anyone yet knows the results for sure. I don't, I just think I may, and that is conjecture, but I will hypothesize for your benefit, that most likely they will not go any further with this line of research, no matter how huge a collider is built.If you define a gram as a certain average mass at sea level on Earth and begin weighing every hour for a hundred years, given space-time as a constant, will the average change?
Alpha your name holds the real key, look within , to seek the answer to your mystery. And hope we don't discover the big bang. unsure.gif
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (MrMysteryScience+Oct 18 2006, 09:59 PM)
but do you think the US dropped it's plans for a mega-collider for no reason???

Spending too much money on their military budget and running a 10 trillion dollar deficit?
QUOTE (MrMysteryScience+Oct 18 2006, 09:59 PM)
Perhaps the greatest chance at a unified theory as well, Alpha, the Fine Structure Constant
The fine structue constant, great in QED that it is, it's only related to the coupling of a single force, electromagnetism. It's not relevent to strong or weak nuclear forces, other coupling constants come into play then.

If you're only looking at electromagnetic interactions, alpha is all you need wink.gif but if you want to do more than that you're going to have to look further.
MrMysteryScience
Yes , Alpha, please do look further into how Alpha relates to the Nuclear forces and other forces as well. Alpha, all the way. By the way watch out for this other guy, Omega I think is his name.

As to the Super Collider, wrong time period in US history I'm afraid, this was the Clinton Administration that was in office when the collider was shut down. He's the one that cut the US military to the Bone and Balanced the budget, in fact when the decision was made to take all that pork money out of Texas (where the collider was to be built and the current president is from) the only reason they could publicly announce was because it was either that or they would have to abandon the International Space Station concept. Apples and oranges to me really but thats politics , see;History of super collider
Now of course the Space Station may be about to be destroyed because they are going ahead with construction plans despite problems with the Gyro systems, but this is a different world, see;Gyro Danger Greatest in ISS History
So perhaps there will be a great science disaster before the science disaster that this thread is worried about. You know there are times in science when "Time Out" should be called. You know kinda like this thread is hinting at, just think a little. Of course with the International Space Station thing it seems the scientists are warning that tolerances may be exceeded, but the politicians have a construction time table, and again no extra money for science! Bad Gyro design and they don't even have an emergency redundancy gyro that they could lash on somewhere for a temporary fix? If something did go really wrong up there, most would burn up on re entry, but those gyros are some massive objects, what if it hit CERN??? blink.gif Talk about a hole. That's hopefully not even in orbital vicinity, but ISS, talk about nations blaming nations, whew what a mess.Loss of people's lives, loss to science, well as long as we are talking disaster, (BUDGET CUTS). If ISS comes down or CERN project is a screwup expect every scientific R&D budget on Earth cut big time. Really getting into this scary thing for Halloween. huh.gif
Alpha, Alpha is so much safer, I mean, now we have computers, when study was really hot into Alpha they didn't have computers in every home on Earth, and maybe there is a mathematical link to Alpha and the Nuclear Forces, and maybe throw in some non-commutative geometry , and see what the PC's come up with. Think, I said , but maybe we won't be needed for that much longer anyway. ohmy.gif

Happy Halloween sad.gif

PS; Nuclear Forces mentioned in the above post have no reference to NK or any other nation.This post is cleared for international distribution. ph34r.gif
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 06:12 PM)
They thought the electron would be useless to, now look where electronics are...

This is pure baloney and you know it. Electrons are easily accumulated and have been researched for centuries.

Practical uses of electron control also date back centuries. Heck, ol' Ben Franklin's invention of the lightening rod certainly qualifies as a practical electronic device (even though the energy wasn't put to use, but rather diverted). Back then, they even had parlor amusements that would cause people to experience a shock when kissing! Quite stimulating (so I've heard).

Nothing expected from CERN's LHC can possibly compare with the practicality of the electron. The energies required to achieve the hoped for results make utilitarian use of any discovered properties quite unlikely. You can't fold the LHC into your pocket (like a cell phone) and carry nano-blackholes and strange matter around with you.

Jeez! You might as well be comparing the practical considerations of common rainfall versus hypothetical diamond deposits in extraterrestrial star systems!

Also, though electrons in overabundance can pose a danger to individuals and small communities, no lightening storm has the hypothetical potential to destroy the whole world. Strange matter and nano-blackholes, on the other hand...
LarryHerene
How many events of the type concerning out at CERN are occurring naturally where we could sea the result of the feared auto catalytic subatomic reaction?

The possibility of starting an auto catalytic subatomic reaction because of undiscovered or little understood physics is not zero but the existence of the solar system and the start and the consistency of observation of them and our ability to model them imposes a very low limit to that risk.

The observed universe have been running these experiments at a low rate but astronomical orders of magnitude greater numbers for 14 billion years.

If there is a reaction path that would lead to a state of matter that would endanger the earth should it not now already have been create and left observational evidence.

Consider cosmic ray events over the last 4.+ billion years of the existence of the Earth.

Consider the existence of the Sun 4.5 billion years (328,900 times the mass of the Earth+Moon)
The Sun is powered by proton-proton collisions converting megatons of proton into neutrons and energy every day.
Calculation of the number of proton-proton events per second is left as an exercise for the reader.

Consider the consistency of the observation of all the individual stars and our understanding of there evolution through time.

Neutron stars (pulsars, type IIa supernova) have orders of magnitude higher energy, density, number of protons, neutrons and electrons and 9+ billion years giving (multiply all four numbers) for how many more events?

In type II supernovas that create all atoms beyond iron (# 26 out of 92) solar masses of protons are covered to neutrons, an auto catalytic reaction would dramatically alter outcomes (observationally supernova 1987a)

Where is the observational anomaly for the transition to a new state of matter?

What comet, asteroid star extrasolar planet has converted?
Such an event would emit photons that when detected would have unique characteristics.
There are satellites observing across the EM spectrum and neutrino observatories.

Are you aware of any observed phenomena that might point to an event like the one that conquers you?

Is not the probability that germ or virus might mutate in some individual human of domestic animal that would kill more of the human population greater that any high energy physics machine would.

Consider the ratio of the human population to high-energy physics machines.

We have physical evidence of disease (SARS, AIDS, bubonic plague, polio or smallpox) or an impact event (Tunguska (1908) Chicxulub Crater (Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary) and Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1994)) for instance.


homo sapiens at risk
ph34r.gif What moves all those researchers is his desire to emulate Mr. Einstein, the tribal idol of XX century Physics. Now Mr. Einstein had indeed many defects. He was not exactly a nice guy. He gave his first son on adoption and did not even mentioned him in his autobiography; he told his wife that women only reproduce ideas when she, a competent physicist, tried to help Einstein on his work, etc. etc. But certainly Einstein did not need to make 8 billion dollar experiments to find out his equations, but made ‘thought experiments’ as he knew perfectly that physics is basically a mathematical description of the Universe and once enough data had been recollected, and we have indeed enough data, no amount of experiments will substitute the hardcore work of resolving and simplifying the mathematical equations that explain the Universe. The problem of those particle physicists is that they don’t seem to have the mental power to resolve and simplify further what Einstein had achieved, so they fancy with the idea that Mr. Einstein was wrong and they are right, just because they want badly to occupy his notch. This arrogant sense of emulation is especially obvious in Mr. Hawking, the wannabe genius that CERN considers the oracle which all human beings have to trust in this matter.
Indeed, Hawking’s sets himself in his famed article also to a task beyond his capacity: to marry quantum theory and relativity outdoing the master Einstein by substituting his solid work for his speculations. In fact, the 1977 article () starts with Einstein’s famed quote that ‘God does not play dice’, which Mr. Hawking will dismiss in his failed attempt to refound modern physics at the end of the article affirming that ‘God not only plays dice but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen’ (in the interior of the black hole). The ambition of the article is self-evident, Mr. Hawking is about to tamper with quantum mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics, the 3 pillars of western science in order to create his own branch of what some ironic physicists call ‘Hawking’s Physics’…
Indeed, from the beginning of his article Mr. Hawking leads us with astonishing ‘chuptzah’ to where he wants to arrive. If black holes evaporate, Einstein is wrong, because his General Relativity affirms that no energy or matter below the speed of light can abandon a black hole. Again quoting Mr. Hawking on that article’s first page: ‘According to the special theory of relativity nothing can travel faster than light, so that if light cannot escape nothing else an either. The result would be a black hole, a region of space-time from which it is not possible to escape.’ But he is going to prove Einstein wrong very soon with Hawking’s physics. To that aim he makes an analogy between 2 concepts that have no relation whatsoever in ‘classic physics’: the surface area of the black hole and the temperature of an object, breaking one of the fundamental laws of serious science: ‘analogies are not homologies and hence can never be adduced to draw conclusions upon the equality of two facts of nature’. Let us put one simple example. The similarity between the bat’s wings, the bird’s wings and the plane wings is an analogy. They look analog because they have similar uses, they are all tools for flying. But that fact doesn’t mean that birds, bats and planes are homologous, are the same thing and proceed from the same ancestor.
Now the area of a physical object is a static, spatial concept which easily applies to black holes. The temperature of an object however has nothing to do with the area. Certainly is not an homology and many would say not even an analogy. But Hawking’s decides that because the black hole area increases constantly as the black hole grows in mass (in the same way a new baby grows in mass as he eats more), and the entropy (or temperature disorder of the Universe) also grows constantly, both things are the same. This is total nonsense. All things die certainly at the end of life and that doesn’t mean they are the same. Birds, bats and planes also become disordered as time passes and yet nobody would think that their processes are the same, or even that they eat the same fuel. And yet based in that analogy Mr. Hawking and those who followed on the path of his speculative science, deduced that as hot bodies release heat and energy, black hole surfaces had to release also energy and evaporate. And so they have to be very hot.
Birds do not transport passengers even if they have wings like planes do and black holes do not need to release energy even if they have an area that increases with time as entropy does. Mr. Hawking himself affirms in the article: ‘although there is clearly a similarity between entropy and the area of the black hole horizon it was not obvious to us how the area could be identified as the entropy of a black hole.’
Still, though the analogy doesn’t hold, Mr. hawking needs it because temperature is a quantum effect he can study with quantum equations and the area of the black hole is a spatial effect that he has to study with Einstein’s Relativity and hence could not marry both effects together.
But we will be generous here and concede the analogy, as we have conceded it through the text, warning the readers of its truly meaning. What the analogy means is that a small black hole is hyper-active because his gravitational field cancels around the strong force, the Russian doll cover of the proton, and feeds on its inner quarks as boiling water peels off a tomato and allows you to eat the interior. Son in a sense, we concede that black holes are hyper-active, and accept the analogy as a working simplified method of explaining to you what happens next, according to Einstein and Hawking (through his analogy): the black hole increases his area as it expands its gravitational force in our universe. This Hawking’s concedes without realizing that he is breaking another basic logic law of true science. If A implies B then A doesn’t imply non-B.
It is what a high school student knows as ‘reductio ad absurdum’. Indeed, Hawking invents here an absurd argument, as he affirms that black holes grow constantly in volume and area, which means they are feeding ‘growing, in size’; and yet he affirms that black holes evaporate; that is, they ‘diminish in size’… Hence if you believe in logic, the backbone of all sciences, either black holes do grow constantly in size as entropy does, and so they don’t evaporate but feed as Einstein says, or they evaporate and so Mr. Hawking own 1st law of black holes, the unrelentless growth of their area is false… What they cannot do except in pathological physics is to grow in size and evaporate at the same time, as we cannot live and die at the same time, and white is not black and red is not blue and A is not B but A.
Of course Einstein is not God, but the Greeks called God, Logos, the Logic of the Universe and here we find a man who plays to reinvent the Universe. Of course we want to go beyond Einstein… But most of us merely became humbled when learning the complex equations of Mr. Einstein and tried at best to simplify and correct his equations, not to throw them to the garbage with 100 years of serious science behind (3). Not so Mr. Hawking who can wrestle with the Logic of the Gods, like a Quixote tumbling wind mills that never fall except in his imagination…
Of course he is fair so he doubts of himself, sort of apologizing for his bad physics, which might look to you a nice fellow attitude but has nothing to do with the search of truth, which is either A and B but not A perhaps, if…
Not so in Hawking’s mind, ambivalent between brashness and apology, when he affirms: ‘according to classical concepts no such (thermodynamic) equilibrium is possible, since the black hole would absorb any thermal radiation that fell on it and by (General Relativity’s) definition would not be able to emit anything in return’…
Yet he is not convinced since he is in words of his best friend Mr. Thorne () ‘the most stubborn man I ever known’… and his goal is obvious: to put aside General Relativity and bring in quantum theory, studying black holes with the temperature analogy instead of doing it with the gravity field as everybody else does since Einstein, Schwarzschild, Chandra and Oppenheimer discovered them theoretically.
Problem is that quantum theory and temperature are theories that study electromagnetic particles and fields unrelated till date to gravitational fields and general relativity the classic theories that explain black holes. So in the same way we do not use sociology, a theory about human beings, to study the behavior of electrons, for whom we have quantum theory, we shouldn’t use quantum theory to study black holes, for whom we have general relativity… Mr. Einstein himself tried unsuccessfully as many of us have tried after him, to marry quantum theory and relativity (in the opposite way to that of Hawking’s obviously, departing not from quantum theory but from Relativity).
But Mr. Hawking, well known by his iconoclastic remarks, is about to do it in his article. And so he studies quantum effects around the black hole.
You are probably familiar with the idea that every thing in the electromagnetic Universe has 2 states as a particle and a field of forces, which is like saying that things can be clumped into a ball or extended into its smallest elements. So particles can gather all his field in a ball (a mass if the field is gravitational, a charge if it is electromagnetic), or extended as if they would iron the mass of the ball in a long sheet. This happens constantly in the Universe, where electromagnetic sheets, the fields, fluctuate between particle and wave state.
So the vacuum space we see is basically an electromagnetic field of energy that constantly fluctuates, aggregating its spatial energy into clumps of mass called particles, mainly photons and electrons…
Those fluctuations happen in the electromagnetic field around a black hole as they happen around you. But you do not evaporate because those quantum particles are produced outside not inside your body. While the sweat that could evaporate and take away mass from your body is created inside your body.
So it happens in the case of the black hole: the sweat of electromagnetic particles is produced not inside the black hole but outside in the electromagnetic field around the black hole, creating pairs of particle-antiparticles, which mainly feed further the black hole as the rain that falls around you moistens your skin…
This again is obvious, but with the use of a lot of messy equations and paradoxical arguments (which in logic are called merely absurd arguments), Mr. Hawking affirms that photons are not born from the outside electromagnetic field but from the inside gravitational field of the black hole, taking energy from it. Again this is an absurd. Pears are not born of apple trees but from pear trees as much as electrons and light are born from electromagnetic fields, while the black hole is a knot of gravitational force that feed mainly of the heaviest particles of matter, the quarks we saw at RHIC…
How then the particles created outside the black hole can come from inside the black hole? It is worth to quote again Mr. Hawking because here he outdoes himself:
‘Another way of looking at the process is to regard the member of the pair of particles that falls into the black hole – the antiparticle, say – as being really a particle that is traveling backward in time. Thus the antiparticle falling into the black hole can be regarded as a particle coming out of the black hole but traveling backward in time. ‘
Yes. Mr. Hawking now is breaking the absolute law in which all science and reasoning except fundamentalist religion is based, the law of causality between past and future, which only Saint Augustine denies as only God should have the power of changing the flows of time.
Now, antiparticles come with negative time coefficients in some equations, which are, as the negative imaginary numbers of quantum theory, a formalism that latter we will explain in terms of ‘evolutionary time’. Enough to say for now that any quantity changed side in an equation acquires a negative symbol, but that doesn’t mean they travel backwards in time: merely they have inverse symmetries to the particles of our bodies. Further on, since the electromagnetic field becomes a couple of particles, and any of them can randomly feed the black hole there is no reason to believe that it is the antiparticle, not the particle which falls into the black hole. Any of both particles might fall, and the fact that we see massive radiation of energy around black holes is indeed a prove that 50% of those antiparticles probably annihilate with the particles of our side of the Universe, creating the massive radiation and explosions of energy we observe in black holes.
Otherwise we might believe that there is travel in time towards the past, that black holes are time machines or even doors to another Universe… All those pseudo-physical theories indeed would be sponsored latter on by Mr. Hawking’s kind of physics and became news on the popular press, but as we saw he himself had to apologize recently affirming he no longer believes that black holes are the door to other Universes… In 1977 he was not so humble.
Hawking instead theorizes that if we were observing the universe from future to past the particles falling into the black hole would appear coming from it and hence it would seem as the black hole evaporates. Certainly. If humans would come from future to past the death would seem to resurrect. But that doesn’t mean that in the real Universe, we observe the living dead, coming from the future into the past, nor have been observed in any part of that Universe, black holes evaporating into particles from future to past. Thus it seems much more obvious to suggest that zombies do not resurrect and black holes do not evaporate from future to past but rather feed from past to future in the Hawking radiation, while the dead rest in their tombs.
Yet even if black holes evaporate energy from future to past (and hence zombies resurrect), the ratio of ‘sweat’ seems smaller than the ratio of feeding, as a man who drinks water to replenish the one it sweats or an entire community that reproduces more babies than zombies resurrect.
Those facts are so obvious that in the old, more strict age of serious Physics, before Hawking and others broke with the basic epistemological laws of scientific truth (simplicity or Occkam’s razor, and logic veracity or principles of non-contradiction and causality), it would have taken a few minutes to dismiss Mr. Hawking’s work. A far more profound Unification Theory of quantum relativity by Mr. Weyl, was dismissed by Einstein with a simple letter. And Weyl complied.
But in an age of showmanship, physical bizarre theories of 11 dimensions, baby universes born in black holes (according to Mr. Hawking), and other niceties, it often deserves more attention one of such fancy theories that the serious, real equations that describe what we experience. And when we study those serious theories on black holes, all of them affirm that the black hole will grow exponentially and swallow the Earth. The only reason CERN has to adduce that this wont happen is Mr. Hawking’s radiation coming from the ‘future into the past’ (and hence perhaps evaporating us tomorrow as a sweat that appears as manna in the Holy Desert of the mythic age of human thought?)
ph34r.gif
jal
homo sapiens at risk
A long discussion... the personnal barbs we not needed to make your point.
I don't have a problem since my understanding does not include your assumptions.
Quantum geometry does not give the same conclusions that you have reached.
LarryHerene has put things in perpective.
jal
ubavontuba
QUOTE (LarryHerene+Oct 26 2006, 04:38 PM)
How many events of the type concerning out at CERN are occurring naturally where we could sea the result of the feared auto catalytic subatomic reaction?

Zero, zippo, zilch, absolutely none. There is no telescope imaginable that is powerful enough to see nano-blackhole formation at a distance. Therefore, your whole premise is worthless.

QUOTE
The possibility of starting an auto catalytic subatomic reaction because of undiscovered or little understood physics is not zero but the existence of the solar system and the start and the consistency of observation of them and our ability to model them imposes a very low limit to that risk.


Any possibility is a significant risk, considering the stakes.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The possibility of starting an auto catalytic subatomic reaction because of undiscovered or little understood physics is not zero but the existence of the solar system and the start and the consistency of observation of them and our ability to model them imposes a very low limit to that risk.


Any possibility is a significant risk, considering the stakes.

The observed universe have been running these experiments at a low rate but astronomical orders of magnitude greater numbers for 14 billion years.

If there is a reaction path that would lead to a state of matter that would endanger the earth should it not now already have been create and left observational evidence.


Can you state unequivocally that the asteroid belt is not the result of such a cataclysm? Debris fields abound in the universe. Can you be certain that none are the result of a cataclysmic event, seeded by nano-scale physics?

QUOTE
Consider cosmic ray events over the last 4.+ billion years of the existence of the Earth.


This has been discussed earlier. Conservation of momentum would prevent any nano-blackhole results arising from such a collision, from being captured by the earth.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Consider cosmic ray events over the last 4.+ billion years of the existence of the Earth.


This has been discussed earlier. Conservation of momentum would prevent any nano-blackhole results arising from such a collision, from being captured by the earth.

Consider the existence of the Sun 4.5 billion years (328,900 times the mass of the Earth+Moon)
The Sun is powered by proton-proton collisions converting megatons of proton into neutrons and energy every day.
Calculation of the number of proton-proton events per second is left as an exercise for the reader.


And how many of the sun's interior protons do you suppose are colliding at such relativistic velocities with each other? Even if this could happen, unless both were virtually equal and opposite in relative momentum, they'd knock themselves out of the sun - achieving escape velocity.

QUOTE
Consider the consistency of the observation of all the individual stars and our understanding of there evolution through time.


All normal stars work under the same physics principles as does our own.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Consider the consistency of the observation of all the individual stars and our understanding of there evolution through time.


All normal stars work under the same physics principles as does our own.

Neutron stars (pulsars, type IIa supernova) have orders of magnitude higher energy, density, number of protons, neutrons and electrons and 9+ billion years giving  (multiply all four numbers) for how many more events?


Irrelevant. The same conservation of momentum laws apply.

QUOTE
In type II supernovas that create all atoms beyond iron (# 26 out of 92) solar masses of protons are covered to neutrons, an auto catalytic reaction would dramatically alter outcomes (observationally supernova 1987a)

Where is the observational anomaly for the transition to a new state of matter?


Are you stating that you don't believe in black holes at all? Even so, your question is irrelevant. What can be the maximum relative velocities of particles within a system? Hint: Ever hear of "escape velocity"?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In type II supernovas that create all atoms beyond iron (# 26 out of 92) solar masses of protons are covered to neutrons, an auto catalytic reaction would dramatically alter outcomes (observationally supernova 1987a)

Where is the observational anomaly for the transition to a new state of matter?


Are you stating that you don't believe in black holes at all? Even so, your question is irrelevant. What can be the maximum relative velocities of particles within a system? Hint: Ever hear of "escape velocity"?

What comet, asteroid star extrasolar planet has converted?
Such an event would emit photons that when detected would have unique characteristics.
There are satellites observing across the EM spectrum and neutrino observatories.


Right. This is not a naturally occurring event. The physics of momentum conservation generally prevents it from happening naturally within a body that might capture it. Look all you want, it can't be found. It can only be created by the stupidity of scientists that have forgotten about the basics.

QUOTE
Are you aware of any observed phenomena that might point to an event like the one that conquers you?


Generally, no. As I've stated this is not an event that is likely to occur naturally. However, it is conceivable that dark matter might be clouds of such naturally occurring nano-blackholes (a form of WIMP). Momentum conservation generally requires that about half of any naturally occurring particle (created by cosmic impacts) must find a higher galactic orbit (or escape) and the rest would fall into the galactic core's black hole region.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Are you aware of any observed phenomena that might point to an event like the one that conquers you?


Generally, no. As I've stated this is not an event that is likely to occur naturally. However, it is conceivable that dark matter might be clouds of such naturally occurring nano-blackholes (a form of WIMP). Momentum conservation generally requires that about half of any naturally occurring particle (created by cosmic impacts) must find a higher galactic orbit (or escape) and the rest would fall into the galactic core's black hole region.

Is not the probability that germ or virus might mutate in some individual human of domestic animal that would kill more of the human population greater that any high energy physics machine would.


No. Some isolated population will always survive such an event.

QUOTE
Consider the ratio of the human population to high-energy physics machines.


One experiment, gone awry, could quite literally doom us all.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Consider the ratio of the human population to high-energy physics machines.


One experiment, gone awry, could quite literally doom us all.

We have physical evidence of disease (SARS, AIDS, bubonic plague, polio or smallpox) or an impact event  (Tunguska (1908) Chicxulub Crater (Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary) and Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1994)) for instance.


And we fight to eliminate them, not create them. Creating unnecessary risks is a fools endeavor.
ubavontuba
homo sapiens at risk,

Not exactly succinct, but you've made some good arguments.
AlphaNumeric
homo sapiens at risk, nice rant with little in it. You go on about various results of Hawking's but don't show that you've actually understood them.

For instance, you think that the derivation dA>=0 (black hole areas always increase) is obviously contradicted by the notion that they can evaporate, surely Hawking noticed?

Well he did, as did plenty of other physicists. The point is that the derivation of dA>=0 is a relativistic derivation. If you naively were unaware of quantum theory, that is what you'd get. When you include quantum theory you discover another process, which allows for evaporation.

Secondly, black holes only evaporate when they are absorbing less energy/mass than they are emitting. For a supermassive black hole, the temperature of space (2.7K) is hotter than them so they will continue to grow. For tiny black holes, they throw out mass faster than our sun!

If you sat down and worked through that area of relativity and quantum mechanics you'd see that it's a lot less shaky than you think it is. Obviously the derivations aren't going to be given in an essay Hawking wrote to be read by the general public, most wouldn't have a clue about any of the maths.

Do you have anything more recent than a 1977 essay by Hawking to rant about? Consider all the other people who've worked on the same material (like Penrose).
homo sapiens at risk
ph34r.gif alphanumeric, you keep doing personal bashing as your way of discussing the issue, which certainly disqualifies you... I wont therefore respond to that kind of low intellectual level argument. My main work as a researcher is in quantum space-time and Riemannian geometries. Which obviously qualifies me to explain those facts. So just please do stop bashing and go to the objective points i am making if you really have the knowledge to do it, which it doesnt seem to be the case.

You must be aware also of the fact that in the past 50 years since Einstein's death, there has been a lack of epistemological rigor in physics, as logic, since descartes and galileo founded modern science is the branch that measures truthness. And the errors of Hawkings are based in assumptions without prove which are not logic. Penrose is much more rigorous in that aspect. But it is important to distinguish in those matters who con-cern our lives, speculative physics, from experimental, proved facts and petty ambitions 'Pity we didnt find a black hole evaporating in 30 years, otherwise I would have got a nobel prize' Hawkings, in the Universe in a nutshell.

Now you should also grasp the concept of a wrong paradigm in science (as per Khun) and how it is supported and extended by emotional and petty academic reasons.

As per my last post, Hawking established a false logic assumption, that the radiation happening outside the black hole instead of feeding the black hole evaporated it because backwards in time would do that. He broke the principle of causality and because nature doesnt break it we never found a black hole evaporating.

Respond to that argument and stop bashing. Personal bashing happens always when a person doesnt have any argument. Hawking has become in Bacon terms, a 'tribal idol' to be qoted on the basis of mere authority, as when Galileo was dismissed quoting Aristotle. The case is quite similar. A wrong logical assumption leads to a false paradigm which has never experimentally proved and yet authority and economical reasons are used to avoid facts and experiments to prove the obvious: black holes do accrete matter from past to future at the exact inverse rate that the future to past equations of Hawking describe. This is what we observe in the Universe.
This was the initial concept sponsored by Zeldovich and that is what it will happen on epistemological basis. All the maths that came latter do not matter, when a first assumption is false. Please go back to your first courses if you passed them, on the experimental method. And if not, please do leave this argument to people who respect the foundations of science and do not insult other people ph34r.gif .
MrMysteryScience
Hello H s a r,
Your arguments ring a bell, have you ever been to Hawaii ? I have not, but did enjoy the Bahamas a great deal. Pleasantries aside, I do understand why you wear that mask, last time I saw an esteemed primary investigator claim he saw errors in Hawking's works, that "one" was scaled and filleted for picking on a disabled individual in the community. Of course no one bothered to check to find out that he was disabled as well. sad.gif I will agree of course that if a presumed foundation is in error, then whatever follows is as well questionable, although certain truths and "laws" are correct regardless of how they are employed, none the less if they (being true) are employed in a false argument, they do not correct the argument. I see how you would hesitate to release any math that might identify you, as you have gone to great lengths to remain unknown, and in certain areas I am in total agreement with you, but from your statements, without the math it is hard to conclude what is the full implication. If you have studied any of Hawking's mathematical arguments, can you present an actual math error, aside from those that Hawking himself has admitted to? That, by the way was a great attribute of Hawking to speak against his own prior work when he found an error! Regardless, the full implications of what will come of CERN's work are unknown. Perhaps too unknown.
Uba continues to bring up that point, while it may sound like a court room argument, that being; that the outcome being speculative at best and not based on evidence brought forth; hence dangerous. Yet there is some theoretical material that may lead one to expect "mini" black hole creation. Even that speculation by theorists could likely be filled with holes... I feel that nothing whatsoever is to be gained by the CERN "hole" project. (Did anyone get that? Dry Humor what? as in dry hole perhaps but with a twist) But must side with Uba here as, if no majority is in complete agreement as to what the likely outcome is to be; then therein lies possible danger. It amazes me how many different viewpoints are being expressed on this and yet, the money was made available. Perhaps no one spoke earlier, and like a stubborn mule , CERN once started, will not slow a winks worth. And they have had some mistakes in this project , including death , accidents only , as barely reported in the press.
Alpha takes the Cern standard approach to this issue.(not to be confused with the Standard model) In logic he has a firm position which is relatively safe, so to speak, inasmuch as "if the world is not destroyed, he will be left to say; "I told you so"" vs. "if the world is destroyed, no one will be left to say; "I told you so", to him" Quite safe, if all you consider is logic of argument. To win a debate is of little gain if you are wrong, especially if you die along with everyone else. None the less he does make some good arguments, if they are based on correct assumptions.
My position is that there are quite a few errors, and virtually nothing will be gained, it's a waste of money down the "hole". But I realize that I may be wrong, and therefore if there is a possibility of danger, why continue? There are so many experiments that could be conducted for greater potential outcome, why this? You may wonder why I diverge, in the physics. I believe another unified theory is correct and no one is going to publish it for quite a while, and that this smashing things has gone as far as it is likely to go. They may create some more energetic sub-particles, but they in essence will be little different than other such particles aside from E equations and behavior of decay, which could be calculated based on prior experiments without doing this one.Like I say, a waste. BUT, I can't rule out something else, something unanticipated, and some of the equations that seem to indicate the potential for a black hole creation, could actually be indications of something else that is completely not understood. Ask the mathematicians if they know what those equations mean for a fact ! Therein lies the potential for danger, and it's something that no one understands !
In the meantime, enjoy each day...

unsure.gif
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (homo sapiens at risk+Oct 29 2006, 03:18 AM)
My main work as a researcher is in quantum space-time and Riemannian geometries. Which obviously qualifies me to explain those facts.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your words at face value. You wouldn't be the first person on the internet to claim to be a researcher in 'quantum dynamical theory' or 'chaotic solution bifrucations' who turned out to just like to think they are good and actually are a crank.

If you've got a problem with Hawking's results and all the other work people have built upon and you really are well versed in Riemannian geometries (I'm sure you mean Pseudo-Riemannian since Einstein's spacetime is not Riemannian wink.gif) don't just wave your arms and talk about how much you dislike Hawking's rigor, show a flaw in his equations. That he's made an assumption which contradicts something else (or itself).

You ask me to 'respond to that argument and stop bashing' and I'd ask for you to do the same. So what if you think Hawking is an overbearing personality in physics, Newton was a complete dickhead but you cannot deny his contribution to physics. If you think something is wrong with Hawking's physics, show it.
QUOTE (homo sapiens at risk+Oct 29 2006, 03:18 AM)
As per my last post, Hawking established a false logic assumption, that the radiation happening outside the black hole instead of feeding the black hole evaporated it because backwards in time would do that. He broke the principle of causality and because nature doesnt break it we never found a black hole evaporating.
This is why I question just how much you know. I've seen and understood the derivation of Hawkings 2 laws of Black Hole Mechanics, along with another way of defining the temperature.

In case you miss it in the other thread you and I have crossed paths, here it is again :

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=...ile=hawking.pdf

Now if you think there's a problem with the equations, show it. There's no talk of "Because backwards in time it would work" or any adhoc considerations like that. The state of the field is considered at time A, then at a later time B and the field coefficents computed. Then there's the Green's function way too which works on those Riemannian manifolds you're familiar with wink.gif

Plenty of people who've done big results in relativity like Penrose, Gibbons, Perry and Witten have looked at and worked on those results. Perry was the one who lecturered me those results!

Now you can complain all you want about the idiolisation of Hawking, justified or not, by the media and sometimes other physicists and that people might seem more interested in him because he's a clever guy in a wheelchair than anything else, but if you're 'a world leader' in your research area which just happens to be differential geometry and manifolds and you don't agree with Hawking's result, you should able to blow a hole in it.

If not, wouldn't that suggest that either he's right or you're not good enough at what you say you are to be able to criticism him? Talk is cheap, put your manifolds where you mouth is!

Oh, and if you're a world leader in relativity or tenants of it, feel free to link to some papers of yours you've had published. If you don't want to reveal your in public just PM me. I'm actually quite interested in relativity and differential geometry (though not my PhD topic, I did a lot in my masters).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.