http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html
These guys are nuts! How can they know they won"t inadvertently create something that can endanger us all?
the age of the universe is well known now there people . . . it is 13.7 billion years old . . . get it right!@
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 7 2006, 02:24 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html
These guys are nuts! How can they know they won"t inadvertently create something that can endanger us all?
You've obviously watched too many Sci-Fi movies where a black hole forms, then drops through to the earths core and we're all eventually sucked up into it.
If you're afraid of a cascade of decay particles, fair enough, although be warned these events are occurring all the time, as extremely high energy cosmic rays can produce similar decays from collisions here on the earth.....might even smash into your unmentionables. I suggest you invest in a large lead codpiece
These guys are nuts! How can they know they won"t inadvertently create something that can endanger us all?
You've obviously watched too many Sci-Fi movies where a black hole forms, then drops through to the earths core and we're all eventually sucked up into it.
If you're afraid of a cascade of decay particles, fair enough, although be warned these events are occurring all the time, as extremely high energy cosmic rays can produce similar decays from collisions here on the earth.....might even smash into your unmentionables. I suggest you invest in a large lead codpiece
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+ Feb 7 2006, 07:13 AM)
...be warned these events are occurring all the time, as extremely high energy cosmic rays can produce similar decays from collisions here on the earth...
Sure, but any subsequent nano black hole formed would be knocked clean through the earth before it would have time to accrue mass. Their black holes might have no relative momentum to the earth.
I know that then you'll say, "Hawking radiation will tend to that." But what if Hawking radiation doesn't really work?
Then you'll say that unless there are higher dimensions, black holes can't form in the LHC anyway. What if they can?
Besides, what if they inadvertently create strange matter or some other weird and dangerous particle we don't yet know about?
Obviously the odds of any real danger are long, but the stakes are extremely high. Wouldn't caution be the better part of common sense here?
Sure, but any subsequent nano black hole formed would be knocked clean through the earth before it would have time to accrue mass. Their black holes might have no relative momentum to the earth.
I know that then you'll say, "Hawking radiation will tend to that." But what if Hawking radiation doesn't really work?
Then you'll say that unless there are higher dimensions, black holes can't form in the LHC anyway. What if they can?
Besides, what if they inadvertently create strange matter or some other weird and dangerous particle we don't yet know about?
Obviously the odds of any real danger are long, but the stakes are extremely high. Wouldn't caution be the better part of common sense here?
The Chandrasekhar limit is the minimum mass (of a white dwarf star) required for a black-hole to possibly form. This is over 1 solar mass and exceedingly unlikely to ever be generated in an earth-bound accelerator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
QUOTE (Moseley+Feb 8 2006, 06:28 PM)
The Chandrasekhar limit is the minimum mass (of a white dwarf star) required for a black-hole to possibly form. This is over 1 solar mass and exceedingly unlikely to ever be generated in an earth-bound accelerator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 8 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (Moseley+Feb 8 2006, 06:28 PM)
The Chandrasekhar limit is the minimum mass (of a white dwarf star) required for a black-hole to possibly form. This is over 1 solar mass and exceedingly unlikely to ever be generated in an earth-bound accelerator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
To create a singularity one needs a force, which can be only attractive. Like the gravity. I don't know other forces that have the property.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
To create a singularity one needs a force, which can be only attractive. Like the gravity. I don't know other forces that have the property.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Feb 9 2006, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 8 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (Moseley+Feb 8 2006, 06:28 PM)
The Chandrasekhar limit is the minimum mass (of a white dwarf star) required for a black-hole to possibly form. This is over 1 solar mass and exceedingly unlikely to ever be generated in an earth-bound accelerator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
To create a singularity one needs a force, which can be only attractive. Like the gravity. I don't know other forces that have the property.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
I disagree, all you need is energy.....of any magnitude
All you need is energy.....all you need is energy....all you need is energy, energy...energy is all you need....To be sung to that well known Beatles number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is merely a new generation of detectors for one of our most advanced colliders.
Forget the Chandrasekar limit, as singularities can and are as I hypothesise , formed readily by all particulate matter in our universe. They're nothing to be afraid of; our bodies each contain over 10^27 of them.....with no ill affects.
To create a singularity one needs a force, which can be only attractive. Like the gravity. I don't know other forces that have the property.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
I disagree, all you need is energy.....of any magnitude
All you need is energy.....all you need is energy....all you need is energy, energy...energy is all you need....To be sung to that well known Beatles number.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 9 2006, 01:15 AM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Feb 9 2006, 12:48 AM)
To create a singularity one needs a force, which can be only attractive. Like the gravity. I don't know other forces that have the property.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
I disagree, all you need is a energy.....of any magnitude
Our Universe contains tremendous quantity of energy. Is it singularity? No. That means we must have something else that will FORCE that energy to get together. We need force.
So we have:
Gravity - Chandrasekhar limit of the minimum mass
EM, weak and strong forces - don't classify as only attractive.
I disagree, all you need is a energy.....of any magnitude
Our Universe contains tremendous quantity of energy. Is it singularity? No. That means we must have something else that will FORCE that energy to get together. We need force.
What you actualy need is energy per volume. (above a threshold and a black hole will naturaly form)
QUOTE (Guest_a_ht+Feb 9 2006, 01:25 AM)
What you actualy need is energy per volume. (above a threshold and a black hole will naturaly form)
Quite right....and as a singularity has no volume, any amount of energy can create one!
....especially if it exists as a trans-dimensional vacuolar envelope.
Please refer to my Spacial Vacuoles model.....just type spacial vacuoles in a google search and you'll hit it (as it's totally unique)
Quite right....and as a singularity has no volume, any amount of energy can create one!
....especially if it exists as a trans-dimensional vacuolar envelope.
Please refer to my Spacial Vacuoles model.....just type spacial vacuoles in a google search and you'll hit it (as it's totally unique)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 7 2006, 02:24 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html
These guys are nuts! How can they know they won"t inadvertently create something that can endanger us all?
Scientists doing experiments at ultrahigh energy accelerators have been glib about the possiblitiy that mico black holes pose a threat to humanity or to life on Earth. Black holes are gravitational bottomless pits in space-time that suck matter into them and they grow by a never ending process of attracting matter into them selves that can never get out. The added matter adds to the black hole's gravitiational force accelerating the process ad infinium. In the seventies when a lot of theoretical work on black holes was done, it was believed that a quantum
black hole produced on Earth would absorb the matter near it and it would fall through the crust of the Earth down through the mohole all the way to the center of the Earth. It would "eat" the matter comprising the Earth with ever greater speed until the entire Earth was consumed by the black hole a few years later as its' weight and gravitiaional force grew exponentially.
In the Eighties and afterward Steven Hawking theorized that black holes would dissapate in a burst of gamma rays that would be produced by materialization of real particles from vitual particles at the black hole's event horizon. Thus quantum scale black holes could be expected to lose weight instead of gaining weight by eating ever greater amounts of matter.
But it is possible that the theory Hawking has propounded might be incompletely worked out and there might be some very serious complications from an experiment to manufacture quantum black holes on Earth. It might be a mistake that costs the life of every human being on Earth if some theoretical calculation was missed. Maybe it is possible that quantum black holes produced in the Large Hadron Collider will absorb more matter than they lose by emitting particles. It may be impossible to know exactly how quantum black holes will behave until they are produced and studied. The consequences of scientific disoveries are often not fully understood for decades after the basic mathematics is developed.
I belive that deliberate production of black holes ought to be banned by international law. Experiments such as those proposed at the Large Hadron Collider should be put off until particle accelerators are built in orbit or on the moon. Einstein is often quoted as saying that a misplaced zero in his cosmologial equation was the biggest mistake of his life. Nobody thought such a mistake could have consequences in the real world. There might be some mistake in Hawking's equations that could be the mistake that destoyed the Earth and all human life. That would be the biggest mistake ever.
These guys are nuts! How can they know they won"t inadvertently create something that can endanger us all?
Scientists doing experiments at ultrahigh energy accelerators have been glib about the possiblitiy that mico black holes pose a threat to humanity or to life on Earth. Black holes are gravitational bottomless pits in space-time that suck matter into them and they grow by a never ending process of attracting matter into them selves that can never get out. The added matter adds to the black hole's gravitiational force accelerating the process ad infinium. In the seventies when a lot of theoretical work on black holes was done, it was believed that a quantum
black hole produced on Earth would absorb the matter near it and it would fall through the crust of the Earth down through the mohole all the way to the center of the Earth. It would "eat" the matter comprising the Earth with ever greater speed until the entire Earth was consumed by the black hole a few years later as its' weight and gravitiaional force grew exponentially.
In the Eighties and afterward Steven Hawking theorized that black holes would dissapate in a burst of gamma rays that would be produced by materialization of real particles from vitual particles at the black hole's event horizon. Thus quantum scale black holes could be expected to lose weight instead of gaining weight by eating ever greater amounts of matter.
But it is possible that the theory Hawking has propounded might be incompletely worked out and there might be some very serious complications from an experiment to manufacture quantum black holes on Earth. It might be a mistake that costs the life of every human being on Earth if some theoretical calculation was missed. Maybe it is possible that quantum black holes produced in the Large Hadron Collider will absorb more matter than they lose by emitting particles. It may be impossible to know exactly how quantum black holes will behave until they are produced and studied. The consequences of scientific disoveries are often not fully understood for decades after the basic mathematics is developed.
I belive that deliberate production of black holes ought to be banned by international law. Experiments such as those proposed at the Large Hadron Collider should be put off until particle accelerators are built in orbit or on the moon. Einstein is often quoted as saying that a misplaced zero in his cosmologial equation was the biggest mistake of his life. Nobody thought such a mistake could have consequences in the real world. There might be some mistake in Hawking's equations that could be the mistake that destoyed the Earth and all human life. That would be the biggest mistake ever.
Neil,
I'm with you. I recommend that everyone reading this write to their local officials, in protest.
I'm with you. I recommend that everyone reading this write to their local officials, in protest.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Feb 9 2006, 03:41 AM)
Scientists doing experiments at ultrahigh energy accelerators ...
Experiments such as those proposed at the Large Hadron Collider should be put off until particle accelerators are built in orbit or on the moon. Einstein is often quoted as saying that a misplaced zero in his cosmologial equation was the biggest mistake of his life. Nobody thought such a mistake could have consequences in the real world. There might be some mistake in Hawking's equations that could be the mistake that destoyed the Earth and all human life. That would be the biggest mistake ever.
Fear of unknown...
Do you really think that we're able to create energies that aren't normally produced in our Sun? Do you really think that these "ultrahigh energy accelerators" could create black hole? Single particle black hole?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
Experiments such as those proposed at the Large Hadron Collider should be put off until particle accelerators are built in orbit or on the moon. Einstein is often quoted as saying that a misplaced zero in his cosmologial equation was the biggest mistake of his life. Nobody thought such a mistake could have consequences in the real world. There might be some mistake in Hawking's equations that could be the mistake that destoyed the Earth and all human life. That would be the biggest mistake ever.
Fear of unknown...
Do you really think that we're able to create energies that aren't normally produced in our Sun? Do you really think that these "ultrahigh energy accelerators" could create black hole? Single particle black hole?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
QUOTE (Upisoft+ Feb 9 2006, 12:22 PM )
Do you really think that we're able to create energies that aren't normally produced in our Sun? Do you really think that these "ultrahigh energy accelerators" could create black hole? Single particle black hole?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 9 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+ Feb 9 2006, 12:22 PM )
Do you really think that we're able to create energies that aren't normally produced in our Sun? Do you really think that these "ultrahigh energy accelerators" could create black hole? Single particle black hole?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."
Why they have this great relative momentum?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them?
Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."
Why they have this great relative momentum?
Hey!...This is probably of interest to the people reading this discussion:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=15&#entry62769
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=15&#entry62769
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 9 2006, 08:25 PM)
Hey!...This is probably of interest to the people reading this discussion:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=15&#entry62769
Specifically the JoAnne Hewett post
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=15&#entry62769
Specifically the JoAnne Hewett post
QUOTE (Upisoft+Feb 9 2006, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Feb 9 2006, 03:23 PM)
Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."
Why they have this great relative momentum?
Because they are supposedly created by cosmic rays traveling very near to light speed. They'd be blasted through the earth in microseconds.
Why they have this great relative momentum?
Because they are supposedly created by cosmic rays traveling very near to light speed. They'd be blasted through the earth in microseconds.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 9 2006, 04:12 AM)
Neil,
I'm with you. I recommend that everyone reading this write to their local officials, in protest.
Actually your fears are unfounded, there are many events such as high energy cosmic ray that exceed the energy that these scientist are recreating.
Detector in the Andres have pickup particle traces that many physicist believe are micro blackholes evaporating. Any blackhole created in a particle accelerator would be too tiny to grow any further and would evaporate in microseconds.
Another fear is that LHC would create stable strange matter, because these particles would have a S quark combine with other quark it felt that it would be at a lower energy state than matter made of protons and neutrons and would convert normal matter on touch to additional strange matter, but there is no proof that strange matter can exist at normal pressures and temperature..
I'm with you. I recommend that everyone reading this write to their local officials, in protest.
Actually your fears are unfounded, there are many events such as high energy cosmic ray that exceed the energy that these scientist are recreating.
Detector in the Andres have pickup particle traces that many physicist believe are micro blackholes evaporating. Any blackhole created in a particle accelerator would be too tiny to grow any further and would evaporate in microseconds.
Another fear is that LHC would create stable strange matter, because these particles would have a S quark combine with other quark it felt that it would be at a lower energy state than matter made of protons and neutrons and would convert normal matter on touch to additional strange matter, but there is no proof that strange matter can exist at normal pressures and temperature..
QUOTE (Guest_lanceromega+ Feb 10 2006, 08:19 PM )
Actually your fears are unfounded, there are many events such as high energy cosmic ray that exceed the energy that these scientist are recreating.
Detector in the Andres have pickup particle traces that many physicist believe are micro blackholes evaporating. Any blackhole created in a particle accelerator would be too tiny to grow any further and would evaporate in microseconds.
Note the word "believe." My son believes in Santa Claus, does that make him real?
The Hawking radiation evaporation hypothesis is untested. I don't think it's wise to test for it on earth, in case it doesn't work.
Yes. I've mentioned this possibilty before. Why are scientists even playing with these matches (so to speak)? They need to be stopped.
Detector in the Andres have pickup particle traces that many physicist believe are micro blackholes evaporating. Any blackhole created in a particle accelerator would be too tiny to grow any further and would evaporate in microseconds.
Note the word "believe." My son believes in Santa Claus, does that make him real?
The Hawking radiation evaporation hypothesis is untested. I don't think it's wise to test for it on earth, in case it doesn't work.
QUOTE
Another fear is that LHC would create stable strange matter, because these particles would have a S quark combine with other quark it felt that it would be at a lower energy state than matter made of protons and neutrons and would convert normal matter on touch to additional strange matter, but there is no proof that strange matter can exist at normal pressures and temperature..
Yes. I've mentioned this possibilty before. Why are scientists even playing with these matches (so to speak)? They need to be stopped.
Ubavontuba, your attitude towards exploration seems markedly at odds with the majority of posters on this, a forum focusing on science and physics. I am not going to read all your posts to find out if you are against other attempts at understanding however without corroborating evidence your concerns are just fretful speculation.
I would like to see funding moved from military to science so that larger colliders can be built and we may all benefit from the investment with new facts about our environment.
I would like to see funding moved from military to science so that larger colliders can be built and we may all benefit from the investment with new facts about our environment.
QUOTE (Moseley+ Feb 11 2006, 12:40 PM )
Ubavontuba, your attitude towards exploration seems markedly at odds with the majority of posters on this, a forum focusing on science and physics. I am not going to read all your posts to find out if you are against other attempts at understanding however without corroborating evidence your concerns are just fretful speculation.
I would like to see funding moved from military to science so that larger colliders can be built and we may all benefit from the investment with new facts about our environment.
On the contrary, I am a great fan of scientific advancement and experimentation. I'm just against the notion of being used as a guinea pig against my will in a potentially hazardous experiment.
As far as "corroborating evidence" is concerned, what corroborating evidence exists that Hawking radiation works? What corroborating evidence is there that micro-blackholes are formed naturally? It's all speculation!
I agree that larger colliders should be built. However, they should be built off-world, so as not to endanger our only home.
I would like to see funding moved from military to science so that larger colliders can be built and we may all benefit from the investment with new facts about our environment.
On the contrary, I am a great fan of scientific advancement and experimentation. I'm just against the notion of being used as a guinea pig against my will in a potentially hazardous experiment.
As far as "corroborating evidence" is concerned, what corroborating evidence exists that Hawking radiation works? What corroborating evidence is there that micro-blackholes are formed naturally? It's all speculation!
I agree that larger colliders should be built. However, they should be built off-world, so as not to endanger our only home.
Well, the scientists have believed, the probability of the cold fusion at the room temperature is a lotta order range lower, than 10E-12 before some time, i.e. virtually impossible, but who cares....
We've everything under control, as usually. After all, we have payed for some fun from our taxis.
We've everything under control, as usually. After all, we have payed for some fun from our taxis.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 11 2006, 08:13 PM)
...they should be built off-world...
It's soooo expensive.... And the scientists are required publish or perish... They've chosen, it seems.
After all, there is a lotta theories, Yilmaz's/Heim's theories for example, which are explaining the reality a much better even without such dangerous and expensive experiments. They were overlooked 30+ years, although they're much more exact/predicative obviously, than any other new theory - so they should be understood in all details/conseqeunces at first.
The thick layer of vacuum protect us against the processes at the distanced places inside universe like ozone layer. We know anything about possible vacuum interferences at high energies and mass density. End of story.
It's soooo expensive.... And the scientists are required publish or perish... They've chosen, it seems.
After all, there is a lotta theories, Yilmaz's/Heim's theories for example, which are explaining the reality a much better even without such dangerous and expensive experiments. They were overlooked 30+ years, although they're much more exact/predicative obviously, than any other new theory - so they should be understood in all details/conseqeunces at first.
The thick layer of vacuum protect us against the processes at the distanced places inside universe like ozone layer. We know anything about possible vacuum interferences at high energies and mass density. End of story.
theories theories theories theories theories theories, the theories are all grey but green is the tree of life. 'scientists' are the black magicians of our time playing with forces far beyond their control for even more evil people to gain knowledge and power. they have no understanding of the meanings of our existence and even less of a knowledge of human consciousness and it's possibilities. They are unravelling the substance of what this dimension is made up of and missing the point completely. None of them are worthy of the knowledge they may or may not uncover accidently or on purpose, they are mavericks playing with the lives of every living being on our planet, solar system, universe. We should be very angry for if your neighbour was mucking around with explosives in his back garden to see what they would do you would not be very happy about it. But we have had our minds washed that they are the ones with higher minds and we should trust them. There is no benefit to you or i, there is no benefit to them except to satisfy their pathological desires and there is no benefit to life on earth, we're going the wrong way!
Guest_sage,
Well said. What really bugs me is that the actual scientists that claim it's safe because "cosmic rays do it all the time" have completely ignored the law of conservation of momentum in their own argument! They're so wrapped up in their hypothesis that they have forgotten the basics!
Well said. What really bugs me is that the actual scientists that claim it's safe because "cosmic rays do it all the time" have completely ignored the law of conservation of momentum in their own argument! They're so wrapped up in their hypothesis that they have forgotten the basics!
ubavontuba, you got banned from www.physicsforums.com because you kept harping on and on about this, totally ignoring any correction or explaination anyone on there gave you.
Including 'so what if it makes one' because the amount of time it'd take to absorb even a tiny amount of the Earth, assuming they make one, assuming it's made with zero momentum and assuming Hawking radiation doesn't work, would be enormous. It'd be much smaller than a proton. Unless a particle had pretty much a head on collision with it it'd not abosrb them, it's gravity even a small distance from itself wouldn't be very strong.
Including 'so what if it makes one' because the amount of time it'd take to absorb even a tiny amount of the Earth, assuming they make one, assuming it's made with zero momentum and assuming Hawking radiation doesn't work, would be enormous. It'd be much smaller than a proton. Unless a particle had pretty much a head on collision with it it'd not abosrb them, it's gravity even a small distance from itself wouldn't be very strong.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Yesterday at 8:15 AM)
ubavontuba, you got banned from www.physicsforums.com because you kept harping on and on about this, totally ignoring any correction or explaination anyone on there gave you.
Actually, I got banned for independent thinking.
From the Physicsforums rules: "...challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site."*
In the forum I was writing in when I was banned, the resident expert conceded my point, writing:
Actually, I got banned for independent thinking.
From the Physicsforums rules: "...challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site."*
In the forum I was writing in when I was banned, the resident expert conceded my point, writing:
QUOTE (Physicsforums expert+)
QUOTE (Originally Posted by ubavontuba+)
Don't you think if conservation of momentum is considered, this argument is generally baseless?
Yes...
and
Yes...
and
QUOTE (Physicsforums expert+)
QUOTE (Originally Posted by ubavontuba+)
My point exactly. Thereby belying the CERN scientists assumption that the existence of solar objects is proof that no harm can come to us by the creation of artificial nano blackholes. If they form natuarally, they don't stick around long enough to cause any harm regardless.
Yes...
and most succinctly:
Yes...
and most succinctly:
QUOTE (Physicsforums expert+)
Some people argued that eventual nano black holes produced in cosmic rays (of much higher energy than the LHC accelerator will produce) have high momentum wrt the earth, and hence will just fly once through the earth, so the fact that these collisions are regularly happening is no proof that nano black holes aren't dangerous.
That reasoning is correct: indeed, even if we underwent showers of nanoblack holes, they would at most eat one or two iron atoms before having travelled through the earth and fly off in the blackness of space.
So the observation that cosmic rays exist, is no proof of the "safety" of nanoblack holes, is entirely correct.
(bolds are mine)
I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe.
That reasoning is correct: indeed, even if we underwent showers of nanoblack holes, they would at most eat one or two iron atoms before having travelled through the earth and fly off in the blackness of space.
So the observation that cosmic rays exist, is no proof of the "safety" of nanoblack holes, is entirely correct.
(bolds are mine)
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+)
Including 'so what if it makes one' because the amount of time it'd take to absorb even a tiny amount of the Earth, assuming they make one, assuming it's made with zero momentum and assuming Hawking radiation doesn't work, would be enormous. It'd be much smaller than a proton. Unless a particle had pretty much a head on collision with it it'd not abosrb them, it's gravity even a small distance from itself wouldn't be very strong.
If the scientists could so easily miss such an important physics model in regards to this work, what makes any of it trustworthy?
I'm not trying to say it is dangerous. I'm merely pointing out an obvious error in their reasoning. This leads me to conclude that their models demonstrating absolute safety... are possibly similarly flawed.
As for the additional arguments: All the formulas I've seen in regards to this are at best incomplete. The ones in the Physicsforums don't consider the potential for exponential growth, and they don't consider the Earth's own gravity and internal pressure. Additionally, they tend to rely on the Schwarzschild radius as a barrier to absorption. Gravity works well beyond this barrier and things can indeed fall in, provided there is an insignificant relative angular momentum.
* Note; this quotation should normally start with the word "unfounded", but I think we can all agree that the conservation of momentum law is, indeed, well founded.
If the scientists could so easily miss such an important physics model in regards to this work, what makes any of it trustworthy?
I'm not trying to say it is dangerous. I'm merely pointing out an obvious error in their reasoning. This leads me to conclude that their models demonstrating absolute safety... are possibly similarly flawed.
As for the additional arguments: All the formulas I've seen in regards to this are at best incomplete. The ones in the Physicsforums don't consider the potential for exponential growth, and they don't consider the Earth's own gravity and internal pressure. Additionally, they tend to rely on the Schwarzschild radius as a barrier to absorption. Gravity works well beyond this barrier and things can indeed fall in, provided there is an insignificant relative angular momentum.
* Note; this quotation should normally start with the word "unfounded", but I think we can all agree that the conservation of momentum law is, indeed, well founded.
QUOTE
Actually, I got banned for independent thinking.
From the Physicsforums rules: "...challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site."*
You argued about such things as Noethers theorem and I hardly think this thread did you any favours.From the Physicsforums rules: "...challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site."*
I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, I got banned for independent thinking. From the Physicsforums rules: "...challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site."* |
You argued about such things as Noethers theorem and I hardly think this thread did you any favours.
I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe.
Aditionally, they tend to rely on the Schwarzschild radius as a barrier to absorption.
I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe.
Aditionally, they tend to rely on the Schwarzschild radius as a barrier to absorption.
No, the absorption radius for a particle of given angular momentum is easy to compute and someone did that, not just take the Schwarzchild radius.
QUOTE
they don't consider the Earth's own gravity and internal pressure.
Earth's gravity would just pull the black hole down to the centre of the Earth where it would oscillate back and fore. The internal pressure wouldn't make a huge difference, the black hole would be billions of times smaller than a proton and pressure is about the distance between atoms which are mostly empty space.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| they don't consider the Earth's own gravity and internal pressure. |
Earth's gravity would just pull the black hole down to the centre of the Earth where it would oscillate back and fore. The internal pressure wouldn't make a huge difference, the black hole would be billions of times smaller than a proton and pressure is about the distance between atoms which are mostly empty space.
This leads me to conclude that their models demonstrating absolute safety.
This leads me to conclude that their models demonstrating absolute safety.
I doubt they claim it's 100% safe but the possibility of a) A black hole forming, it having insufficent momentum to escape Earth's gravity and c) Hawking radiation doesn't exist and the black hole persists is much much less than what would be considered 'dangerous'. You're probably more likely to die in a car crash in the next decade than be killed by a black hole, particularly given it's take millions of years to absorb a single particle.
it having insufficent momentum to escape Earth's gravity and c) Hawking radiation doesn't exist and the black hole persists is much much less than what would be considered 'dangerous'. You're probably more likely to die in a car crash in the next decade than be killed by a black hole, particularly given it's take millions of years to absorb a single particle.
Hi all.
The 'conservation of momentum' argument for micro-BHs formed via cosmic rays/particle collisions in upper-atmosphere (that, when produced, they are too speedy to 'dwell' in Earth's bulk) assumes that all such collisions are asymetric as regards to momentum contributed by the colliding entities.
While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself).
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide).
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved.
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
Cheers.
RC.
.
The 'conservation of momentum' argument for micro-BHs formed via cosmic rays/particle collisions in upper-atmosphere (that, when produced, they are too speedy to 'dwell' in Earth's bulk) assumes that all such collisions are asymetric as regards to momentum contributed by the colliding entities.
While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself).
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide).
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved.
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
Cheers.
RC.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Yesterday at 11:06 AM)
You argued about such things as Noethers theorem and I hardly think this thread did you any favours.
See? This is what's wrong with that forum. Like you are trying to do here, if you ask a question they can't easily answer... they bash you. And if you ask too many difficult questions, they ban you. How weak is that?
Besides, isn't Noether's theorem yet another well-founded theory of science? What's wrong then with discussing it? Also, in that example you provided to impinge upon my character, I seem quite open-minded and logical (so says an anonymous party... noting in particular the tongue-in-cheek nature of my wit).
Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
No, the absorption radius for a particle of given angular momentum is easy to compute and someone did that, not just take the Schwarzchild radius.
Right. But what of the particles that have no, or little relative angular momentum? One must ask oneself, how much relative angular momentum the earth system has with itself (seeing as the nanoblackholes will be part of the system).
You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!).
You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!).
The internal pressure wouldn't make a huge difference, the black hole would be billions of times smaller than a proton and pressure is about the distance between atoms which are mostly empty space.
You are mistaking the size of the Schwarzschild radius for the sphere of influence. They are not the same thing. Besides, these things wouldn't necessarily be "interested" in maintaining or participating in particle spacing.
Then why do it at all?
Then why do it at all?
...but the possibility of a) A black hole forming, it having insufficent momentum to escape Earth's gravity and c) Hawking radiation doesn't exist and the black hole persists is much much less than what would be considered 'dangerous'.
Regardless of how small the danger might be, the risks are too high. Why risk literally everyone and everything for so little gain? Why not wait for a safer venue?
If every single human life on earth were thusly dependent on my driving abilities, I wouldn't drive.
See? This is what's wrong with that forum. Like you are trying to do here, if you ask a question they can't easily answer... they bash you. And if you ask too many difficult questions, they ban you. How weak is that?
Besides, isn't Noether's theorem yet another well-founded theory of science? What's wrong then with discussing it? Also, in that example you provided to impinge upon my character, I seem quite open-minded and logical (so says an anonymous party... noting in particular the tongue-in-cheek nature of my wit).
QUOTE
I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe.
Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know the people there said you were right about cosmic rays not being a sign of safety, but they did compute the scattering amplitude for a black hole made at CERN and it was so tiny that it'd take billions of years to absorb the Earth, if not orders of magnitude mroe. |
Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
No, the absorption radius for a particle of given angular momentum is easy to compute and someone did that, not just take the Schwarzchild radius.
Right. But what of the particles that have no, or little relative angular momentum? One must ask oneself, how much relative angular momentum the earth system has with itself (seeing as the nanoblackholes will be part of the system).
QUOTE
Earth's gravity would just pull the black hole down to the centre of the Earth where it would oscillate back and fore.
You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Earth's gravity would just pull the black hole down to the centre of the Earth where it would oscillate back and fore. |
You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!).
The internal pressure wouldn't make a huge difference, the black hole would be billions of times smaller than a proton and pressure is about the distance between atoms which are mostly empty space.
You are mistaking the size of the Schwarzschild radius for the sphere of influence. They are not the same thing. Besides, these things wouldn't necessarily be "interested" in maintaining or participating in particle spacing.
QUOTE
I doubt they claim it's 100% safe...
Then why do it at all?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I doubt they claim it's 100% safe... |
Then why do it at all?
...but the possibility of a) A black hole forming,
it having insufficent momentum to escape Earth's gravity and c) Hawking radiation doesn't exist and the black hole persists is much much less than what would be considered 'dangerous'.Regardless of how small the danger might be, the risks are too high. Why risk literally everyone and everything for so little gain? Why not wait for a safer venue?
QUOTE
You're probably more likely to die in a car crash in the next decade than be killed by a black hole, particularly given it's take millions of years to absorb a single particle.
If every single human life on earth were thusly dependent on my driving abilities, I wouldn't drive.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ Yesterday at 12:28 PM )
The 'conservation of momentum' argument for micro-BHs formed via cosmic rays/particle collisions in upper-atmosphere (that, when produced, they are too speedy to 'dwell' in Earth's bulk) assumes that all such collisions are asymetric as regards to momentum contributed by the colliding entities.
Well, this is where I REALLY got in trouble in that other forum. I suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occuring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occuring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Maybe it has happened. Maybe we've been lucky so far. This argument therefore has no merit.
If the crystaline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
If the crystaline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
Perhaps, but there's no proof. However, there is a possibility that nanoblackholes might exist in abundance in the form of the mysterious "dark matter."
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
And it is widely accepted that in every micro-second, somwhere, worlds are being destroyed, stars are falling into black holes, and wholesale destruction is rampant. Perhaps we've been lucky. Why push that luck?
Well, this is where I REALLY got in trouble in that other forum. I suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
QUOTE
While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself).
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occuring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself). |
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occuring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Maybe it has happened. Maybe we've been lucky so far. This argument therefore has no merit.
QUOTE
Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide).
If the crystaline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide). |
If the crystaline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
Perhaps, but there's no proof. However, there is a possibility that nanoblackholes might exist in abundance in the form of the mysterious "dark matter."
QUOTE
So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved.
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved. |
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
And it is widely accepted that in every micro-second, somwhere, worlds are being destroyed, stars are falling into black holes, and wholesale destruction is rampant. Perhaps we've been lucky. Why push that luck?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:54 AM)
And if you ask too many difficult questions, they ban you. How weak is that?
There is a difference between asking probing questions which are interesting and mindlessly repeating yourself and not listening to responses.
There is a difference between asking probing questions which are interesting and mindlessly repeating yourself and not listening to responses.
QUOTE
Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't. Even if they created a trillion, it would mean that the planet is destroyed in 10^30 years instead of 10^42. Considering the sun will die in about 10^10, I think we'd be okay.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Right, but their arguments are heavily biased and do not account for all reasonble variables. For instance, CERN's intention isn't to make only one, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions). |
They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't. Even if they created a trillion, it would mean that the planet is destroyed in 10^30 years instead of 10^42. Considering the sun will die in about 10^10, I think we'd be okay.
Right. But what of the particles that have no, or little relative angular momentum? One must ask oneself, how much relative angular momentum the earth system has with itself (seeing as the nanoblackholes will be part of the system).
Right. But what of the particles that have no, or little relative angular momentum? One must ask oneself, how much relative angular momentum the earth system has with itself (seeing as the nanoblackholes will be part of the system).
Angular momentum is part of the equation for the absorption radius. Then just average over it.
QUOTE
You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!).
Considering the size of the absorption radius is less than a proton, it would have to collide directly with a particle to absorb it. Considering a neutrino can pass through the Earth without hitting a single particle, the black hole is not going to absorb much.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You write this as if they will just harmlessly hang around the center. If they absorbed enough mass on the way down to cause them to fall to the center and stay there (relative momentum decreases as mass accumulates), then they would continue to grow in the center (exponentially!). |
Considering the size of the absorption radius is less than a proton, it would have to collide directly with a particle to absorb it. Considering a neutrino can pass through the Earth without hitting a single particle, the black hole is not going to absorb much.
You are mistaking the size of the Schwarzschild radius for the sphere of influence.
You are mistaking the size of the Schwarzschild radius for the sphere of influence.
No, the radius of absroption is, but bear inmind that due to a standard bit of calculus, outside the event horizon, the black hole looks like a normal bit of matter with mass 10^-24kg, it's not going to be a cosmic hoover, it's not gravitationally strong enough to suck things in unless the particle collides with it head on or pretty much brushed the horizon. Further away than that and they'll whizz past one another.
The 'conservation of momentum' argument for micro-BHs formed via cosmic rays/particle collisions in upper-atmosphere (that, when produced, they are too speedy to 'dwell' in Earth's bulk) assumes that all such collisions are asymmetric as regards to momentum contributed by the colliding entities.
Well, this is where I REALLY got in trouble in that other forum. I suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
If a SLOW 'high-dwell-time' micro-BH was involved in creating the Asteroid. Belt as you speculate, the planet/body or bodies consumed when that allegedly happened would have left no 'rubble' to form the belt of asteroids we have today...AND/OR, the black hole would still be creating havoc in the Solar System NOW (assuming the sun and other planets would have survived that long). There are perfectly well-understood proto-planetary/planetary/cometary COLLISION mechanisms during SS formation to explain 'debris' and 'RING collections' of same at certain harmonic orbit positions, both around Sun and planets (latter include moons and also debris 'rings' around the gas giants Saturn etc). Your invocation of 'rubble systems' to point to putative micro-BH damage is not even plausible, let alone sensible in view of these well-understood SS formation processes which occur without the need for Micro-BHs.
While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself).
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occurring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
Forget about 'significant numbers' of such momentum-"zero-sum" collisions between oppositely-directed Cosmic Rays/Particles just above/within a large body; since it takes only ONE per planet per 4 Billion years to have wiped out the Sun and every major planet/moon in the solar system. And I beg to differ when you state without any supporting statistics that any given volume of space occupied by a sun/planet is unlikely to have significant numbers of momentum-"zero-sum" Cosmic Ray collisions occurring in that volume; since the innumerable number and vast times span involved MOST ASSUREDLY would tip the odds well in FAVOUR of more than enough such events occurring (rather than not, as you suggest). All this speculation of course depends on the ASSUMPTION that these Micro-BHs CAN so form at the energies of Cosmic Rays. If they CAN occur as such, then they must indeed prove 'harmless', or the Solar system or any other major planetary system would probably not survive very long (if at all) into its proto-star/protoplanetary formation phases, let alone into one as 'mature' and 'settled' as ours. And if any such Cosmic-produced Micro-BHs are no threat if they CAN form at all, then what are the chances that HUNAN activities will produce your 'dangerous' Micro-BHs?
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Maybe it has happened. Maybe we've been lucky so far. This argument therefore has no merit.
"Maybe this” and "Maybe that” arguments are a most ungenerous/insulting way of dismissing someone's arguments based on self-evident probabilities and processes (eg, things collide at all scales at the beginning, middle and settled stages of Solar System formation/processes...witness comet Schumaker-Levy which crashed into Jupiter; and the obvious meteorite impacts evident on Earth/Moon etc). Why the need to offend against common sense observations/processes in order to justify your evidently completely unfounded/unsupported views? The argument you so airily dismissed above actually DOES have merit...and it is your own dismissal of it that lacks any such. I expected better of you than your appeal to 'luck' when the probabilities are so stacked AGAINST any such 'lucky escapes' as you suggest our Solar System has had from your bogey-man MICRO-BHs you fear so much; and your inability to accept any more cogent arguments which say that such nanoBHs may NOT ACTUALLY form AT ALL, ANYWHERE. Remember, just as you dismiss the LHC scientists speculations as 'unsound' when they say that they will produce 'safe' Micro-BHs, I myself can and DO ALTOGETHER dismiss Micro-BHs as 'unsound' IN CONCEPT....which would make your argument with the LHC establishment a non-starter (Micro-BHs THEMSELVES are just speculation TOO, you know....and just as likely NOT to form/exist at all at such scales). So your 'luck' arguments and their 'safe' arguments are probably a storm in a pair of extremely fragile and unlikely teacups which themselves are only respective figments of overactive imaginations on your and their part.
Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide).
If the crystalline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
Note that I said “BH precursor product” will be bled of any “net” (residual) momentum after the initial impact energy-exchange that created that BH precursor product. For the initial impact energy-exchange ITSELF, the crystal’s molecular etc bonds/forces will have the effect of increasing the effective rest mass of the ‘lone’ atom/molecule which the incident cosmic-ray particle will hit. Hence the forces that served to keep the impacted particle in position in the crystal will make the collision more severe because of the greater resistance put up by the ‘target’ particle; which in turn serves to constrain MORE of the incident/resisting energy in the thus foreshortened ‘event-space’ between contact and formation of the Micro-BH ‘precursor product consisting of the combined energies of incident and target particles. Only AFTER the INITIAL energy transfer event between the 'contacting particles' that transiently form a BH 'precursor product', and only ASSUMING there is any ‘net’ movement-energy left at all because of the large effective rest mass RESISTANCE presented by the ‘supported’ target particle in the crystal structure, will any intermediate product that’s ‘settling’ into a (putative) compact/symmetric micro-BH phenomenon/particle move further into/through the crystal....but before then the momentum energy of the incident particle was incorporated in the formation-energy of that putative micro-BH....and so would make any such micro-BH SLOW enough to do what you speculate will be done by (putative) BH formed in the LHC at Cern.
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
Perhaps, but there's no proof. However, there is a possibility that nanoblackholes might exist in abundance in the form of the mysterious "dark matter."
More ‘blue-sky’ speculation. But even if correct, then if what you fear from such nanoBHs is valid, then how can galaxies even exist at all?...since those same speculation say that all galaxies are ‘brought together’ by the gravity interactions between ordinary and dark matter. You see, if such nanoBHs are THAT abundant to ‘husband’ enough matter into galaxies, then the DANGEROUS collisions probabilities between ordinary and nanoBHs are practically 100% guaranteed to destroy all ordinary matter bodies in those galactic concentrations (especially as it is speculated that dark matter vastly outweighs ordinary matter in those galactic systems). In fact, were those speculations true, our galaxy would long ago have become one humongous BH, with no ordinary matter left at all; and all those putative nanoBHs incorporated into that ONE ‘giant’ black hole where our galaxy is now.
So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved.
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
All the foregoing responses to your ‘fears’ and ‘speculations’ indicate that, IF you were right, then the events you suggest would have happened ubiquitously and long ago NATURALLY, and so would have prevented our existence here and NOW. This indicates that were ARE ‘safe’ as we’ll EVER be given the universal phenomena at large...which is many orders of magnitude more likely to destroy us than your and the Cern scientists’ PUTATIVE nano-BHs. I would suggest we turn our ‘fears’ onto other, more likely, ‘present dangers’ that are practically ‘certain’ to do us in.
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
And it is widely accepted that in every micro-second, somewhere, worlds are being destroyed, stars are falling into black holes, and wholesale destruction is rampant. Perhaps we've been lucky. Why push that luck?
Our ability to ‘push’ the universal phenomena is grossly overrated and overhyped in my opinion. That same probability which led to our solar system forming (and orbiting/moving in its lifetime to date) in reasonably ‘calm and tranquil’ space/neighbourhood of our otherwise violent galaxy means that our luck will end ‘soon’ enough’ without our efforts at Cern making any difference either way. The only likely result from the LHC will be more knowledge of one kind or another. For me, the only question is whether that ‘incremental knowledge will have been worth the expense...although a case CAN be made for keeping all these scientists occupied in this ‘peaceful’ area, and AWAY from ‘military’ jobs, eh??? In which case, any unsubstantiated ‘fears’ are greatly outweighed by the ‘opportunity benefits’ that such ‘peaceful distraction’ of so many scientists represents to life on Earth for the immediate future.
Cheers all!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Then why do it at all?
Nothing is 100% safe, but most things have an acceptable risk.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then why do it at all? |
Nothing is 100% safe, but most things have an acceptable risk.
suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
It might have been many things but it's overwhelmingly more probably to have been prevented from forming a planetoid by Jupiters gravity.
If we accepted every wild theory as 'just as likely' it'd be stupid.
To even entertain your 'problem with the LHC' 3 things have to happen :
1) Black holes are formed
2) They are formed with zero momentum
3) Hawking radiation doesn't exist
Those are very unlikely for a start. Even if those exceptionally unlikely things occur, the black hole will fall through the Earth and oscillate back and fore due to gravity and nothing slowing it down. During this time, it will not absorb anything unless it has pretty much a head on collision with it, it's gravitational influence is just too weak. Even with exponential growth, the fact it would take billions of years to even absorb a handful of particles means it's not a problem for us.
You seem to just ignore mathematical calculations with "But you're wrong, it's dangerous!" If you think the maths is wrong, crunch some numbers yourself and show them wrong. Demonstrate that ignoring pressure isn't valid.
As an example of how little some particles can interact, if you passed a beam of neutrinos through 30,000 light years of solid lead, half would come out the other end untouched. A black hole would be just as non-interacting as that.
If we accepted every wild theory as 'just as likely' it'd be stupid.
To even entertain your 'problem with the LHC' 3 things have to happen :
1) Black holes are formed
2) They are formed with zero momentum
3) Hawking radiation doesn't exist
Those are very unlikely for a start. Even if those exceptionally unlikely things occur, the black hole will fall through the Earth and oscillate back and fore due to gravity and nothing slowing it down. During this time, it will not absorb anything unless it has pretty much a head on collision with it, it's gravitational influence is just too weak. Even with exponential growth, the fact it would take billions of years to even absorb a handful of particles means it's not a problem for us.
You seem to just ignore mathematical calculations with "But you're wrong, it's dangerous!" If you think the maths is wrong, crunch some numbers yourself and show them wrong. Demonstrate that ignoring pressure isn't valid.
As an example of how little some particles can interact, if you passed a beam of neutrinos through 30,000 light years of solid lead, half would come out the other end untouched. A black hole would be just as non-interacting as that.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
The 'conservation of momentum' argument for micro-BHs formed via cosmic rays/particle collisions in upper-atmosphere (that, when produced, they are too speedy to 'dwell' in Earth's bulk) assumes that all such collisions are asymmetric as regards to momentum contributed by the colliding entities.
Well, this is where I REALLY got in trouble in that other forum. I suggested that we cannot state that the asteroid belt wasn't caused by such a collision in a previously existing world. It can't be proven this happened either, but we can't absolutely state that it never happens.
If a SLOW 'high-dwell-time' micro-BH was involved in creating the Asteroid. Belt as you speculate, the planet/body or bodies consumed when that allegedly happened would have left no 'rubble' to form the belt of asteroids we have today...AND/OR, the black hole would still be creating havoc in the Solar System NOW (assuming the sun and other planets would have survived that long). There are perfectly well-understood proto-planetary/planetary/cometary COLLISION mechanisms during SS formation to explain 'debris' and 'RING collections' of same at certain harmonic orbit positions, both around Sun and planets (latter include moons and also debris 'rings' around the gas giants Saturn etc). Your invocation of 'rubble systems' to point to putative micro-BH damage is not even plausible, let alone sensible in view of these well-understood SS formation processes which occur without the need for Micro-BHs.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
While this would be the case in the majority of cosmic-ray related micro-BH events (where 'heavy'/energetic C-ray/particles impact relatively lightweight 'lone' atoms/molecules), it should be understood that there must ALSO likely occur SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events where TWO OPPOSITELY-DIRECTED cosmic rays/particles of similar energy/mass meet (such must have happened AT LEAST ONCE in the history of each body in the Solar System, I would think; including that of Sol itself).
The odds are overwhelmingly against a significant number of such events occurring in the tiny area a world occupies in the vastness of space/time in the time the universe has existed. But please note as I stated above... we can't rule it out.
Forget about 'significant numbers' of such momentum-"zero-sum" collisions between oppositely-directed Cosmic Rays/Particles just above/within a large body; since it takes only ONE per planet per 4 Billion years to have wiped out the Sun and every major planet/moon in the solar system. And I beg to differ when you state without any supporting statistics that any given volume of space occupied by a sun/planet is unlikely to have significant numbers of momentum-"zero-sum" Cosmic Ray collisions occurring in that volume; since the innumerable number and vast times span involved MOST ASSUREDLY would tip the odds well in FAVOUR of more than enough such events occurring (rather than not, as you suggest). All this speculation of course depends on the ASSUMPTION that these Micro-BHs CAN so form at the energies of Cosmic Rays. If they CAN occur as such, then they must indeed prove 'harmless', or the Solar system or any other major planetary system would probably not survive very long (if at all) into its proto-star/protoplanetary formation phases, let alone into one as 'mature' and 'settled' as ours. And if any such Cosmic-produced Micro-BHs are no threat if they CAN form at all, then what are the chances that HUNAN activities will produce your 'dangerous' Micro-BHs?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
So it seems unlikely that the Sun and planets would have survived until now if such 'zero-sum' momentum collisions (rare as they may be unless speaking of billions of years and 'zillions' of cosmic rays) can produce such dangerously 'slow' micro-BHs at least once near each of the large bodies in out solar system.
Maybe it has happened. Maybe we've been lucky so far. This argument therefore has no merit.
"Maybe this” and "Maybe that” arguments are a most ungenerous/insulting way of dismissing someone's arguments based on self-evident probabilities and processes (eg, things collide at all scales at the beginning, middle and settled stages of Solar System formation/processes...witness comet Schumaker-Levy which crashed into Jupiter; and the obvious meteorite impacts evident on Earth/Moon etc). Why the need to offend against common sense observations/processes in order to justify your evidently completely unfounded/unsupported views? The argument you so airily dismissed above actually DOES have merit...and it is your own dismissal of it that lacks any such. I expected better of you than your appeal to 'luck' when the probabilities are so stacked AGAINST any such 'lucky escapes' as you suggest our Solar System has had from your bogey-man MICRO-BHs you fear so much; and your inability to accept any more cogent arguments which say that such nanoBHs may NOT ACTUALLY form AT ALL, ANYWHERE. Remember, just as you dismiss the LHC scientists speculations as 'unsound' when they say that they will produce 'safe' Micro-BHs, I myself can and DO ALTOGETHER dismiss Micro-BHs as 'unsound' IN CONCEPT....which would make your argument with the LHC establishment a non-starter (Micro-BHs THEMSELVES are just speculation TOO, you know....and just as likely NOT to form/exist at all at such scales). So your 'luck' arguments and their 'safe' arguments are probably a storm in a pair of extremely fragile and unlikely teacups which themselves are only respective figments of overactive imaginations on your and their part.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
Also, in any large 'airless' moon's/planet's mass (Luna/Mercury, for example), there exist many crystalline materials whose whole-crystal structural bonds/mass could 'absorb' and spread out the momentum of impinging Cosmic-ray particles......so that the BH 'precursor product' in such collisions would have been 'bled' of any great 'net' momentum...meaning that large bodies without atmospheres could be even MORE 'vulnerable' to 'slow-moving' micro-BHs (formed in that way probably more frequently than might be the case where oppositely-directed Cosmic-ray particles need to collide).
If the crystalline materials actually spread the energy around as you describe, then there couldn't be enough energy leftover in the point of impact to cause the nanoblackhole to form.
Note that I said “BH precursor product” will be bled of any “net” (residual) momentum after the initial impact energy-exchange that created that BH precursor product. For the initial impact energy-exchange ITSELF, the crystal’s molecular etc bonds/forces will have the effect of increasing the effective rest mass of the ‘lone’ atom/molecule which the incident cosmic-ray particle will hit. Hence the forces that served to keep the impacted particle in position in the crystal will make the collision more severe because of the greater resistance put up by the ‘target’ particle; which in turn serves to constrain MORE of the incident/resisting energy in the thus foreshortened ‘event-space’ between contact and formation of the Micro-BH ‘precursor product consisting of the combined energies of incident and target particles. Only AFTER the INITIAL energy transfer event between the 'contacting particles' that transiently form a BH 'precursor product', and only ASSUMING there is any ‘net’ movement-energy left at all because of the large effective rest mass RESISTANCE presented by the ‘supported’ target particle in the crystal structure, will any intermediate product that’s ‘settling’ into a (putative) compact/symmetric micro-BH phenomenon/particle move further into/through the crystal....but before then the momentum energy of the incident particle was incorporated in the formation-energy of that putative micro-BH....and so would make any such micro-BH SLOW enough to do what you speculate will be done by (putative) BH formed in the LHC at Cern.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
I, for one, think that probability is high that (in billions of years and 'gazillions' of Cosmic-ray events of all sorts near all bodies) such slow-moving micro-BHs must occasionally be produced close to Earth/Luna. And they're still here.
Perhaps, but there's no proof. However, there is a possibility that nanoblackholes might exist in abundance in the form of the mysterious "dark matter."
More ‘blue-sky’ speculation. But even if correct, then if what you fear from such nanoBHs is valid, then how can galaxies even exist at all?...since those same speculation say that all galaxies are ‘brought together’ by the gravity interactions between ordinary and dark matter. You see, if such nanoBHs are THAT abundant to ‘husband’ enough matter into galaxies, then the DANGEROUS collisions probabilities between ordinary and nanoBHs are practically 100% guaranteed to destroy all ordinary matter bodies in those galactic concentrations (especially as it is speculated that dark matter vastly outweighs ordinary matter in those galactic systems). In fact, were those speculations true, our galaxy would long ago have become one humongous BH, with no ordinary matter left at all; and all those putative nanoBHs incorporated into that ONE ‘giant’ black hole where our galaxy is now.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
So, for me at least, the 'high net momentum/velocity' argument cannot be called upon as a 'blanket argument' against ALL cosmic-ray/particle micro-BH events possible in the scenarios/timeframes involved.
Right. But your argument doesn't mean we're safe either.
All the foregoing responses to your ‘fears’ and ‘speculations’ indicate that, IF you were right, then the events you suggest would have happened ubiquitously and long ago NATURALLY, and so would have prevented our existence here and NOW. This indicates that were ARE ‘safe’ as we’ll EVER be given the universal phenomena at large...which is many orders of magnitude more likely to destroy us than your and the Cern scientists’ PUTATIVE nano-BHs. I would suggest we turn our ‘fears’ onto other, more likely, ‘present dangers’ that are practically ‘certain’ to do us in.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 14 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2006, 12:28 PM)
Perhaps some are giving us humans too much credit where little credit is due. I certainly don't think anything we can do will ever compete, be it in scale, frequency or probability, to what happens every micro-second somewhere in any significant given mass/volume of our universe.
And it is widely accepted that in every micro-second, somewhere, worlds are being destroyed, stars are falling into black holes, and wholesale destruction is rampant. Perhaps we've been lucky. Why push that luck?
Our ability to ‘push’ the universal phenomena is grossly overrated and overhyped in my opinion. That same probability which led to our solar system forming (and orbiting/moving in its lifetime to date) in reasonably ‘calm and tranquil’ space/neighbourhood of our otherwise violent galaxy means that our luck will end ‘soon’ enough’ without our efforts at Cern making any difference either way. The only likely result from the LHC will be more knowledge of one kind or another. For me, the only question is whether that ‘incremental knowledge will have been worth the expense...although a case CAN be made for keeping all these scientists occupied in this ‘peaceful’ area, and AWAY from ‘military’ jobs, eh??? In which case, any unsubstantiated ‘fears’ are greatly outweighed by the ‘opportunity benefits’ that such ‘peaceful distraction’ of so many scientists represents to life on Earth for the immediate future.
Cheers all!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Yesterday at 10:39 AM)
There is a difference between asking probing questions which are interesting and mindlessly repeating yourself and not listening to responses.
Granted. But can you really say that it isn't interesting that I have exposed an obvious flaw in the published reasoning of a consortium of CERN scientists? How many people in the world could accomplish such a thing? Could you?
Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant?
Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant?
Even if they created a trillion, it would mean that the planet is destroyed in 10^30 years instead of 10^42. Considering the sun will die in about 10^10, I think we'd be okay.
Possibly true. However again I must state that too many important variables are ignored.
You aren't getting it.
You aren't getting it.
Considering the size of the absorption radius is less than a proton, it would have to collide directly with a particle to absorb it. Considering a neutrino can pass through the Earth without hitting a single particle, the black hole is not going to absorb much.
Granted... in the first collision. However don't let it's smallness make you complacent. A blackhole with the mass (and accomanying gravity field ) of the earth would have a Schwarzschild radius that's only about a centimeter in diameter.
And again you ignore the already existing gravity, density, relative momentums, and internal pressure of the earth.
And again you ignore the already existing gravity, density, relative momentums, and internal pressure of the earth.
Nothing is 100% safe, but most things have an acceptable risk.
Fine. If this risk is acceptable to you, do it on your own planet... not on mine.
We'll never know for sure.
We'll never know for sure.
If we accepted every wild theory as 'just as likely' it'd be stupid.
Any theory in regards to the formation of the asteroids is at best conjecture. No one was there to observe the causality of it.
And to the people entertaining the notion of "dark matter", particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs).
And to the people entertaining the notion of "dark matter", particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs).
Those are very unlikely for a start. Even if those exceptionally unlikely things occur, the black hole will fall through the Earth and oscillate back and fore due to gravity and nothing slowing it down. During this time, it will not absorb anything unless it has pretty much a head on collision with it, it's gravitational influence is just too weak. Even with exponential growth, the fact it would take billions of years to even absorb a handful of particles means it's not a problem for us.
You both assume too much, and too little... at the same time.
It's not my place to prove the danger, but rather the scientists to prove the safety. So far, they've done a dismal job of it.
It's not my place to prove the danger, but rather the scientists to prove the safety. So far, they've done a dismal job of it.
As an example of how little some particles can interact, if you passed a beam of neutrinos through 30,000 light years of solid lead, half would come out the other end untouched. A black hole would be just as non-interacting as that.
Nuetrinos are interesting in that the maths/standard model indicated that they should be massless. How interesting to learn otherwise. Even so, they alone cannot account for the universe's "missing mass".
And finally, I will reiterate that I feel it's probably safe, but I still expect to see stronger arguments from CERN than "cosmic rays do it all the time".
Granted. But can you really say that it isn't interesting that I have exposed an obvious flaw in the published reasoning of a consortium of CERN scientists? How many people in the world could accomplish such a thing? Could you?
QUOTE
They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't.
Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't. |
Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant?
Even if they created a trillion, it would mean that the planet is destroyed in 10^30 years instead of 10^42. Considering the sun will die in about 10^10, I think we'd be okay.
Possibly true. However again I must state that too many important variables are ignored.
QUOTE
Angular momentum is part of the equation for the absorption radius. Then just average over it.
You aren't getting it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Angular momentum is part of the equation for the absorption radius. Then just average over it. |
You aren't getting it.
Considering the size of the absorption radius is less than a proton, it would have to collide directly with a particle to absorb it. Considering a neutrino can pass through the Earth without hitting a single particle, the black hole is not going to absorb much.
Granted... in the first collision. However don't let it's smallness make you complacent. A blackhole with the mass (and accomanying gravity field ) of the earth would have a Schwarzschild radius that's only about a centimeter in diameter.
QUOTE
No, the radius of absroption is, but bear inmind that due to a standard bit of calculus, outside the event horizon, the black hole looks like a normal bit of matter with mass 10^-24kg, it's not going to be a cosmic hoover, it's not gravitationally strong enough to suck things in unless the particle collides with it head on or pretty much brushed the horizon. Further away than that and they'll whizz past one another.
And again you ignore the already existing gravity, density, relative momentums, and internal pressure of the earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, the radius of absroption is, but bear inmind that due to a standard bit of calculus, outside the event horizon, the black hole looks like a normal bit of matter with mass 10^-24kg, it's not going to be a cosmic hoover, it's not gravitationally strong enough to suck things in unless the particle collides with it head on or pretty much brushed the horizon. Further away than that and they'll whizz past one another. |
And again you ignore the already existing gravity, density, relative momentums, and internal pressure of the earth.
Nothing is 100% safe, but most things have an acceptable risk.
Fine. If this risk is acceptable to you, do it on your own planet... not on mine.
QUOTE
It might have been many things but it's overwhelmingly more probably to have been prevented from forming a planetoid by Jupiters gravity.
We'll never know for sure.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It might have been many things but it's overwhelmingly more probably to have been prevented from forming a planetoid by Jupiters gravity. |
We'll never know for sure.
If we accepted every wild theory as 'just as likely' it'd be stupid.
Any theory in regards to the formation of the asteroids is at best conjecture. No one was there to observe the causality of it.
QUOTE
To even entertain your 'problem with the LHC' 3 things have to happen :
1) Black holes are formed
2) They are formed with zero momentum
3) Hawking radiation doesn't exist
1) Black holes are formed
2) They are formed with zero momentum
3) Hawking radiation doesn't exist
And to the people entertaining the notion of "dark matter", particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To even entertain your 'problem with the LHC' 3 things have to happen : 1) Black holes are formed 2) They are formed with zero momentum 3) Hawking radiation doesn't exist |
And to the people entertaining the notion of "dark matter", particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs).
Those are very unlikely for a start. Even if those exceptionally unlikely things occur, the black hole will fall through the Earth and oscillate back and fore due to gravity and nothing slowing it down. During this time, it will not absorb anything unless it has pretty much a head on collision with it, it's gravitational influence is just too weak. Even with exponential growth, the fact it would take billions of years to even absorb a handful of particles means it's not a problem for us.
You both assume too much, and too little... at the same time.
QUOTE
You seem to just ignore mathematical calculations with "But you're wrong, it's dangerous!" If you think the maths is wrong, crunch some numbers yourself and show them wrong. Demonstrate that ignoring pressure isn't valid.
It's not my place to prove the danger, but rather the scientists to prove the safety. So far, they've done a dismal job of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem to just ignore mathematical calculations with "But you're wrong, it's dangerous!" If you think the maths is wrong, crunch some numbers yourself and show them wrong. Demonstrate that ignoring pressure isn't valid. |
It's not my place to prove the danger, but rather the scientists to prove the safety. So far, they've done a dismal job of it.
As an example of how little some particles can interact, if you passed a beam of neutrinos through 30,000 light years of solid lead, half would come out the other end untouched. A black hole would be just as non-interacting as that.
Nuetrinos are interesting in that the maths/standard model indicated that they should be massless. How interesting to learn otherwise. Even so, they alone cannot account for the universe's "missing mass".
And finally, I will reiterate that I feel it's probably safe, but I still expect to see stronger arguments from CERN than "cosmic rays do it all the time".
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ Today at 4:30 AM)
If a SLOW 'high-dwell-time' micro-BH was involved in creating the Asteroid. Belt as you speculate, the planet/body or bodies consumed when that allegedly happened would have left no 'rubble' to form the belt of asteroids we have today...
This is not correct. Conservation of angular momentum would cause such a collapsing, rotating body to both implode and explode at the same time. This is the very basis upon which the Hawking radiation hypothesis is founded.
Again, not necessarily correct. Any micro-blackhole that would remain could be in any number of orbits, or it could easily have been flung away in the collapse. If such a body existed in our solar system, it would be virtually impossible to detect.
Again, not necessarily correct. Any micro-blackhole that would remain could be in any number of orbits, or it could easily have been flung away in the collapse. If such a body existed in our solar system, it would be virtually impossible to detect.
There are perfectly well-understood proto-planetary/planetary/cometary COLLISION mechanisms during SS formation to explain 'debris' and 'RING collections' of same at certain harmonic orbit positions, both around Sun and planets (latter include moons and also debris 'rings' around the gas giants Saturn etc). Your invocation of 'rubble systems' to point to putative micro-BH damage is not even plausible, let alone sensible in view of these well-understood SS formation processes which occur without the need for Micro-BHs.
Right. I was just merely pointing out that your argument concerning "SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events" had no sound footing.
You show me a statistical analysis that proves your argument first (after all, it is your argument, not mine).
You show me a statistical analysis that proves your argument first (after all, it is your argument, not mine).
"Maybe this” and "Maybe that” arguments are a most ungenerous/insulting way of dismissing someone's arguments based on self-evident probabilities and processes (eg, things collide at all scales at the beginning, middle and settled stages of Solar System formation/processes...witness comet Schumaker-Levy which crashed into Jupiter; and the obvious meteorite impacts evident on Earth/Moon etc). Why the need to offend against common sense observations/processes in order to justify your evidently completely unfounded/unsupported views?
What support have you offered for your arguments beyond the same type of speculative statements you are accusing me of using? It's YOUR argument. Back it up!
Wrong. I've said many times that I feel we're probably safe. I would even doubt the possibility of the formation of nanoblackholes if it wasn't for the fact that it's been reported that one may have already been detected in the RHIC. My stance is that it's up to CERN to prove a level of safety beyond their currently flawed arguments.
Wrong. I've said many times that I feel we're probably safe. I would even doubt the possibility of the formation of nanoblackholes if it wasn't for the fact that it's been reported that one may have already been detected in the RHIC. My stance is that it's up to CERN to prove a level of safety beyond their currently flawed arguments.
Note that I said “BH precursor product” will be bled of any “net” (residual) momentum after the initial impact energy-exchange that created that BH precursor product. For the initial impact energy-exchange ITSELF, the crystal’s molecular etc bonds/forces will have the effect of increasing the effective rest mass of the ‘lone’ atom/molecule which the incident cosmic-ray particle will hit. Hence the forces that served to keep the impacted particle in position in the crystal will make the collision more severe because of the greater resistance put up by the ‘target’ particle; which in turn serves to constrain MORE of the incident/resisting energy in the thus foreshortened ‘event-space’ between contact and formation of the Micro-BH ‘precursor product consisting of the combined energies of incident and target particles. Only AFTER the INITIAL energy transfer event between the 'contacting particles' that transiently form a BH 'precursor product', and only ASSUMING there is any ‘net’ movement-energy left at all because of the large effective rest mass RESISTANCE presented by the ‘supported’ target particle in the crystal structure, will any intermediate product that’s ‘settling’ into a (putative) compact/symmetric micro-BH phenomenon/particle move further into/through the crystal....but before then the momentum energy of the incident particle was incorporated in the formation-energy of that putative micro-BH....and so would make any such micro-BH SLOW enough to do what you speculate will be done by (putative) BH formed in the LHC at Cern.
I see what your saying, but I find your argument to be incorrect. However, the necessary argument against it is rather long. To put it as succinctly as I can: No crystaline material can react to such a relativistic collision with the speed you imply. The atomic nucleus that is hit is way too far away from it's neighbor to cause a reaction in the time that the nanoblackhole would form. This collision would cause a bit of parton radiation and the nanoblackhole would proceed onward, unimpeded. Any slowing effect would be quite minimal. If the crystal could absorb the impact energy as you describe, then again there wouldn't be enough energy at the point of collision to cause the nanoblackhole to form to begin with. Affecting all those atoms in unison takes a LOT of energy. If it doesn't come from the kinetic energy of the collision, where does it come from?
Fisrt of all, they HAVE recently discoverd "dark matter galaxies" where little apparent normal matter exists (no stars at all!). I suspect that what saves our (and similar) galaxies is my favorite conservation laws. The highly relative velocities of naturally occuring cosmic ray collision events would send thusly formed dark matter particles outward (to form the proposed galactic "dark matter halo"), or inward (into the central core black hole).
Fisrt of all, they HAVE recently discoverd "dark matter galaxies" where little apparent normal matter exists (no stars at all!). I suspect that what saves our (and similar) galaxies is my favorite conservation laws. The highly relative velocities of naturally occuring cosmic ray collision events would send thusly formed dark matter particles outward (to form the proposed galactic "dark matter halo"), or inward (into the central core black hole).
All the foregoing responses to your ‘fears’ and ‘speculations’ indicate that, IF you were right, then the events you suggest would have happened ubiquitously and long ago NATURALLY, and so would have prevented our existence here and NOW. This indicates that were ARE ‘safe’ as we’ll EVER be given the universal phenomena at large...which is many orders of magnitude more likely to destroy us than your and the Cern scientists’ PUTATIVE nano-BHs. I would suggest we turn our ‘fears’ onto other, more likely, ‘present dangers’ that are practically ‘certain’ to do us in.
I disagree. Again, I feel it isn't at all likely that naturally occuring nanoblackholes would hang around. I think it might be a grave mistake to assume otherwise.
Actually, I feel that man has the ability to hasten the end of our world, or save it from certain naturally occuring disaster scenarios. Why are you such a fatalist?
Actually, I feel that man has the ability to hasten the end of our world, or save it from certain naturally occuring disaster scenarios. Why are you such a fatalist?
The only likely result from the LHC will be more knowledge of one kind or another. For me, the only question is whether that ‘incremental knowledge will have been worth the expense...although a case CAN be made for keeping all these scientists occupied in this ‘peaceful’ area, and AWAY from ‘military’ jobs, eh??? In which case, any unsubstantiated ‘fears’ are greatly outweighed by the ‘opportunity benefits’ that such ‘peaceful distraction’ of so many scientists represents to life on Earth for the immediate future.
How about turning their attentions to more immediately useful tasks, like development of near space and planetary exploration? Or how about having them work on the development of better medical devices?
This is not correct. Conservation of angular momentum would cause such a collapsing, rotating body to both implode and explode at the same time. This is the very basis upon which the Hawking radiation hypothesis is founded.
QUOTE
...AND/OR, the black hole would still be creating havoc in the Solar System NOW (assuming the sun and other planets would have survived that long).
Again, not necessarily correct. Any micro-blackhole that would remain could be in any number of orbits, or it could easily have been flung away in the collapse. If such a body existed in our solar system, it would be virtually impossible to detect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...AND/OR, the black hole would still be creating havoc in the Solar System NOW (assuming the sun and other planets would have survived that long). |
Again, not necessarily correct. Any micro-blackhole that would remain could be in any number of orbits, or it could easily have been flung away in the collapse. If such a body existed in our solar system, it would be virtually impossible to detect.
There are perfectly well-understood proto-planetary/planetary/cometary COLLISION mechanisms during SS formation to explain 'debris' and 'RING collections' of same at certain harmonic orbit positions, both around Sun and planets (latter include moons and also debris 'rings' around the gas giants Saturn etc). Your invocation of 'rubble systems' to point to putative micro-BH damage is not even plausible, let alone sensible in view of these well-understood SS formation processes which occur without the need for Micro-BHs.
Right. I was just merely pointing out that your argument concerning "SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events" had no sound footing.
QUOTE
Forget about 'significant numbers' of such momentum-"zero-sum" collisions between oppositely-directed Cosmic Rays/Particles just above/within a large body; since it takes only ONE per planet per 4 Billion years to have wiped out the Sun and every major planet/moon in the solar system. And I beg to differ when you state without any supporting statistics that any given volume of space occupied by a sun/planet is unlikely to have significant numbers of momentum-"zero-sum" Cosmic Ray collisions occurring in that volume; since the innumerable number and vast times span involved MOST ASSUREDLY would tip the odds well in FAVOUR of more than enough such events occurring (rather than not, as you suggest). All this speculation of course depends on the ASSUMPTION that these Micro-BHs CAN so form at the energies of Cosmic Rays. If they CAN occur as such, then they must indeed prove 'harmless', or the Solar system or any other major planetary system would probably not survive very long (if at all) into its proto-star/protoplanetary formation phases, let alone into one as 'mature' and 'settled' as ours. And if any such Cosmic-produced Micro-BHs are no threat if they CAN form at all, then what are the chances that HUNAN activities will produce your 'dangerous' Micro-BHs?
You show me a statistical analysis that proves your argument first (after all, it is your argument, not mine).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Forget about 'significant numbers' of such momentum-"zero-sum" collisions between oppositely-directed Cosmic Rays/Particles just above/within a large body; since it takes only ONE per planet per 4 Billion years to have wiped out the Sun and every major planet/moon in the solar system. And I beg to differ when you state without any supporting statistics that any given volume of space occupied by a sun/planet is unlikely to have significant numbers of momentum-"zero-sum" Cosmic Ray collisions occurring in that volume; since the innumerable number and vast times span involved MOST ASSUREDLY would tip the odds well in FAVOUR of more than enough such events occurring (rather than not, as you suggest). All this speculation of course depends on the ASSUMPTION that these Micro-BHs CAN so form at the energies of Cosmic Rays. If they CAN occur as such, then they must indeed prove 'harmless', or the Solar system or any other major planetary system would probably not survive very long (if at all) into its proto-star/protoplanetary formation phases, let alone into one as 'mature' and 'settled' as ours. And if any such Cosmic-produced Micro-BHs are no threat if they CAN form at all, then what are the chances that HUNAN activities will produce your 'dangerous' Micro-BHs? |
You show me a statistical analysis that proves your argument first (after all, it is your argument, not mine).
"Maybe this” and "Maybe that” arguments are a most ungenerous/insulting way of dismissing someone's arguments based on self-evident probabilities and processes (eg, things collide at all scales at the beginning, middle and settled stages of Solar System formation/processes...witness comet Schumaker-Levy which crashed into Jupiter; and the obvious meteorite impacts evident on Earth/Moon etc). Why the need to offend against common sense observations/processes in order to justify your evidently completely unfounded/unsupported views?
What support have you offered for your arguments beyond the same type of speculative statements you are accusing me of using? It's YOUR argument. Back it up!
QUOTE
The argument you so airily dismissed above actually DOES have merit...and it is your own dismissal of it that lacks any such. I expected better of you than your appeal to 'luck' when the probabilities are so stacked AGAINST any such 'lucky escapes' as you suggest our Solar System has had from your bogey-man MICRO-BHs you fear so much; and your inability to accept any more cogent arguments which say that such nanoBHs may NOT ACTUALLY form AT ALL, ANYWHERE. Remember, just as you dismiss the LHC scientists speculations as 'unsound' when they say that they will produce 'safe' Micro-BHs, I myself can and DO ALTOGETHER dismiss Micro-BHs as 'unsound' IN CONCEPT....which would make your argument with the LHC establishment a non-starter (Micro-BHs THEMSELVES are just speculation TOO, you know....and just as likely NOT to form/exist at all at such scales). So your 'luck' arguments and their 'safe' arguments are probably a storm in a pair of extremely fragile and unlikely teacups which themselves are only respective figments of overactive imaginations on your and their part.
Wrong. I've said many times that I feel we're probably safe. I would even doubt the possibility of the formation of nanoblackholes if it wasn't for the fact that it's been reported that one may have already been detected in the RHIC. My stance is that it's up to CERN to prove a level of safety beyond their currently flawed arguments.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The argument you so airily dismissed above actually DOES have merit...and it is your own dismissal of it that lacks any such. I expected better of you than your appeal to 'luck' when the probabilities are so stacked AGAINST any such 'lucky escapes' as you suggest our Solar System has had from your bogey-man MICRO-BHs you fear so much; and your inability to accept any more cogent arguments which say that such nanoBHs may NOT ACTUALLY form AT ALL, ANYWHERE. Remember, just as you dismiss the LHC scientists speculations as 'unsound' when they say that they will produce 'safe' Micro-BHs, I myself can and DO ALTOGETHER dismiss Micro-BHs as 'unsound' IN CONCEPT....which would make your argument with the LHC establishment a non-starter (Micro-BHs THEMSELVES are just speculation TOO, you know....and just as likely NOT to form/exist at all at such scales). So your 'luck' arguments and their 'safe' arguments are probably a storm in a pair of extremely fragile and unlikely teacups which themselves are only respective figments of overactive imaginations on your and their part. |
Wrong. I've said many times that I feel we're probably safe. I would even doubt the possibility of the formation of nanoblackholes if it wasn't for the fact that it's been reported that one may have already been detected in the RHIC. My stance is that it's up to CERN to prove a level of safety beyond their currently flawed arguments.
Note that I said “BH precursor product” will be bled of any “net” (residual) momentum after the initial impact energy-exchange that created that BH precursor product. For the initial impact energy-exchange ITSELF, the crystal’s molecular etc bonds/forces will have the effect of increasing the effective rest mass of the ‘lone’ atom/molecule which the incident cosmic-ray particle will hit. Hence the forces that served to keep the impacted particle in position in the crystal will make the collision more severe because of the greater resistance put up by the ‘target’ particle; which in turn serves to constrain MORE of the incident/resisting energy in the thus foreshortened ‘event-space’ between contact and formation of the Micro-BH ‘precursor product consisting of the combined energies of incident and target particles. Only AFTER the INITIAL energy transfer event between the 'contacting particles' that transiently form a BH 'precursor product', and only ASSUMING there is any ‘net’ movement-energy left at all because of the large effective rest mass RESISTANCE presented by the ‘supported’ target particle in the crystal structure, will any intermediate product that’s ‘settling’ into a (putative) compact/symmetric micro-BH phenomenon/particle move further into/through the crystal....but before then the momentum energy of the incident particle was incorporated in the formation-energy of that putative micro-BH....and so would make any such micro-BH SLOW enough to do what you speculate will be done by (putative) BH formed in the LHC at Cern.
I see what your saying, but I find your argument to be incorrect. However, the necessary argument against it is rather long. To put it as succinctly as I can: No crystaline material can react to such a relativistic collision with the speed you imply. The atomic nucleus that is hit is way too far away from it's neighbor to cause a reaction in the time that the nanoblackhole would form. This collision would cause a bit of parton radiation and the nanoblackhole would proceed onward, unimpeded. Any slowing effect would be quite minimal. If the crystal could absorb the impact energy as you describe, then again there wouldn't be enough energy at the point of collision to cause the nanoblackhole to form to begin with. Affecting all those atoms in unison takes a LOT of energy. If it doesn't come from the kinetic energy of the collision, where does it come from?
QUOTE
More ‘blue-sky’ speculation. But even if correct, then if what you fear from such nanoBHs is valid, then how can galaxies even exist at all?...since those same speculation say that all galaxies are ‘brought together’ by the gravity interactions between ordinary and dark matter. You see, if such nanoBHs are THAT abundant to ‘husband’ enough matter into galaxies, then the DANGEROUS collisions probabilities between ordinary and nanoBHs are practically 100% guaranteed to destroy all ordinary matter bodies in those galactic concentrations (especially as it is speculated that dark matter vastly outweighs ordinary matter in those galactic systems). In fact, were those speculations true, our galaxy would long ago have become one humongous BH, with no ordinary matter left at all; and all those putative nanoBHs incorporated into that ONE ‘giant’ black hole where our galaxy is now.
Fisrt of all, they HAVE recently discoverd "dark matter galaxies" where little apparent normal matter exists (no stars at all!). I suspect that what saves our (and similar) galaxies is my favorite conservation laws. The highly relative velocities of naturally occuring cosmic ray collision events would send thusly formed dark matter particles outward (to form the proposed galactic "dark matter halo"), or inward (into the central core black hole).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More ‘blue-sky’ speculation. But even if correct, then if what you fear from such nanoBHs is valid, then how can galaxies even exist at all?...since those same speculation say that all galaxies are ‘brought together’ by the gravity interactions between ordinary and dark matter. You see, if such nanoBHs are THAT abundant to ‘husband’ enough matter into galaxies, then the DANGEROUS collisions probabilities between ordinary and nanoBHs are practically 100% guaranteed to destroy all ordinary matter bodies in those galactic concentrations (especially as it is speculated that dark matter vastly outweighs ordinary matter in those galactic systems). In fact, were those speculations true, our galaxy would long ago have become one humongous BH, with no ordinary matter left at all; and all those putative nanoBHs incorporated into that ONE ‘giant’ black hole where our galaxy is now. |
Fisrt of all, they HAVE recently discoverd "dark matter galaxies" where little apparent normal matter exists (no stars at all!). I suspect that what saves our (and similar) galaxies is my favorite conservation laws. The highly relative velocities of naturally occuring cosmic ray collision events would send thusly formed dark matter particles outward (to form the proposed galactic "dark matter halo"), or inward (into the central core black hole).
All the foregoing responses to your ‘fears’ and ‘speculations’ indicate that, IF you were right, then the events you suggest would have happened ubiquitously and long ago NATURALLY, and so would have prevented our existence here and NOW. This indicates that were ARE ‘safe’ as we’ll EVER be given the universal phenomena at large...which is many orders of magnitude more likely to destroy us than your and the Cern scientists’ PUTATIVE nano-BHs. I would suggest we turn our ‘fears’ onto other, more likely, ‘present dangers’ that are practically ‘certain’ to do us in.
I disagree. Again, I feel it isn't at all likely that naturally occuring nanoblackholes would hang around. I think it might be a grave mistake to assume otherwise.
QUOTE
Our ability to ‘push’ the universal phenomena is grossly overrated and overhyped in my opinion. That same probability which led to our solar system forming (and orbiting/moving in its lifetime to date) in reasonably ‘calm and tranquil’ space/neighbourhood of our otherwise violent galaxy means that our luck will end ‘soon’ enough’ without our efforts at Cern making any difference either way.
Actually, I feel that man has the ability to hasten the end of our world, or save it from certain naturally occuring disaster scenarios. Why are you such a fatalist?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Our ability to ‘push’ the universal phenomena is grossly overrated and overhyped in my opinion. That same probability which led to our solar system forming (and orbiting/moving in its lifetime to date) in reasonably ‘calm and tranquil’ space/neighbourhood of our otherwise violent galaxy means that our luck will end ‘soon’ enough’ without our efforts at Cern making any difference either way. |
Actually, I feel that man has the ability to hasten the end of our world, or save it from certain naturally occuring disaster scenarios. Why are you such a fatalist?
The only likely result from the LHC will be more knowledge of one kind or another. For me, the only question is whether that ‘incremental knowledge will have been worth the expense...although a case CAN be made for keeping all these scientists occupied in this ‘peaceful’ area, and AWAY from ‘military’ jobs, eh??? In which case, any unsubstantiated ‘fears’ are greatly outweighed by the ‘opportunity benefits’ that such ‘peaceful distraction’ of so many scientists represents to life on Earth for the immediate future.
How about turning their attentions to more immediately useful tasks, like development of near space and planetary exploration? Or how about having them work on the development of better medical devices?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:04 AM)
Granted. But can you really say that it isn't interesting that I have exposed an obvious flaw in the published reasoning of a consortium of CERN scientists? How many people in the world could accomplish such a thing? Could you?
I doubt you were the first, infact I've seen a website someone else set up because they were worried about CERN black holes. I'm sure someone at CERN mentioned the thought and someone did the calculations and found even if a black hole is formed, it wouldn't destroy the Earth.
Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant?
I doubt you were the first, infact I've seen a website someone else set up because they were worried about CERN black holes. I'm sure someone at CERN mentioned the thought and someone did the calculations and found even if a black hole is formed, it wouldn't destroy the Earth.
QUOTE
Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant?
Do the equations then, shw to me and everyone that there are important variables which have been left out. Show that the approximations used aren't valid. Just say so doesn't make it true, give evidence.Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here you are again assuming that all the "important" variables have been considered. Doesn't my statement above bely that very thing? Is the conservation of momentum law suddenly now unimportant? |
Do the equations then, shw to me and everyone that there are important variables which have been left out. Show that the approximations used aren't valid. Just say so doesn't make it true, give evidence.
Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant?
Possibly true. However again I must state that too many important variables are ignored.
Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant?
Possibly true. However again I must state that too many important variables are ignored.
Prove it, show your workings, not just state guesses.
QUOTE
You aren't getting it.
Be more specific then, explain where you see problems, demonstrate mathematically where the errors are. If you don't (and can't) then you're just making assumptions.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You aren't getting it. |
Be more specific then, explain where you see problems, demonstrate mathematically where the errors are. If you don't (and can't) then you're just making assumptions.
Any theory in regards to the formation of the asteroids is at best conjecture. No one was there to observe the causality of it.
Any theory in regards to the formation of the asteroids is at best conjecture. No one was there to observe the causality of it.
That doesn't mean we should accept them all as equally likely. It could have been a giant space goat or that guy from XMen who eats planets. Was it likely to be one of those two? No. Similarly, it's extremely unlikely to have been a black hole and MUCH more likely to be due to Jupiters gravity. Things have to be weighed with how likely they are to have happened.
QUOTE
Granted... in the first collision. However don't let it's smallness make you complacent. A blackhole with the mass (and accomanying gravity field ) of the earth would have a Schwarzschild radius that's only about a centimeter in diameter.
So it's take billions of years to absorb a single particle, grow slightly then take slightly less than a few billion years to absorb another one. I know how small a black hole the mass of Earth would be, it just goes to emphasis how tiny a black hole 10^54 times less massive would be!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Granted... in the first collision. However don't let it's smallness make you complacent. A blackhole with the mass (and accomanying gravity field ) of the earth would have a Schwarzschild radius that's only about a centimeter in diameter. |
So it's take billions of years to absorb a single particle, grow slightly then take slightly less than a few billion years to absorb another one. I know how small a black hole the mass of Earth would be, it just goes to emphasis how tiny a black hole 10^54 times less massive would be!
You both assume too much, and too little... at the same time.
You both assume too much, and too little... at the same time.
Stop beating around the bush and give explicit derivation of how you found that current predictions are wrong.
You can start by showing that relativity and quantum theory are wrong, so Hawking radiation doesn't exist, you can then go on to demonstrate that all the things left out of the absorption time calculation were important. Shouldn't be more than a few pages of maths.
You can start by showing that relativity and quantum theory are wrong, so Hawking radiation doesn't exist, you can then go on to demonstrate that all the things left out of the absorption time calculation were important. Shouldn't be more than a few pages of maths.
QUOTE
particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs).
Dark matter due to things like supersymmetry is different from black holes. So you accept current theories and WIMPs existing but don't accept current theories with black holes evaporating. Picking and choosing a bit aren't you? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| particles with these very properties seemingly must exist. They are called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" (WIMPs). |
Dark matter due to things like supersymmetry is different from black holes. So you accept current theories and WIMPs existing but don't accept current theories with black holes evaporating. Picking and choosing a bit aren't you?
Nuetrinos are interesting in that the maths/standard model indicated that they should be massless. How interesting to learn otherwise.
Nuetrinos are interesting in that the maths/standard model indicated that they should be massless. How interesting to learn otherwise.
No, the mass of neutrinos is one of the parameters which has to be put in by hand, the theories do not predict it, just like they don't predict what electron masses are.
I've been ignoring this, because this is not timely nor first source material.
Not timely, because the article was based on a press release released in February 6, 2006.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12128.html
Not first source material, because this is about an image processor, and the particle physics data is garbled beyond the ability of particle physicists to make sense of. "17 buzzing mosquitoes" is not a measurement unit used by particle physicists. It's likely the writers of this press release made several errors. They say the mosquito is 1 million times as large as 1 or 2 protons (What a small mosquito!. Since 1 protons = 1.9 GeV, this would mean a mosquito is 1900 TeV = 3x10^-17 grams. (What's 2000000 amu in grams, What's 1900 TeV in grams ) Assuming the mosquito is a cube with a density of water, the cube is 3.1x10^-6 cm (31 nanometers) on a side. That's no mosquito I know. ) It's much more likely, that this experiment is in the 15-17 TeV range as was discussed in this press release from 2000: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/5/9/1
Here, CERN makes it clear that they meant that 1 TeV is about the Kinetic Energy of a flying mosquito. This is probably what got mangled in the UWisc press release. http://press.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Ch...WhatLHC-en.html
I first addressed ubavontuba's concerns with this post from March where an experiment was far more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to make a black hole.
http://www.phys.utk.edu/rhip/Articles/RHIC...rhicreport.html
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf (Sept 1999)
Also, cosmic rays hit us and the moon much harder and over billions of years, we and the moon are still here. Cosmic rays have been documented up to 300 million TeV.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
--
AlphaNumeric, the comic book eater of worlds is Galactus, and premiered in the pages of Fantastic Four
Not timely, because the article was based on a press release released in February 6, 2006.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12128.html
Not first source material, because this is about an image processor, and the particle physics data is garbled beyond the ability of particle physicists to make sense of. "17 buzzing mosquitoes" is not a measurement unit used by particle physicists. It's likely the writers of this press release made several errors. They say the mosquito is 1 million times as large as 1 or 2 protons (What a small mosquito!. Since 1 protons = 1.9 GeV, this would mean a mosquito is 1900 TeV = 3x10^-17 grams. (What's 2000000 amu in grams, What's 1900 TeV in grams ) Assuming the mosquito is a cube with a density of water, the cube is 3.1x10^-6 cm (31 nanometers) on a side. That's no mosquito I know. ) It's much more likely, that this experiment is in the 15-17 TeV range as was discussed in this press release from 2000: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/5/9/1
Here, CERN makes it clear that they meant that 1 TeV is about the Kinetic Energy of a flying mosquito. This is probably what got mangled in the UWisc press release. http://press.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Ch...WhatLHC-en.html
I first addressed ubavontuba's concerns with this post from March where an experiment was far more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to make a black hole.
http://www.phys.utk.edu/rhip/Articles/RHIC...rhicreport.html
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf (Sept 1999)
Also, cosmic rays hit us and the moon much harder and over billions of years, we and the moon are still here. Cosmic rays have been documented up to 300 million TeV.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
--
AlphaNumeric, the comic book eater of worlds is Galactus, and premiered in the pages of Fantastic Four
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Today at 11:16 AM )
I doubt you were the first, infact I've seen a website someone else set up because they were worried about CERN black holes. I'm sure someone at CERN mentioned the thought and someone did the calculations and found even if a black hole is formed, it wouldn't destroy the Earth.
Do the equations then, shw to me and everyone that there are important variables which have been left out. Show that the approximations used aren't valid. Just say so doesn't make it true, give evidence.
As far as I can discover I am the first to bring up the conservation of momentum argument. If you can find an earlier reference than mine, do so.
I probably know of the site to which you are referring (I've done some casual research). As far as I know all such sites I've visited have concentrated on the absorption rate, or argued against Hawking radiation. In any event, if you wish to refute my claim it is your responsibility to prove an earlier reference.
You imply it when you state; "They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't."
Since no one has considered this in any of the calculations I've seen, by your own reasoning it must therefore be "unimportant" (even though they didn't also explain why it's supposedly too unimportant to have considered). Obviously the reality of it is, they just plumb forgot about it altogether. How much more might be similarly missing?
You imply it when you state; "They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't."
Since no one has considered this in any of the calculations I've seen, by your own reasoning it must therefore be "unimportant" (even though they didn't also explain why it's supposedly too unimportant to have considered). Obviously the reality of it is, they just plumb forgot about it altogether. How much more might be similarly missing?
Prove it, show your workings, not just state guesses.
Again, it's not my place to make proofs here. Rather it is the physicists' responsibility to make irrefutable proofs that guarantee our safety. If I can so easily blow holes in their arguments, then their arguments are insufficient. Remember, it is they that are performing the experiment, not me.
So let me throw it back on you. Why don't you provide the proof that's it's safe? Too bad you've already admitted there might be a small chance of danger, hunh?
I've already done that with the conservation of momentum argument. Is that not a sufficient enough error to presume that everything should be re-examined? I mean really, that's one awfully big hole I blew in their flagship argument (sorry, I just saw the new pirate movie).
I've already done that with the conservation of momentum argument. Is that not a sufficient enough error to presume that everything should be re-examined? I mean really, that's one awfully big hole I blew in their flagship argument (sorry, I just saw the new pirate movie).
That doesn't mean we should accept them all as equally likely. It could have been a giant space goat or that guy from XMen who eats planets. Was it likely to be one of those two? No. Similarly, it's extremely unlikely to have been a black hole and MUCH more likely to be due to Jupiters gravity. Things have to be weighed with how likely they are to have happened.
Normally this would be true, however in this case the stakes are so high that there is no room for error. Therefore even the remote possibilities have more weight and must be seriously considered.
Stop beating around the bush and admit that I've already exposed a killer flaw in their arguments. A flaw that is more than sufficient to merit a halt in the program until the safety arguments can be thoroughly re-examined from an unbiased position.
Stop beating around the bush and admit that I've already exposed a killer flaw in their arguments. A flaw that is more than sufficient to merit a halt in the program until the safety arguments can be thoroughly re-examined from an unbiased position.
You can start by showing that relativity and quantum theory are wrong, so Hawking radiation doesn't exist, you can then go on to demonstrate that all the things left out of the absorption time calculation were important. Shouldn't be more than a few pages of maths.
I never said relativity or quantum theory are wrong. Although it's quite obvious that quantum theory has been incrementally wrong time and time again. For instance, where's all the anti-matter gone?
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing? Have you ever seen any of either? As I've said, their proposed properties are strikingly similar.
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing? Have you ever seen any of either? As I've said, their proposed properties are strikingly similar.
No, the mass of neutrinos is one of the parameters which has to be put in by hand, the theories do not predict it, just like they don't predict what electron masses are.
Such things are unpredictable. That's the problem.
Do the equations then, shw to me and everyone that there are important variables which have been left out. Show that the approximations used aren't valid. Just say so doesn't make it true, give evidence.
As far as I can discover I am the first to bring up the conservation of momentum argument. If you can find an earlier reference than mine, do so.
I probably know of the site to which you are referring (I've done some casual research). As far as I know all such sites I've visited have concentrated on the absorption rate, or argued against Hawking radiation. In any event, if you wish to refute my claim it is your responsibility to prove an earlier reference.
QUOTE
Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant?
You imply it when you state; "They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't."
Since no one has considered this in any of the calculations I've seen, by your own reasoning it must therefore be "unimportant" (even though they didn't also explain why it's supposedly too unimportant to have considered). Obviously the reality of it is, they just plumb forgot about it altogether. How much more might be similarly missing?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where did I say anything about momentum being unimportant? |
You imply it when you state; "They took into account many things which were of importance and gave explaination why others weren't."
Since no one has considered this in any of the calculations I've seen, by your own reasoning it must therefore be "unimportant" (even though they didn't also explain why it's supposedly too unimportant to have considered). Obviously the reality of it is, they just plumb forgot about it altogether. How much more might be similarly missing?
Prove it, show your workings, not just state guesses.
Again, it's not my place to make proofs here. Rather it is the physicists' responsibility to make irrefutable proofs that guarantee our safety. If I can so easily blow holes in their arguments, then their arguments are insufficient. Remember, it is they that are performing the experiment, not me.
So let me throw it back on you. Why don't you provide the proof that's it's safe? Too bad you've already admitted there might be a small chance of danger, hunh?
QUOTE
Be more specific then, explain where you see problems, demonstrate mathematically where the errors are. If you don't (and can't) then you're just making assumptions.
I've already done that with the conservation of momentum argument. Is that not a sufficient enough error to presume that everything should be re-examined? I mean really, that's one awfully big hole I blew in their flagship argument (sorry, I just saw the new pirate movie).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Be more specific then, explain where you see problems, demonstrate mathematically where the errors are. If you don't (and can't) then you're just making assumptions. |
I've already done that with the conservation of momentum argument. Is that not a sufficient enough error to presume that everything should be re-examined? I mean really, that's one awfully big hole I blew in their flagship argument (sorry, I just saw the new pirate movie).
That doesn't mean we should accept them all as equally likely. It could have been a giant space goat or that guy from XMen who eats planets. Was it likely to be one of those two? No. Similarly, it's extremely unlikely to have been a black hole and MUCH more likely to be due to Jupiters gravity. Things have to be weighed with how likely they are to have happened.
Normally this would be true, however in this case the stakes are so high that there is no room for error. Therefore even the remote possibilities have more weight and must be seriously considered.
QUOTE
So it's take billions of years to absorb a single particle, grow slightly then take slightly less than a few billion years to absorb another one. I know how small a black hole the mass of Earth would be, it just goes to emphasis how tiny a black hole 10^54 times less massive would be!
Stop beating around the bush and give explicit derivation of how you found that current predictions are wrong.
Stop beating around the bush and give explicit derivation of how you found that current predictions are wrong.
Stop beating around the bush and admit that I've already exposed a killer flaw in their arguments. A flaw that is more than sufficient to merit a halt in the program until the safety arguments can be thoroughly re-examined from an unbiased position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So it's take billions of years to absorb a single particle, grow slightly then take slightly less than a few billion years to absorb another one. I know how small a black hole the mass of Earth would be, it just goes to emphasis how tiny a black hole 10^54 times less massive would be! Stop beating around the bush and give explicit derivation of how you found that current predictions are wrong. |
Stop beating around the bush and admit that I've already exposed a killer flaw in their arguments. A flaw that is more than sufficient to merit a halt in the program until the safety arguments can be thoroughly re-examined from an unbiased position.
You can start by showing that relativity and quantum theory are wrong, so Hawking radiation doesn't exist, you can then go on to demonstrate that all the things left out of the absorption time calculation were important. Shouldn't be more than a few pages of maths.
I never said relativity or quantum theory are wrong. Although it's quite obvious that quantum theory has been incrementally wrong time and time again. For instance, where's all the anti-matter gone?
QUOTE
Dark matter due to things like supersymmetry is different from black holes. So you accept current theories and WIMPs existing but don't accept current theories with black holes evaporating. Picking and choosing a bit aren't you?
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing? Have you ever seen any of either? As I've said, their proposed properties are strikingly similar.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dark matter due to things like supersymmetry is different from black holes. So you accept current theories and WIMPs existing but don't accept current theories with black holes evaporating. Picking and choosing a bit aren't you? |
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing? Have you ever seen any of either? As I've said, their proposed properties are strikingly similar.
No, the mass of neutrinos is one of the parameters which has to be put in by hand, the theories do not predict it, just like they don't predict what electron masses are.
Such things are unpredictable. That's the problem.
QUOTE (rpenner+ Today at 6:44 PM )
I've been ignoring this, because this is not timely nor first source material.
Not timely, because the article was based on a press release released in February 6, 2006.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12128.html
That is a bad reference. Try this one directly from the CERN Courier.
Apparently you never read or responded to my response, located here.
Apparently you never read or responded to my response, located here.
Also, cosmic rays hit us and the moon much harder and over billions of years, we and the moon are still here. Cosmic rays have been documented up to 300 million TeV.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
And, you apparently have missed my arguments against this supposition.
Not timely, because the article was based on a press release released in February 6, 2006.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12128.html
That is a bad reference. Try this one directly from the CERN Courier.
QUOTE
I first addressed ubavontuba's concerns with this post from March where an experiment was far more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to make a black hole.
http://www.phys.utk.edu/rhip/Articles/RHIC...rhicreport.html
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf (Sept 1999)
http://www.phys.utk.edu/rhip/Articles/RHIC...rhicreport.html
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf (Sept 1999)
Apparently you never read or responded to my response, located here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I first addressed ubavontuba's concerns with this post from March where an experiment was far more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to make a black hole. http://www.phys.utk.edu/rhip/Articles/RHIC...rhicreport.html http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf (Sept 1999) |
Apparently you never read or responded to my response, located here.
Also, cosmic rays hit us and the moon much harder and over billions of years, we and the moon are still here. Cosmic rays have been documented up to 300 million TeV.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
And, you apparently have missed my arguments against this supposition.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 09:14 PM)
As far as I can discover I am the first to bring up the conservation of momentum argument. If you can find an earlier reference than mine, do so.
I am not privy to discussions at CERN but I would imagine it did pass through the minds of people who spend all their work time thinking about such things.
I am not privy to discussions at CERN but I would imagine it did pass through the minds of people who spend all their work time thinking about such things.
QUOTE
Again, it's not my place to make proofs here. Rather it is the physicists' responsibility to make irrefutable proofs that guarantee our safety
They have given comments like "Even if 3 extremely unlikely things do happen and the black hole falls into the Earth, it'll take trillions of years to absorb the Earth" and provided calculations. It's now your turn to counter them. Besides, noone can guarentee anything, if they could know exactly how everything was going to behave they'd not have to build the accelerator would they?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, it's not my place to make proofs here. Rather it is the physicists' responsibility to make irrefutable proofs that guarantee our safety |
They have given comments like "Even if 3 extremely unlikely things do happen and the black hole falls into the Earth, it'll take trillions of years to absorb the Earth" and provided calculations. It's now your turn to counter them. Besides, noone can guarentee anything, if they could know exactly how everything was going to behave they'd not have to build the accelerator would they?
however in this case the stakes are so high that there is no room for error.
however in this case the stakes are so high that there is no room for error.
Some people were worried detonating the first nuclear weapon would set the entire atmosphere on fire, but they did it anyway.
QUOTE
. Although it's quite obvious that quantum theory has been incrementally wrong time and time again. For instance, where's all the anti-matter gone?
Never heard of CP violating in the weak force then? It causes an asymmetry in decays mediated by the weak force.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| . Although it's quite obvious that quantum theory has been incrementally wrong time and time again. For instance, where's all the anti-matter gone? |
Never heard of CP violating in the weak force then? It causes an asymmetry in decays mediated by the weak force.
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing?
How do you know that WIMPs and nanoblackholes aren't the same thing?
Microblack holes can be charged, WIMPs can't or they wouldn't be weakly interacting.
According to current theories, the energy needed to make a black hole is way out of reach of the LHC, but several orders of magnitude. Then, if that's wrong, the beams have to be so exactly tuned that they cancel out to within 1 part in 20000 AND Hawking radiation has to be wrong.
That means current particle physics has to be WAY out by quite a long way and the collider is callibrated to a specific level which is far beyond what any experiments need. If all this happens then you've a black hole with no momentum which will fall into the ground. Then it is so small that it'll take billions of years to absorb much of anything.
If you disagree with the assumptions show that leaving out varying pressure in the Earth is not a good approximation. We're dealing with chances in the trillions of trillions here, at this level of unlikelyhood almost anyone would say "The risk is acceptable and besides, it relies on 3 very big ifs".
Sure, there's no 100% certainty everything will be fine, but then the same can be said about anything in life. It's more likely everyone gets struck and killed by lightening tomorrow than by a black hole in the their lifetime, should we all stay indoors?
According to current theories, the energy needed to make a black hole is way out of reach of the LHC, but several orders of magnitude. Then, if that's wrong, the beams have to be so exactly tuned that they cancel out to within 1 part in 20000 AND Hawking radiation has to be wrong.
That means current particle physics has to be WAY out by quite a long way and the collider is callibrated to a specific level which is far beyond what any experiments need. If all this happens then you've a black hole with no momentum which will fall into the ground. Then it is so small that it'll take billions of years to absorb much of anything.
If you disagree with the assumptions show that leaving out varying pressure in the Earth is not a good approximation. We're dealing with chances in the trillions of trillions here, at this level of unlikelyhood almost anyone would say "The risk is acceptable and besides, it relies on 3 very big ifs".
Sure, there's no 100% certainty everything will be fine, but then the same can be said about anything in life. It's more likely everyone gets struck and killed by lightening tomorrow than by a black hole in the their lifetime, should we all stay indoors?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Today at 8:41 PM )
I am not privy to discussions at CERN but I would imagine it did pass through the minds of people who spend all their work time thinking about such things.
You are so full of bluster! This is not an evidenciary statement. I have proof that I've been saying it. Where's your proof that anyone else thought of it? You don't have it! Why not just 'fess up to the fact? I thought of it, and I'm right.
I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence.
I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence.
Besides, noone can guarentee anything, if they could know exactly how everything was going to behave they'd not have to build the accelerator would they?
If they can't be certain, they shouldn't do it on earth.
Yeah, like that's a good argument. "Gee Al, we didn't blow ourselves up back then, so this totally unrelated experiment must be safe!"
Yeah, like that's a good argument. "Gee Al, we didn't blow ourselves up back then, so this totally unrelated experiment must be safe!"
Never heard of CP violating in the weak force then? It causes an asymmetry in decays mediated by the weak force.
Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.
A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven.
A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven.
According to current theories, the energy needed to make a black hole is way out of reach of the LHC, but several orders of magnitude. Then, if that's wrong, the beams have to be so exactly tuned that they cancel out to within 1 part in 20000 AND Hawking radiation has to be wrong.
Yeah, so? Stranger things have happened.
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
If you disagree with the assumptions show that leaving out varying pressure in the Earth is not a good approximation. We're dealing with chances in the trillions of trillions here, at this level of unlikelyhood almost anyone would say "The risk is acceptable and besides, it relies on 3 very big ifs".
Well I don't think the risk (as currently assessed) is acceptable, and it's my planet too.
No, but I wouldn't go around holding a lightening rod in a thunderstorm. Why create risk?
You are so full of bluster! This is not an evidenciary statement. I have proof that I've been saying it. Where's your proof that anyone else thought of it? You don't have it! Why not just 'fess up to the fact? I thought of it, and I'm right.
QUOTE
They have given comments like "Even if 3 extremely unlikely things do happen and the black hole falls into the Earth, it'll take trillions of years to absorb the Earth" and provided calculations. It's now your turn to counter them.
I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They have given comments like "Even if 3 extremely unlikely things do happen and the black hole falls into the Earth, it'll take trillions of years to absorb the Earth" and provided calculations. It's now your turn to counter them. |
I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence.
Besides, noone can guarentee anything, if they could know exactly how everything was going to behave they'd not have to build the accelerator would they?
If they can't be certain, they shouldn't do it on earth.
QUOTE
Some people were worried detonating the first nuclear weapon would set the entire atmosphere on fire, but they did it anyway.
Yeah, like that's a good argument. "Gee Al, we didn't blow ourselves up back then, so this totally unrelated experiment must be safe!"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some people were worried detonating the first nuclear weapon would set the entire atmosphere on fire, but they did it anyway. |
Yeah, like that's a good argument. "Gee Al, we didn't blow ourselves up back then, so this totally unrelated experiment must be safe!"
Never heard of CP violating in the weak force then? It causes an asymmetry in decays mediated by the weak force.
Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.
QUOTE
Microblack holes can be charged, WIMPs can't or they wouldn't be weakly interacting.
A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Microblack holes can be charged, WIMPs can't or they wouldn't be weakly interacting. |
A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven.
According to current theories, the energy needed to make a black hole is way out of reach of the LHC, but several orders of magnitude. Then, if that's wrong, the beams have to be so exactly tuned that they cancel out to within 1 part in 20000 AND Hawking radiation has to be wrong.
Yeah, so? Stranger things have happened.
QUOTE
That means current particle physics has to be WAY out by quite a long way and the collider is callibrated to a specific level which is far beyond what any experiments need. If all this happens then you've a black hole with no momentum which will fall into the ground. Then it is so small that it'll take billions of years to absorb much of anything.
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That means current particle physics has to be WAY out by quite a long way and the collider is callibrated to a specific level which is far beyond what any experiments need. If all this happens then you've a black hole with no momentum which will fall into the ground. Then it is so small that it'll take billions of years to absorb much of anything. |
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
If you disagree with the assumptions show that leaving out varying pressure in the Earth is not a good approximation. We're dealing with chances in the trillions of trillions here, at this level of unlikelyhood almost anyone would say "The risk is acceptable and besides, it relies on 3 very big ifs".
Well I don't think the risk (as currently assessed) is acceptable, and it's my planet too.
QUOTE
Sure, there's no 100% certainty everything will be fine, but then the same can be said about anything in life. It's more likely everyone gets struck and killed by lightening tomorrow than by a black hole in the their lifetime, should we all stay indoors?
No, but I wouldn't go around holding a lightening rod in a thunderstorm. Why create risk?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 10:01 PM)
I have proof that I've been saying it. Where's your proof that anyone else thought of it? You don't have it! Why not just 'fess up to the fact? I thought of it, and I'm right.
I'm not denying you might have thought of it independently, but it's not my job to prove you were the first, you're the one claiming you were. Considering that calculuations show that even if a black hole with no momentum is created the Earth won't be instantly destroyed (the Sun will do it before the BH), I imagine that someone at CERN or elsewhere woudln't bother mentioning it.
I'm not denying you might have thought of it independently, but it's not my job to prove you were the first, you're the one claiming you were. Considering that calculuations show that even if a black hole with no momentum is created the Earth won't be instantly destroyed (the Sun will do it before the BH), I imagine that someone at CERN or elsewhere woudln't bother mentioning it.
QUOTE
I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence.
You have to counter them with calculations. Calculations assuming your 'it has no momentum' hypothesis don't show the Earth destroyed, you have to counter those calculations with derivation that they don't take enough into account, not just saying "Other things are important" but demonstrating it.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I already have countered them. I'm waiting for someone to explain away their apparent error. So far... silence. |
You have to counter them with calculations. Calculations assuming your 'it has no momentum' hypothesis don't show the Earth destroyed, you have to counter those calculations with derivation that they don't take enough into account, not just saying "Other things are important" but demonstrating it.
Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.
Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.
Nope. CPT is a (and I quote page 64 of Peskin and Schroder An introduction to Quantum field theory) "a perfect symmetry of Nature", it is a result of both melding special relativity with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence.
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
Bluster! Pure bluster! If they had thought of it, they wouldn't have printed their statements to the contrary in the CERN Courier.
Bluster! Pure bluster! If they had thought of it, they wouldn't have printed their statements to the contrary in the CERN Courier.
You have to counter them with calculations. Calculations assuming your 'it has no momentum' hypothesis don't show the Earth destroyed, you have to counter those calculations with derivation that they don't take enough into account, not just saying "Other things are important" but demonstrating it.
No, it is they that must prove their case.
Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again.
Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again.
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
It's obvious black holes can be charged and WIMPs are weakly interacting by their name!
State it as many times as you want, there's still no proof.
Let's hope.
Let's hope.
No, just walking in the street, it's more likely everyone gets killed by lightning tomorrow than by a black hole. If you don't agree with the maths, show your own maths. It's easy to say "You're wrong, I disagree" but if you can't back up your opinion, don't expect anyone to listen to you.
You should talk! You haven't backed up any of your statements.
I've already demonstrated an error... a rather serious one. Why isn't that sufficient to merit a re-examination?
Knowing this error, how can you be so confident that those who performed the calculations are right?
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
QUOTE
A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven.
It's obvious black holes can be charged and WIMPs are weakly interacting by their name!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A bold statement, considereing that neither conditions are proven. |
It's obvious black holes can be charged and WIMPs are weakly interacting by their name!
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
See? You're so shortsighted that you can still only perceive the one event.
As I've already said, so if a trillion are made instead of 10^50 years, it's 10^38 or something.
Do the calculus, the relativistic equations, work out for yourself the time it would take a microblack hole to absorb the Earth taking into account all the conditions you think are important. If you can't do those calculations, how can you be so confident that people who can are wrong?
QUOTE
No, but I wouldn't go around holding a lightening rod in a thunderstorm. Why create risk?
No, just walking in the street, it's more likely everyone gets killed by lightning tomorrow than by a black hole. If you don't agree with the maths, show your own maths. It's easy to say "You're wrong, I disagree" but if you can't back up your opinion, don't expect anyone to listen to you.Do the calculus, the relativistic equations, work out for yourself the time it would take a microblack hole to absorb the Earth taking into account all the conditions you think are important. If you can't do those calculations, how can you be so confident that people who can are wrong?
QUOTE
I'm not denying you might have thought of it independently, but it's not my job to prove you were the first, you're the one claiming you were. Considering that calculuations show that even if a black hole with no momentum is created the Earth won't be instantly destroyed (the Sun will do it before the BH), I imagine that someone at CERN or elsewhere woudln't bother mentioning it.
Bluster! Pure bluster! If they had thought of it, they wouldn't have printed their statements to the contrary in the CERN Courier.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not denying you might have thought of it independently, but it's not my job to prove you were the first, you're the one claiming you were. Considering that calculuations show that even if a black hole with no momentum is created the Earth won't be instantly destroyed (the Sun will do it before the BH), I imagine that someone at CERN or elsewhere woudln't bother mentioning it. |
Bluster! Pure bluster! If they had thought of it, they wouldn't have printed their statements to the contrary in the CERN Courier.
You have to counter them with calculations. Calculations assuming your 'it has no momentum' hypothesis don't show the Earth destroyed, you have to counter those calculations with derivation that they don't take enough into account, not just saying "Other things are important" but demonstrating it.
No, it is they that must prove their case.
QUOTE
Nope. CPT is a (and I quote page 64 of Peskin and Schroder An introduction to Quantum field theory) "a perfect symmetry of Nature", it is a result of both melding special relativity with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence.
Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nope. CPT is a (and I quote page 64 of Peskin and Schroder An introduction to Quantum field theory) "a perfect symmetry of Nature", it is a result of both melding special relativity with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence. |
Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again.
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
It's obvious black holes can be charged and WIMPs are weakly interacting by their name!
State it as many times as you want, there's still no proof.
QUOTE
As I've already said, so if a trillion are made instead of 10^50 years, it's 10^38 or something.
Let's hope.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I've already said, so if a trillion are made instead of 10^50 years, it's 10^38 or something. |
Let's hope.
No, just walking in the street, it's more likely everyone gets killed by lightning tomorrow than by a black hole. If you don't agree with the maths, show your own maths. It's easy to say "You're wrong, I disagree" but if you can't back up your opinion, don't expect anyone to listen to you.
You should talk! You haven't backed up any of your statements.
QUOTE
Do the calculus, the relativistic equations, work out for yourself the time it would take a microblack hole to absorb the Earth taking into account all the conditions you think are important. If you can't do those calculations, how can you be so confident that people who can are wrong?
I've already demonstrated an error... a rather serious one. Why isn't that sufficient to merit a re-examination?
Knowing this error, how can you be so confident that those who performed the calculations are right?
QUOTE
Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again.
Nope, it's (and I quote from page 103 of Weinbergs The theory of quantum fields) "any quantum field theory is expected to respect a symmetry known as CPT" (the proof is given in section 5.8). It wasn't that the SM predicted variance under CPT and had to be altered due to experimental evidence, it's a fact of any quantum field theory and experimental evidence backed that up.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Right. The experimental evidence demonstrated a hole in the standard model and they had to come up with a bunch of crap to make it work again. |
Nope, it's (and I quote from page 103 of Weinbergs The theory of quantum fields) "any quantum field theory is expected to respect a symmetry known as CPT" (the proof is given in section 5.8). It wasn't that the SM predicted variance under CPT and had to be altered due to experimental evidence, it's a fact of any quantum field theory and experimental evidence backed that up.
I've already demonstrated an error... a rather serious one.
I've already demonstrated an error... a rather serious one.
No, you state it exists and claim it is serious. You have not demonstrated it is a problem with anything more than "Because I say so". I've linked to the thread on physicsforums where someone computes the time to absorb material, so I've shown derivation of the enormous time scale (though not my own derivation I admit). I've yet to see any maths from you.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 15 2006, 09:33 PM)
Nope, it's (and I quote from page 103 of Weinbergs The theory of quantum fields) "any quantum field theory is expected to respect a symmetry known as CPT" (the proof is given in section 5.8). It wasn't that the SM predicted variance under CPT and had to be altered due to experimental evidence, it's a fact of any quantum field theory and experimental evidence backed that up.
No, you state it exists and claim it is serious. You have not demonstrated it is a problem with anything more than "Because I say so". I've linked to the thread on physicsforums where someone computes the time to absorb material, so I've shown derivation of the enormous time scale (though not my own derivation I admit). I've yet to see any maths from you.
Pretty neat the way they can print those statements after the fact. Find an older text that predicts it.
I have indeed found a real error. An error that should be professionaly evaluated. I've done my part. It is you that haven't stated anything beyond, "Because I say so." (by your own admission).
No, you state it exists and claim it is serious. You have not demonstrated it is a problem with anything more than "Because I say so". I've linked to the thread on physicsforums where someone computes the time to absorb material, so I've shown derivation of the enormous time scale (though not my own derivation I admit). I've yet to see any maths from you.
Pretty neat the way they can print those statements after the fact. Find an older text that predicts it.
I have indeed found a real error. An error that should be professionaly evaluated. I've done my part. It is you that haven't stated anything beyond, "Because I say so." (by your own admission).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 10:39 PM)
Pretty neat the way they can print those statements after the fact. Find an older text that predicts it.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/11/12/8
John Bell derived the CPT theorem sometime between 1951 and 1954, that predates the Standard Model by more than a decade.
/edit
For those wondering, the discussion is here on physics forums. I've linked to Page 7 because the first reply covers a lot of the problems ubavontuba claims are important.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/11/12/8
John Bell derived the CPT theorem sometime between 1951 and 1954, that predates the Standard Model by more than a decade.
QUOTE
It is you that haven't stated anything beyond, "Because I say so."
Aside from the link to someones computation on physicsforums, no, I've not shown anything. That's still more than you have, which is just state "I have indeed found a real error." without showing or linking to any derivation of a flaw./edit
For those wondering, the discussion is here on physics forums. I've linked to Page 7 because the first reply covers a lot of the problems ubavontuba claims are important.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 16 2006, 12:39 AM)
I have indeed found a real error. An error that should be professionaly evaluated.
Don't worry. Your priceless soul is perfectly safe. MBHs don't eat souls.
Don't worry. Your priceless soul is perfectly safe. MBHs don't eat souls.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:39 PM)
That is a bad reference. Try this one directly from the CERN Courier.
The only reason I was looking up that reference is because you created a thread tied to a news article -- my link is the same press release that resulted in the PhysOrg.com story -- it's illustrative of why news stories and lesser publications like Scientific American are not generally used as first sources by scientists. Cern Courier talks about creating a black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis, if certain theories about space time are true. The 300 million TeV proton was detected by it's particle shower and not by it's black hole properties. Even if a collision of this size does produce black holes, the cosmic ray proves that they are unstable, and Hawking is right.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:39 PM)
Apparently you never read or responded to my response, located here.
I did not respond because I saw no meat, no math. You say I didn't consider, but I did, and I saw nothing to get worried about. Your article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm was highly speculative and not original source, but even if true, it's more evidence in favor of Hawking radiation.
This is not correct. Conservation of angular momentum would cause such a collapsing, rotating body to both implode and explode at the same time. This is the very basis upon which the Hawking radiation hypothesis is founded.
The time of ‘collapsing’ into a black hole is FIRST at the supposed Micro-BH formation. IF that (putative) nano-hole ever did ‘consume’ a large body it would be a long, drawn-out affair and the ‘consuming’ black hole would be so small that it would be EXTREMELY LOCALISED and too small to affect anything at long range (ie the main bulk) at any ONE instant in the ‘consumption’ process. The simultaneously ‘collapsing and exploding’ event is only applicable in (at least) SOLAR MASS+ bodies where there ALREADY EXISTS the outwards ‘degeneracy, heat and light pressure’ INTERNALLY before the core of a massive sun collapses to a black hole. There is nowhere near the internal ‘explosive’ energy pent up in a planet to cause such ‘explosive’ demolition to give such large-scale ‘rubble’ as in the Asteroid Belt; and the (putative) 'growing’ nano-hole would be so small that any such alleged ‘consumption’ of a planet would more likely ‘GRADUALLY SHRINK’ the bulk as it is ‘extremely locally’ consumed ONE ATOM at a time. So no ‘large-scale’ dramatic fireworks like what happens in SOLAR MASS BH formation scenarios.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:39 PM)
And, you apparently have missed my arguments against this supposition.
You mean than you refer to the elementary result that the hypothesized stable 10^-4 fermi black hole will be formed stationary in the laboratory frame and will fall, frictionless through the laboratory at 9.81 m/s^2, capture two electrons, and chew a cylinder 10^-4 fermi ^2 by the earth diameter, only to reverse course and do the same again for all time. Given that it's gravity is vanishing, please calculate at what rate the black hole will consume Earth's mass. I work it out at 3.14 * 10^-38 * 1.28 x 10^7 = 4 x 10^-31 m^3 per semi-orbit -- assuming a density of 8000 kg/m^3, that's about 2 amu per semi-orbit, or a growth in mass by 0.01%. After 10,000 passes, the hypothetical world-killer would have doubled in mass -- about 9 months would have passed, but I put it to you that the black hole would not have grown proportionally in size, since the theory of gravity being used is not GR, but some high-dimensional theory. For example, in GR, a 1 kg black hole has a radius of 1.48x10^-12 fermi. So it would take this quantum dohickey 1.5x10^30 years of linear growth to grow to the size of a GR black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis (4x10^34 amu). That's 1500 billion billion billion years. Assuming CERN can and does make them at a rate of 1 per second and continues to do so for 45000 years, AND the 10-D theory is right and Hawking is completely wrong and these black holes coallese and Earth-bound humanity manages to survive global warming, the oil crisis, and the Asian flu pandemic, and the Sun leaving the main sequence, then in a mere billion billion years, we might begin to have a problem.
You mean than you refer to the elementary result that the hypothesized stable 10^-4 fermi black hole will be formed stationary in the laboratory frame and will fall, frictionless through the laboratory at 9.81 m/s^2, capture two electrons, and chew a cylinder 10^-4 fermi ^2 by the earth diameter, only to reverse course and do the same again for all time. Given that it's gravity is vanishing, please calculate at what rate the black hole will consume Earth's mass. I work it out at 3.14 * 10^-38 * 1.28 x 10^7 = 4 x 10^-31 m^3 per semi-orbit -- assuming a density of 8000 kg/m^3, that's about 2 amu per semi-orbit, or a growth in mass by 0.01%. After 10,000 passes, the hypothetical world-killer would have doubled in mass -- about 9 months would have passed, but I put it to you that the black hole would not have grown proportionally in size, since the theory of gravity being used is not GR, but some high-dimensional theory. For example, in GR, a 1 kg black hole has a radius of 1.48x10^-12 fermi. So it would take this quantum dohickey 1.5x10^30 years of linear growth to grow to the size of a GR black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis (4x10^34 amu). That's 1500 billion billion billion years. Assuming CERN can and does make them at a rate of 1 per second and continues to do so for 45000 years, AND the 10-D theory is right and Hawking is completely wrong and these black holes coallese and Earth-bound humanity manages to survive global warming, the oil crisis, and the Asian flu pandemic, and the Sun leaving the main sequence, then in a mere billion billion years, we might begin to have a problem.
This alarmist stuff is dumb. Particles with higher energy than the collider can make hit the earth all the time. I think the highest level detected was a proton that had the punch of a 90 mph baseball. All that energy packed into one proton was no doubt enough to make a black hole. If M-theory is right and black holes can form at energy levels as low as the LHC capability there is nothing to worry about. Because if they can form at those low levels and didn't evaporate by hawking radiation we'd all be dead by now. A black hole that small isn't around long enough to do any damage.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
This is not correct. Conservation of angular momentum would cause such a collapsing, rotating body to both implode and explode at the same time. This is the very basis upon which the Hawking radiation hypothesis is founded.
The time of ‘collapsing’ into a black hole is FIRST at the supposed Micro-BH formation. IF that (putative) nano-hole ever did ‘consume’ a large body it would be a long, drawn-out affair and the ‘consuming’ black hole would be so small that it would be EXTREMELY LOCALISED and too small to affect anything at long range (ie the main bulk) at any ONE instant in the ‘consumption’ process. The simultaneously ‘collapsing and exploding’ event is only applicable in (at least) SOLAR MASS+ bodies where there ALREADY EXISTS the outwards ‘degeneracy, heat and light pressure’ INTERNALLY before the core of a massive sun collapses to a black hole. There is nowhere near the internal ‘explosive’ energy pent up in a planet to cause such ‘explosive’ demolition to give such large-scale ‘rubble’ as in the Asteroid Belt; and the (putative) 'growing’ nano-hole would be so small that any such alleged ‘consumption’ of a planet would more likely ‘GRADUALLY SHRINK’ the bulk as it is ‘extremely locally’ consumed ONE ATOM at a time. So no ‘large-scale’ dramatic fireworks like what happens in SOLAR MASS BH formation scenarios.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
Again, not necessarily correct. Any micro-blackhole that would remain could be in any number of orbits, or it could easily have been flung away in the collapse. If such a body existed in our solar system, it would be virtually impossible to detect.
A slow enough nano-hole would not be ‘flung away’ (see above). PLUS, if such a nano-hole was formed THEN so as to do what you say to give the asteroid belt, why have they not formed to do the same to ALL the Solar System bodies BOTH THEN AND NOW? Surely given the VAST numbers and time span involved, even you could work out the almost 100% certainty that NO BODIES of any size could ever form because such NATURAL and ABUNDANT nano-holes would ‘(according to you) destroy them to give asteroid belts galore. ‘Zillions’ of such nano holes should be forming and growing NOW, and roaming randomly all over the Solar System. Earth should not be here NOW, in other words. See?
A slow enough nano-hole would not be ‘flung away’ (see above). PLUS, if such a nano-hole was formed THEN so as to do what you say to give the asteroid belt, why have they not formed to do the same to ALL the Solar System bodies BOTH THEN AND NOW? Surely given the VAST numbers and time span involved, even you could work out the almost 100% certainty that NO BODIES of any size could ever form because such NATURAL and ABUNDANT nano-holes would ‘(according to you) destroy them to give asteroid belts galore. ‘Zillions’ of such nano holes should be forming and growing NOW, and roaming randomly all over the Solar System. Earth should not be here NOW, in other words. See?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
Right. I was just merely pointing out that your argument concerning "SYMMETRIC MOMENTUM events" had no sound footing.
Now, in view of the above, you may see that the “symmetric momentum events” argument DOES have VERY sound and self-evident ‘footing’’. For you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the putative nano-holes are fast enough to be ‘ejected’, they they are not slow enough to cause your asteroid belt rubble. See?
Now, in view of the above, you may see that the “symmetric momentum events” argument DOES have VERY sound and self-evident ‘footing’’. For you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the putative nano-holes are fast enough to be ‘ejected’, they they are not slow enough to cause your asteroid belt rubble. See?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
You show me a statistical analysis that proves your argument first (after all, it is your argument, not mine).
I appeal to your intellect in recognising ‘prima facia’ the astronomical numbers and instants involved which would be EVEN THIS SECOND producing innumerable SLOW cosmic-Ray-to-Cosmic-Ray (putative) nano-holes all over and around us and every body in our solar system. Nature is vastly more capable that a few scientists at Cern....and in view of the astronomical odds involved, if it COULD happen, it would happen NOW as OFTEN as it (putatively) would have been happening over the PAST billions of years.
I appeal to your intellect in recognising ‘prima facia’ the astronomical numbers and instants involved which would be EVEN THIS SECOND producing innumerable SLOW cosmic-Ray-to-Cosmic-Ray (putative) nano-holes all over and around us and every body in our solar system. Nature is vastly more capable that a few scientists at Cern....and in view of the astronomical odds involved, if it COULD happen, it would happen NOW as OFTEN as it (putatively) would have been happening over the PAST billions of years.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
What support have you offered for your arguments beyond the same type of speculative statements you are accusing me of using? It's YOUR argument. Back it up!
Your arguments are based on speculation that (1) nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. (as distinct from those larger types from solar-mass collapses); (2) that Cern CAN make them and; (3) that NATURE CANNOT produce same in abundance if it were possible to form nano-holes AT ALL. Any reasonable person need NOT worry about PROVING ANYTHING to your satisfaction, because NATURE and OBSERVATION has proved it already by the sheer probabilities involved which would have PREVENTED our solar system from being here in the first place. Since my arguments are based on observed nature and probabilities and yours are based on speculation, I think we know whose arguments are speculative and whose are reasonable.
Your arguments are based on speculation that (1) nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. (as distinct from those larger types from solar-mass collapses); (2) that Cern CAN make them and; (3) that NATURE CANNOT produce same in abundance if it were possible to form nano-holes AT ALL. Any reasonable person need NOT worry about PROVING ANYTHING to your satisfaction, because NATURE and OBSERVATION has proved it already by the sheer probabilities involved which would have PREVENTED our solar system from being here in the first place. Since my arguments are based on observed nature and probabilities and yours are based on speculation, I think we know whose arguments are speculative and whose are reasonable.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
Wrong. I've said many times that I feel we're probably safe. I would even doubt the possibility of the formation of nanoblackholes if it wasn't for the fact that it's been reported that one may have already been detected in the RHIC. My stance is that it's up to CERN to prove a level of safety beyond their currently flawed arguments.
Don’t believe everything you read. As you yourself say, Scientists don’t know everything. Your own speculative fears are based on others’ speculative musings. Stop ‘picking and choosing’ others’ comments and make a few observations/calculations of your own using the observed probabilities and phenomena we DO know about....and THEN reconsider whether your fears would not have been realised NATURALLY and , long, long, long ago all over the universe to the point that no ‘ordinary’ phenomena/matter would persist at all into the present states we observe them in.
Don’t believe everything you read. As you yourself say, Scientists don’t know everything. Your own speculative fears are based on others’ speculative musings. Stop ‘picking and choosing’ others’ comments and make a few observations/calculations of your own using the observed probabilities and phenomena we DO know about....and THEN reconsider whether your fears would not have been realised NATURALLY and , long, long, long ago all over the universe to the point that no ‘ordinary’ phenomena/matter would persist at all into the present states we observe them in.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
I see what your saying, but I find your argument to be incorrect. However, the necessary argument against it is rather long. To put it as succinctly as I can: No crystalline material can react to such a relativistic collision with the speed you imply. The atomic nucleus that is hit is way too far away from it's neighbour to cause a reaction in the time that the nanoblackhole would form. This collision would cause a bit of parton radiation and the nanoblackhole would proceed onward, unimpeded. Any slowing effect would be quite minimal. If the crystal could absorb the impact energy as you describe, then again there wouldn't be enough energy at the point of collision to cause the nanoblackhole to form to begin with. Affecting all those atoms in unison takes a LOT of energy. If it doesn't come from the kinetic energy of the collision, where does it come from?
There is no need for ‘reaction’ time. The electro-magnetic forces involved in the bonds which lock the ‘target atom’ in place ARE ALREADY THERE AND ACTING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It is not the atom to atom contact that is necessary, but the electro-magnetic BONDS-MATRIX that is already present and acting THROUGH the ‘target atom’ at moment of impact; and which themselves act at the speed of light (as opposed to the speed of ‘sound’ which would be the rate of atom-to-atom contact/movement rates). Any further ‘absorption’ of momentum-energy by the crystal lattice would only take away from what was not bled off into the(putative) resulting nano-hole mass/energy....all of which supports my contention that nano-holes do NOT form via collisions between ordinary matter....but only under ‘gravity-constrained’ conditions such as occur in existing massive-body situations (stars +).
There is no need for ‘reaction’ time. The electro-magnetic forces involved in the bonds which lock the ‘target atom’ in place ARE ALREADY THERE AND ACTING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It is not the atom to atom contact that is necessary, but the electro-magnetic BONDS-MATRIX that is already present and acting THROUGH the ‘target atom’ at moment of impact; and which themselves act at the speed of light (as opposed to the speed of ‘sound’ which would be the rate of atom-to-atom contact/movement rates). Any further ‘absorption’ of momentum-energy by the crystal lattice would only take away from what was not bled off into the(putative) resulting nano-hole mass/energy....all of which supports my contention that nano-holes do NOT form via collisions between ordinary matter....but only under ‘gravity-constrained’ conditions such as occur in existing massive-body situations (stars +).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
First of all, they HAVE recently discovered "dark matter galaxies" where little apparent normal matter exists (no stars at all!). I suspect that what saves our (and similar) galaxies is my favourite conservation laws. The highly relative velocities of naturally occurring cosmic ray collision events would send thusly formed dark matter particles outward (to form the proposed galactic "dark matter halo"), or inward (into the central core black hole).
More speculation-upon-speculation. If there are “no stars at all”, then the area may be a ‘naked’ galactic CORE BLACK HOLE stripped of its stars by a more massive galaxy/black hole core. At the distances involved, such observations are open to much speculation as to nature and cause. And anyway, if ONE such dark-matter galaxy can exist, why are they NOT THE NORM? After all, that dark matter is what is supposed to ‘gather (via gravitational interaction only) all the ‘ordinary matter into a galactic agglomeration. Such speculative arguments as yours in this “dark matter galaxy” to support your contentions elsewhere are even more unfounded.
More speculation-upon-speculation. If there are “no stars at all”, then the area may be a ‘naked’ galactic CORE BLACK HOLE stripped of its stars by a more massive galaxy/black hole core. At the distances involved, such observations are open to much speculation as to nature and cause. And anyway, if ONE such dark-matter galaxy can exist, why are they NOT THE NORM? After all, that dark matter is what is supposed to ‘gather (via gravitational interaction only) all the ‘ordinary matter into a galactic agglomeration. Such speculative arguments as yours in this “dark matter galaxy” to support your contentions elsewhere are even more unfounded.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
I disagree. Again, I feel it isn't at all likely that naturally occurring nanoblackholes would hang around. I think it might be a grave mistake to assume otherwise.
If Cern can muster the energy/conditions to produce these (putative) nano-holes, then I am just as sure that NATURE has done it vastly better before, and vastly more often per volume of space. The energy densities and flows in nature are such that any nanoholes (even relativistic ones) would be STOPPED by the larger densities and gravities of WHITE DWARF and NEUTRON STARS. According to your fears, even a ‘fast’ nano-hole should destroy each and every such WHITE DWARF/NEUTRON STAR practically as soon as they are formed.
If Cern can muster the energy/conditions to produce these (putative) nano-holes, then I am just as sure that NATURE has done it vastly better before, and vastly more often per volume of space. The energy densities and flows in nature are such that any nanoholes (even relativistic ones) would be STOPPED by the larger densities and gravities of WHITE DWARF and NEUTRON STARS. According to your fears, even a ‘fast’ nano-hole should destroy each and every such WHITE DWARF/NEUTRON STAR practically as soon as they are formed.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
Actually, I feel that man has the ability to hasten the end of our world, or save it from certain naturally occurring disaster scenarios. Why are you such a fatalist?
Fatalist? One gets up every morning and subconsciously and automatically computes the probability that one will be going to bed that night, and in the vast majority of cases people ‘optimistically’ dismiss/ignore all the possible things that MAY happen, and get on with life.....otherwise one would not get up in the morning at all! One must function in the real world. One does one’s best and leaves the rest to chance and curious navigation of that real world. There comes a point where one must risk in order to make life meaningful and progressive. After all, what is ‘MAN’ if he isn’t motivated to risk and learn? He would still be hiding, living and dying like something evolved to exist forever ‘SAFE’ (as that can be) in the darkest cave. And who knows?....unlikely as it may be, the LHC experiments might provide some unexpected and serendipitous scrap of knowledge that may lead to the possibility of the human species being able to survive OFFWORLD and in the greater universe...which in that case may help SAVE the human species from extinction rather than extinguishing it? Just as plausible as your own speculations, no?
Fatalist? One gets up every morning and subconsciously and automatically computes the probability that one will be going to bed that night, and in the vast majority of cases people ‘optimistically’ dismiss/ignore all the possible things that MAY happen, and get on with life.....otherwise one would not get up in the morning at all! One must function in the real world. One does one’s best and leaves the rest to chance and curious navigation of that real world. There comes a point where one must risk in order to make life meaningful and progressive. After all, what is ‘MAN’ if he isn’t motivated to risk and learn? He would still be hiding, living and dying like something evolved to exist forever ‘SAFE’ (as that can be) in the darkest cave. And who knows?....unlikely as it may be, the LHC experiments might provide some unexpected and serendipitous scrap of knowledge that may lead to the possibility of the human species being able to survive OFFWORLD and in the greater universe...which in that case may help SAVE the human species from extinction rather than extinguishing it? Just as plausible as your own speculations, no?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jul 15 2006, 08:18 AM)
How about turning their attentions to more immediately useful tasks, like development of near space and planetary exploration? Or how about having them work on the development of better medical devices?
The training that these physicists have had will not be so easily transferred to those other fields without massive retraining costs. But I do agree, they could be spending the money in other ways. However, given the source of funds and national borders/pride involved, it would take forever to get them ALL working in the areas you mentioned. in the meantime, “loose cannons” would be employed in the ‘military’ etc. And the money invested so far is so huge that the ‘funding momentum’ has its own ‘argument’ for continuing the present LHC project. I wouldn’t have started it in the first place. Just as I would not have started that ITER fusion experiment/project. The cost is out of all proportions to any likely PRACTICAL ‘net-energy’ power plant. But again, there are OTHER reasons for doing things which have nothing to do with the ostensible reasons. A REAL ‘new world order’ will have to be in place for us to control the MASS employment of so many people in alternative areas. I just hope we survive long enough (in the face of other than Cern dangers, hehehe) so that your and my vision of ‘better-employed’ scientists can become doable worldwide.
Cheers, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
The training that these physicists have had will not be so easily transferred to those other fields without massive retraining costs. But I do agree, they could be spending the money in other ways. However, given the source of funds and national borders/pride involved, it would take forever to get them ALL working in the areas you mentioned. in the meantime, “loose cannons” would be employed in the ‘military’ etc. And the money invested so far is so huge that the ‘funding momentum’ has its own ‘argument’ for continuing the present LHC project. I wouldn’t have started it in the first place. Just as I would not have started that ITER fusion experiment/project. The cost is out of all proportions to any likely PRACTICAL ‘net-energy’ power plant. But again, there are OTHER reasons for doing things which have nothing to do with the ostensible reasons. A REAL ‘new world order’ will have to be in place for us to control the MASS employment of so many people in alternative areas. I just hope we survive long enough (in the face of other than Cern dangers, hehehe) so that your and my vision of ‘better-employed’ scientists can become doable worldwide.
Cheers, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Jul 15 2006, 09:48 PM )
John Bell derived the CPT theorem sometime between 1951 and 1954, that predates the Standard Model by more than a decade.
Oh, I get it. You are confusing the CPT theorem with the CP/T violation in cosmology.
From your article:
Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.
I liked this section:
Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.
I liked this section:
There is, however, one glaring problem with the outcome. Although CP violation is still thought to be a key ingredient in the explanation of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, the amount of CP violation in the Standard Model is insufficient to account for all of it. And not just by a factor of two or three but by several orders of magnitude.
Oh, I get it. You are confusing the CPT theorem with the CP/T violation in cosmology.
From your article:
QUOTE
The CPT theorem states that the combined operation of charge conjugation (in which a particle is replaced by its antiparticle), parity reversal (reflection in a mirror) and time reversal is a symmetry operation that leaves the system unchanged. This is a fundamental theorem which proves, for example, that particles and antiparticles must have equal masses.
Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.
I liked this section:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The CPT theorem states that the combined operation of charge conjugation (in which a particle is replaced by its antiparticle), parity reversal (reflection in a mirror) and time reversal is a symmetry operation that leaves the system unchanged. This is a fundamental theorem which proves, for example, that particles and antiparticles must have equal masses. |
Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.
I liked this section:
There is, however, one glaring problem with the outcome. Although CP violation is still thought to be a key ingredient in the explanation of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, the amount of CP violation in the Standard Model is insufficient to account for all of it. And not just by a factor of two or three but by several orders of magnitude.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Aside from the link to someones computation on physicsforums, no, I've not shown anything. That's still more than you have, which is just state "I have indeed found a real error." without showing or linking to any derivation of a flaw.
Oh I calculated it alrighty. I believe I presented those calculations somewhere on this site. Look around. In any case, it's easy to calculate for yourself. Just figure a given particle (proton) striking the earth at relativistic speed and subsequently forming a nanoblackhole (NBH). To make it easy, figure the NBH mass continues to strike (and accumulate) similar mass particles on it's journey through the earth. The first strike (forming the NBH), halves it's relative momentum. It takes two more to do the same, and four more and then eight more...
The goal is to determine how much mass it must accumulate to fall below escape velocity. Next, average the speed of its journey through the earth and then determine how quickly it all must occur. You then have the rate of absorption.
What you find out is... that's it's impossible in the context of the CERN argument. If they did form as they strike the earth, they must grow very quickly and exponentially in order to achieve earthbound retention. Considering this growth rate (supposing it continues exponentially) you'll find it must eat the whole earth in relatively short order!
Even playing around with it by assuming losses to parton distribution and such leaves you with a ridiculous result. Worse, considering the small size of the NBH compared with an average particle and assuming it could possibly absorb a whole particle as it strikes it at magnificent speeds is just ridiculous. Therefore, the whole CERN argument is ridiculously flawed from beginning to end!
Therefore if they form (assuming Hawking radiation is invalid), they must: A. Pass harmlessly through the earth without accumulating much of anything (as I assert). Or B. They would necessarily grow so fast as to eat planets so quickly that no ordinary matter could exist! (as CERN would have it). Which do you think is the correct answer?
Have fun!
Oh I calculated it alrighty. I believe I presented those calculations somewhere on this site. Look around. In any case, it's easy to calculate for yourself. Just figure a given particle (proton) striking the earth at relativistic speed and subsequently forming a nanoblackhole (NBH). To make it easy, figure the NBH mass continues to strike (and accumulate) similar mass particles on it's journey through the earth. The first strike (forming the NBH), halves it's relative momentum. It takes two more to do the same, and four more and then eight more...
The goal is to determine how much mass it must accumulate to fall below escape velocity. Next, average the speed of its journey through the earth and then determine how quickly it all must occur. You then have the rate of absorption.
What you find out is... that's it's impossible in the context of the CERN argument. If they did form as they strike the earth, they must grow very quickly and exponentially in order to achieve earthbound retention. Considering this growth rate (supposing it continues exponentially) you'll find it must eat the whole earth in relatively short order!
Even playing around with it by assuming losses to parton distribution and such leaves you with a ridiculous result. Worse, considering the small size of the NBH compared with an average particle and assuming it could possibly absorb a whole particle as it strikes it at magnificent speeds is just ridiculous. Therefore, the whole CERN argument is ridiculously flawed from beginning to end!
Therefore if they form (assuming Hawking radiation is invalid), they must: A. Pass harmlessly through the earth without accumulating much of anything (as I assert). Or B. They would necessarily grow so fast as to eat planets so quickly that no ordinary matter could exist! (as CERN would have it). Which do you think is the correct answer?
Have fun!
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jul 15 2006, 10:00 PM)
Don't worry. Your priceless soul is perfectly safe. MBHs don't eat souls.
I don't know about that! Blackhole properties are strikingly similar to the lake of fire described in the Bible.
I don't know about that! Blackhole properties are strikingly similar to the lake of fire described in the Bible.
QUOTE (rpenner+ Jul 15 2006, 10:28 PM)
The only reason I was looking up that reference is because you created a thread tied to a news article -- my link is the same press release that resulted in the PhysOrg.com story -- it's illustrative of why news stories and lesser publications like Scientific American are not generally used as first sources by scientists. Cern Courier talks about creating a black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis, if certain theories about space time are true. The 300 million TeV proton was detected by it's particle shower and not by it's black hole properties. Even if a collision of this size does produce black holes, the cosmic ray proves that they are unstable, and Hawking is right.
How does the cosmic ray prove that they are unstable?
It's not clear in that article that the suspected NBH dissolved before leaving the detector. If you don't like the article, find a better source. It's easy to do, just google.
It's not clear in that article that the suspected NBH dissolved before leaving the detector. If you don't like the article, find a better source. It's easy to do, just google.
You mean than you refer to the elementary result that the hypothesized stable 10^-4 fermi black hole will be formed stationary in the laboratory frame and will fall, frictionless through the laboratory at 9.81 m/s^2, capture two electrons, and chew a cylinder 10^-4 fermi ^2 by the earth diameter, only to reverse course and do the same again for all time. Given that it's gravity is vanishing, please calculate at what rate the black hole will consume Earth's mass. I work it out at 3.14 * 10^-38 * 1.28 x 10^7 = 4 x 10^-31 m^3 per semi-orbit -- assuming a density of 8000 kg/m^3, that's about 2 amu per semi-orbit, or a growth in mass by 0.01%. After 10,000 passes, the hypothetical world-killer would have doubled in mass -- about 9 months would have passed, but I put it to you that the black hole would not have grown proportionally in size, since the theory of gravity being used is not GR, but some high-dimensional theory. For example, in GR, a 1 kg black hole has a radius of 1.48x10^-12 fermi. So it would take this quantum dohickey 1.5x10^30 years of linear growth to grow to the size of a GR black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis (4x10^34 amu). That's 1500 billion billion billion years. Assuming CERN can and does make them at a rate of 1 per second and continues to do so for 45000 years, AND the 10-D theory is right and Hawking is completely wrong and these black holes coallese and Earth-bound humanity manages to survive global warming, the oil crisis, and the Asian flu pandemic, and the Sun leaving the main sequence, then in a mere billion billion years, we might begin to have a problem.
Very funny. I like your humor (I mean that).
Anyway, just how much of the earth do you think it needs to eat before we get into trouble? Apparently, all of it? This is far from the case.
In truth, it might never eat all of it. Conservation of angular momentum might see to that. It only needs to eat a small percentage. First enough to slow down to where it hangs around the core, then enough to create a cavity from which material can collapse into. As it collapses, it force feeds the NBH and in short order, the inner core collapses into the BH and the mantel explodes outward (a result of the conservation of angular momentum). This is of course dependent on how much angular momentum the BH attains which in turn is dependent on its orbital path and other variables. Also, lot's of them eating away at the core will exacerbate this effect.
Why not just look at it from an unbiased position (like a real scientist) and consider the possibility that there may indeed be more to it than has been previously presumed.
How does the cosmic ray prove that they are unstable?
QUOTE
I did not respond because I saw no meat, no math. You say I didn't consider, but I did, and I saw nothing to get worried about. Your article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm was highly speculative and not original source, but even if true, it's more evidence in favor of Hawking radiation.
It's not clear in that article that the suspected NBH dissolved before leaving the detector. If you don't like the article, find a better source. It's easy to do, just google.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I did not respond because I saw no meat, no math. You say I didn't consider, but I did, and I saw nothing to get worried about. Your article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm was highly speculative and not original source, but even if true, it's more evidence in favor of Hawking radiation. |
It's not clear in that article that the suspected NBH dissolved before leaving the detector. If you don't like the article, find a better source. It's easy to do, just google.
You mean than you refer to the elementary result that the hypothesized stable 10^-4 fermi black hole will be formed stationary in the laboratory frame and will fall, frictionless through the laboratory at 9.81 m/s^2, capture two electrons, and chew a cylinder 10^-4 fermi ^2 by the earth diameter, only to reverse course and do the same again for all time. Given that it's gravity is vanishing, please calculate at what rate the black hole will consume Earth's mass. I work it out at 3.14 * 10^-38 * 1.28 x 10^7 = 4 x 10^-31 m^3 per semi-orbit -- assuming a density of 8000 kg/m^3, that's about 2 amu per semi-orbit, or a growth in mass by 0.01%. After 10,000 passes, the hypothetical world-killer would have doubled in mass -- about 9 months would have passed, but I put it to you that the black hole would not have grown proportionally in size, since the theory of gravity being used is not GR, but some high-dimensional theory. For example, in GR, a 1 kg black hole has a radius of 1.48x10^-12 fermi. So it would take this quantum dohickey 1.5x10^30 years of linear growth to grow to the size of a GR black hole with a radius of 10^-4 fermis (4x10^34 amu). That's 1500 billion billion billion years. Assuming CERN can and does make them at a rate of 1 per second and continues to do so for 45000 years, AND the 10-D theory is right and Hawking is completely wrong and these black holes coallese and Earth-bound humanity manages to survive global warming, the oil crisis, and the Asian flu pandemic, and the Sun leaving the main sequence, then in a mere billion billion years, we might begin to have a problem.
Very funny. I like your humor (I mean that).
Anyway, just how much of the earth do you think it needs to eat before we get into trouble? Apparently, all of it? This is far from the case.
In truth, it might never eat all of it. Conservation of angular momentum might see to that. It only needs to eat a small percentage. First enough to slow down to where it hangs around the core, then enough to create a cavity from which material can collapse into. As it collapses, it force feeds the NBH and in short order, the inner core collapses into the BH and the mantel explodes outward (a result of the conservation of angular momentum). This is of course dependent on how much angular momentum the BH attains which in turn is dependent on its orbital path and other variables. Also, lot's of them eating away at the core will exacerbate this effect.
Why not just look at it from an unbiased position (like a real scientist) and consider the possibility that there may indeed be more to it than has been previously presumed.
[QUOTE=ubavontuba,Jul 17 2006, 03:25 AM] Oh, I get it. You are confusing the CPT theorem with the CP/T violation in cosmology. [/QUOTE]
I said it was CP violation, and you said
[quote]Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.[/quote]
You claimed it was CPT. I infact specifically quoted from a book saying that the violation was CP and T.
[quote]Myself :
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
[/quote]
So infact it was yourself who didn't get it right and named the wrong symmetry being violated.
[quote]Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.[/quote]
My article? How is it mine? I've nothing to do with that and never seen it before. There's no mention of CPT violation in that article either.
[quote]Oh I calculated it alrighty. I believe I presented those calculations somewhere on this site. Look around. In any case, it's easy to calculate for yourself. Just figure a given particle (proton) striking the earth at relativistic speed and subsequently forming a nanoblackhole (NBH). To make it easy, figure the NBH mass continues to strike (and accumulate) similar mass particles on it's journey through the earth. The first strike (forming the NBH), halves it's relative momentum. It takes two more to do the same, and four more and then eight more...[/quote]
I'm not going to go trawling through this site looking for something you've claimed to post. If you've posted it, link to it.
Immediately I see a problem with your calculations. You cannot say that colliding with another particle will definitely halve it's momentum, it depends on the momentum of both particles, which is something you don't know about the second one. You also assume that it absorbs multiple particles on the way down, which isn't true, it interacts less than almost any other particle, perhaps even a neutrino, even if you do consider increased pressure and density towards the Earth's core.
[quote]The goal is to determine how much mass it must accumulate to fall below escape velocity. [\quote]If it's formed with zero momentum, enough for the Earth's gravity to drag it downwards, then it'll not acheive escape velocity even if it's not absorbing anything, because by conservation of energy, it'll be at zero speed when it comes out the other end of the Earth, and then fall back again.
[quote] If they did form as they strike the earth, they must grow very quickly and exponentially in order to achieve earthbound retention. Considering this growth rate (supposing it continues exponentially) you'll find it must eat the whole earth in relatively short order![/quote]
They don't have to grow very quickly. They would have a mass of about 10^-24kg, they are only going to absorb things if they have a practical headon collision and since they are smaller than protons by many orders of magnitude, that's extremely unlikely.
[quote]Worse, considering the small size of the NBH compared with an average particle and assuming it could possibly absorb a whole particle as it strikes it at magnificent speeds is just ridiculous.[/quote]
Exactly, they were working with worst case scenarios. An object a millionth the size of a proton isn't going to absorb an entire Iron nucleus, over 100 times the size of a proton, the NBH would pass through and maybe absorb a single quark or gluon. Hence, the predictions which involve it eating entire nuclei actually vastly overestimate the absorbtion rate, making the time to destroy the Earth much smaller than it really would be.
[quote] Therefore, the whole CERN argument is ridiculously flawed from beginning to end![/quote]
Because they were conservative about their estimates. Your logic for "it halves it's momentum" is terribly flawed too, only flawed towards decreasing the time the Earth would last. You're being overly pessemistic.
/edit The quote thing seems to not be working
I said it was CP violation, and you said
[quote]Actually, it's now the CPT violation, and it wasn't predicted.[/quote]
You claimed it was CPT. I infact specifically quoted from a book saying that the violation was CP and T.
[quote]Myself :
Rare processes, such as those involving neutral K mesons violate CP and T.
[/quote]
So infact it was yourself who didn't get it right and named the wrong symmetry being violated.
[quote]Here's a reference from your source about the CP/CPT violation.[/quote]
My article? How is it mine? I've nothing to do with that and never seen it before. There's no mention of CPT violation in that article either.
[quote]Oh I calculated it alrighty. I believe I presented those calculations somewhere on this site. Look around. In any case, it's easy to calculate for yourself. Just figure a given particle (proton) striking the earth at relativistic speed and subsequently forming a nanoblackhole (NBH). To make it easy, figure the NBH mass continues to strike (and accumulate) similar mass particles on it's journey through the earth. The first strike (forming the NBH), halves it's relative momentum. It takes two more to do the same, and four more and then eight more...[/quote]
I'm not going to go trawling through this site looking for something you've claimed to post. If you've posted it, link to it.
Immediately I see a problem with your calculations. You cannot say that colliding with another particle will definitely halve it's momentum, it depends on the momentum of both particles, which is something you don't know about the second one. You also assume that it absorbs multiple particles on the way down, which isn't true, it interacts less than almost any other particle, perhaps even a neutrino, even if you do consider increased pressure and density towards the Earth's core.
[quote]The goal is to determine how much mass it must accumulate to fall below escape velocity. [\quote]If it's formed with zero momentum, enough for the Earth's gravity to drag it downwards, then it'll not acheive escape velocity even if it's not absorbing anything, because by conservation of energy, it'll be at zero speed when it comes out the other end of the Earth, and then fall back again.
[quote] If they did form as they strike the earth, they must grow very quickly and exponentially in order to achieve earthbound retention. Considering this growth rate (supposing it continues exponentially) you'll find it must eat the whole earth in relatively short order![/quote]
They don't have to grow very quickly. They would have a mass of about 10^-24kg, they are only going to absorb things if they have a practical headon collision and since they are smaller than protons by many orders of magnitude, that's extremely unlikely.
[quote]Worse, considering the small size of the NBH compared with an average particle and assuming it could possibly absorb a whole particle as it strikes it at magnificent speeds is just ridiculous.[/quote]
Exactly, they were working with worst case scenarios. An object a millionth the size of a proton isn't going to absorb an entire Iron nucleus, over 100 times the size of a proton, the NBH would pass through and maybe absorb a single quark or gluon. Hence, the predictions which involve it eating entire nuclei actually vastly overestimate the absorbtion rate, making the time to destroy the Earth much smaller than it really would be.
[quote] Therefore, the whole CERN argument is ridiculously flawed from beginning to end![/quote]
Because they were conservative about their estimates. Your logic for "it halves it's momentum" is terribly flawed too, only flawed towards decreasing the time the Earth would last. You're being overly pessemistic.
/edit The quote thing seems to not be working
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ Yesterday at 1:00 AM)
The time of ‘collapsing’ into a black hole is FIRST at the supposed Micro-BH formation. IF that (putative) nano-hole ever did ‘consume’ a large body it would be a long, drawn-out affair and the ‘consuming’ black hole would be so small that it would be EXTREMELY LOCALISED and too small to affect anything at long range (ie the main bulk) at any ONE instant in the ‘consumption’ process. The simultaneously ‘collapsing and exploding’ event is only applicable in (at least) SOLAR MASS+ bodies where there ALREADY EXISTS the outwards ‘degeneracy, heat and light pressure’ INTERNALLY before the core of a massive sun collapses to a black hole. There is nowhere near the internal ‘explosive’ energy pent up in a planet to cause such ‘explosive’ demolition to give such large-scale ‘rubble’ as in the Asteroid Belt; and the (putative) 'growing’ nano-hole would be so small that any such alleged ‘consumption’ of a planet would more likely ‘GRADUALLY SHRINK’ the bulk as it is ‘extremely locally’ consumed ONE ATOM at a time. So no ‘large-scale’ dramatic fireworks like what happens in SOLAR MASS BH formation scenarios.
Again, you are assuming too much. How much angular momentum the NBH attains is dependent on its orbital path around the core (and other variables).
Not true (more below).
Not true (more below).
Now, in view of the above, you may see that the “symmetric momentum events” argument DOES have VERY sound and self-evident ‘footing’’. For you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the putative nano-holes are fast enough to be ‘ejected’, they they are not slow enough to cause your asteroid belt rubble. See?
The ejection would be caused by an uneven crumbling of the mantel. It'd work very much like a flywheel breaking in two.
First, thanks for suggesting I have an intellect. And I do concede (often) that we are probably safe. I'd just like this issue explored more thoroughly.
Anyway, I performed a little word smithing and I think I've come up with a pretty decent lay representation of your "symmetric momentum events" model and why I feel you are in error. Here goes:
In order for a high-energy cosmic ray collision to exhibit symmetric momentum to an arbitrary observer, certain conditions must be met.
1. The angle of attack of the two colliding bodies must be extremely precise. That is, that it must be a virtually dead-on collision without angular variance, as angular varaince will allow for a new combined mass trajectory/momentum to be created, relative to our observer.
2. The relative momentums of the two masses must be equal and opposite to the observer at the location of the collision, and they must sum to zero at the observer's location at the time of the collision in 3D space plus time (the observer need not be stationary).
Taking the first tenet, we can imagine the two cosmic ray particles hitting dead on quite easily. More difficult, is to imagine the probability of this happening in any arbitrary location. Let's assume that two cosmic rays are indeed destined to collide at a given location. What are the possibilities that they will meet dead-on versus any other angle. Amazingly, the odds are billions to one. This is because there are litterally billions of directions (vectors) that the two particles can be traversing, in order to reach our impact point which result in a continuing, combined momentum trajectory that exceeds escape velocity. To put it more preciscely, the higher the energy of the collision, the more precise the angle of the trajectories must be in order to cause a relative dead stop. At relativistic velocities, almost any variance (regardless of how small) would result in speedy continued motion.
So now, let's agree that two particles at least meet head-on. Do they stop? What are the odds that they stop? In order for them to stop in any arbitrary location, their relative momentums must be extremely precise. Any variance in mass or speed of either body will cause them to have continued momentum in one direction or the other.
We can easily imagine two like bodies traveling in equal and opposite directions with equal and opposite relative momentums, but how many other possibilities are there? The answer of course is billions... virtually infinite variations.
Now, let's add time. We agree that the collision occurs precisely in a given location, but when does it occur? What are the possibilities? If the universe is 13 billion years old, that means that the odds of a particular collision happening in a given location in a whole years time, are 13 billion to one! Imagine the odds of it occuring in a given minute, or even a given second!
So, let's add our observer. He's on a planet, orbiting a sun, orbiting a galactic center, orbiting a super cluster, and so on.
We now know that the odds of any particular relativistic particle collision causing symmetric momentum with him happening in any given point and time in space is quite small indeed. The only question needing to be answered then is how often these occurences happen. This is of course dependent on how many cosmic ray particles there are whizzing about. It's a lot, but even so they are so small that the odds of one hitting another in any given location is very, very small... indeed.
First, thanks for suggesting I have an intellect. And I do concede (often) that we are probably safe. I'd just like this issue explored more thoroughly.
Anyway, I performed a little word smithing and I think I've come up with a pretty decent lay representation of your "symmetric momentum events" model and why I feel you are in error. Here goes:
In order for a high-energy cosmic ray collision to exhibit symmetric momentum to an arbitrary observer, certain conditions must be met.
1. The angle of attack of the two colliding bodies must be extremely precise. That is, that it must be a virtually dead-on collision without angular variance, as angular varaince will allow for a new combined mass trajectory/momentum to be created, relative to our observer.
2. The relative momentums of the two masses must be equal and opposite to the observer at the location of the collision, and they must sum to zero at the observer's location at the time of the collision in 3D space plus time (the observer need not be stationary).
Taking the first tenet, we can imagine the two cosmic ray particles hitting dead on quite easily. More difficult, is to imagine the probability of this happening in any arbitrary location. Let's assume that two cosmic rays are indeed destined to collide at a given location. What are the possibilities that they will meet dead-on versus any other angle. Amazingly, the odds are billions to one. This is because there are litterally billions of directions (vectors) that the two particles can be traversing, in order to reach our impact point which result in a continuing, combined momentum trajectory that exceeds escape velocity. To put it more preciscely, the higher the energy of the collision, the more precise the angle of the trajectories must be in order to cause a relative dead stop. At relativistic velocities, almost any variance (regardless of how small) would result in speedy continued motion.
So now, let's agree that two particles at least meet head-on. Do they stop? What are the odds that they stop? In order for them to stop in any arbitrary location, their relative momentums must be extremely precise. Any variance in mass or speed of either body will cause them to have continued momentum in one direction or the other.
We can easily imagine two like bodies traveling in equal and opposite directions with equal and opposite relative momentums, but how many other possibilities are there? The answer of course is billions... virtually infinite variations.
Now, let's add time. We agree that the collision occurs precisely in a given location, but when does it occur? What are the possibilities? If the universe is 13 billion years old, that means that the odds of a particular collision happening in a given location in a whole years time, are 13 billion to one! Imagine the odds of it occuring in a given minute, or even a given second!
So, let's add our observer. He's on a planet, orbiting a sun, orbiting a galactic center, orbiting a super cluster, and so on.
We now know that the odds of any particular relativistic particle collision causing symmetric momentum with him happening in any given point and time in space is quite small indeed. The only question needing to be answered then is how often these occurences happen. This is of course dependent on how many cosmic ray particles there are whizzing about. It's a lot, but even so they are so small that the odds of one hitting another in any given location is very, very small... indeed.
Your arguments are based on speculation that (1) nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. (as distinct from those larger types from solar-mass collapses); (2) that Cern CAN make them and; (3) that NATURE CANNOT produce same in abundance if it were possible to form nano-holes AT ALL. Any reasonable person need NOT worry about PROVING ANYTHING to your satisfaction, because NATURE and OBSERVATION has proved it already by the sheer probabilities involved which would have PREVENTED our solar system from being here in the first place. Since my arguments are based on observed nature and probabilities and yours are based on speculation, I think we know whose arguments are speculative and whose are reasonable.
Ah, but since yours ignore the conservation of momentum laws, the observed dark matter galaxies, the observed dark matter halos, the observed incident at the RHIC, the observation that no other planet is known to have an LHC, and common sense, I feel that yours are at least equally speculative (if not more so).
Why don't you try looking at the situation with an unbiased opinion, like a real scientist would?
Again, you are assuming too much. How much angular momentum the NBH attains is dependent on its orbital path around the core (and other variables).
QUOTE
A slow enough nano-hole would not be ‘flung away’ (see above). PLUS, if such a nano-hole was formed THEN so as to do what you say to give the asteroid belt, why have they not formed to do the same to ALL the Solar System bodies BOTH THEN AND NOW? Surely given the VAST numbers and time span involved, even you could work out the almost 100% certainty that NO BODIES of any size could ever form because such NATURAL and ABUNDANT nano-holes would ‘(according to you) destroy them to give asteroid belts galore. ‘Zillions’ of such nano holes should be forming and growing NOW, and roaming randomly all over the Solar System. Earth should not be here NOW, in other words. See?
Not true (more below).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A slow enough nano-hole would not be ‘flung away’ (see above). PLUS, if such a nano-hole was formed THEN so as to do what you say to give the asteroid belt, why have they not formed to do the same to ALL the Solar System bodies BOTH THEN AND NOW? Surely given the VAST numbers and time span involved, even you could work out the almost 100% certainty that NO BODIES of any size could ever form because such NATURAL and ABUNDANT nano-holes would ‘(according to you) destroy them to give asteroid belts galore. ‘Zillions’ of such nano holes should be forming and growing NOW, and roaming randomly all over the Solar System. Earth should not be here NOW, in other words. See? |
Not true (more below).
Now, in view of the above, you may see that the “symmetric momentum events” argument DOES have VERY sound and self-evident ‘footing’’. For you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the putative nano-holes are fast enough to be ‘ejected’, they they are not slow enough to cause your asteroid belt rubble. See?
The ejection would be caused by an uneven crumbling of the mantel. It'd work very much like a flywheel breaking in two.
QUOTE
I appeal to your intellect in recognising ‘prima facia’ the astronomical numbers and instants involved which would be EVEN THIS SECOND producing innumerable SLOW cosmic-Ray-to-Cosmic-Ray (putative) nano-holes all over and around us and every body in our solar system. Nature is vastly more capable that a few scientists at Cern....and in view of the astronomical odds involved, if it COULD happen, it would happen NOW as OFTEN as it (putatively) would have been happening over the PAST billions of years.
First, thanks for suggesting I have an intellect. And I do concede (often) that we are probably safe. I'd just like this issue explored more thoroughly.
Anyway, I performed a little word smithing and I think I've come up with a pretty decent lay representation of your "symmetric momentum events" model and why I feel you are in error. Here goes:
In order for a high-energy cosmic ray collision to exhibit symmetric momentum to an arbitrary observer, certain conditions must be met.
1. The angle of attack of the two colliding bodies must be extremely precise. That is, that it must be a virtually dead-on collision without angular variance, as angular varaince will allow for a new combined mass trajectory/momentum to be created, relative to our observer.
2. The relative momentums of the two masses must be equal and opposite to the observer at the location of the collision, and they must sum to zero at the observer's location at the time of the collision in 3D space plus time (the observer need not be stationary).
Taking the first tenet, we can imagine the two cosmic ray particles hitting dead on quite easily. More difficult, is to imagine the probability of this happening in any arbitrary location. Let's assume that two cosmic rays are indeed destined to collide at a given location. What are the possibilities that they will meet dead-on versus any other angle. Amazingly, the odds are billions to one. This is because there are litterally billions of directions (vectors) that the two particles can be traversing, in order to reach our impact point which result in a continuing, combined momentum trajectory that exceeds escape velocity. To put it more preciscely, the higher the energy of the collision, the more precise the angle of the trajectories must be in order to cause a relative dead stop. At relativistic velocities, almost any variance (regardless of how small) would result in speedy continued motion.
So now, let's agree that two particles at least meet head-on. Do they stop? What are the odds that they stop? In order for them to stop in any arbitrary location, their relative momentums must be extremely precise. Any variance in mass or speed of either body will cause them to have continued momentum in one direction or the other.
We can easily imagine two like bodies traveling in equal and opposite directions with equal and opposite relative momentums, but how many other possibilities are there? The answer of course is billions... virtually infinite variations.
Now, let's add time. We agree that the collision occurs precisely in a given location, but when does it occur? What are the possibilities? If the universe is 13 billion years old, that means that the odds of a particular collision happening in a given location in a whole years time, are 13 billion to one! Imagine the odds of it occuring in a given minute, or even a given second!
So, let's add our observer. He's on a planet, orbiting a sun, orbiting a galactic center, orbiting a super cluster, and so on.
We now know that the odds of any particular relativistic particle collision causing symmetric momentum with him happening in any given point and time in space is quite small indeed. The only question needing to be answered then is how often these occurences happen. This is of course dependent on how many cosmic ray particles there are whizzing about. It's a lot, but even so they are so small that the odds of one hitting another in any given location is very, very small... indeed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I appeal to your intellect in recognising ‘prima facia’ the astronomical numbers and instants involved which would be EVEN THIS SECOND producing innumerable SLOW cosmic-Ray-to-Cosmic-Ray (putative) nano-holes all over and around us and every body in our solar system. Nature is vastly more capable that a few scientists at Cern....and in view of the astronomical odds involved, if it COULD happen, it would happen NOW as OFTEN as it (putatively) would have been happening over the PAST billions of years. |
First, thanks for suggesting I have an intellect. And I do concede (often) that we are probably safe. I'd just like this issue explored more thoroughly.
Anyway, I performed a little word smithing and I think I've come up with a pretty decent lay representation of your "symmetric momentum events" model and why I feel you are in error. Here goes:
In order for a high-energy cosmic ray collision to exhibit symmetric momentum to an arbitrary observer, certain conditions must be met.
1. The angle of attack of the two colliding bodies must be extremely precise. That is, that it must be a virtually dead-on collision without angular variance, as angular varaince will allow for a new combined mass trajectory/momentum to be created, relative to our observer.
2. The relative momentums of the two masses must be equal and opposite to the observer at the location of the collision, and they must sum to zero at the observer's location at the time of the collision in 3D space plus time (the observer need not be stationary).
Taking the first tenet, we can imagine the two cosmic ray particles hitting dead on quite easily. More difficult, is to imagine the probability of this happening in any arbitrary location. Let's assume that two cosmic rays are indeed destined to collide at a given location. What are the possibilities that they will meet dead-on versus any other angle. Amazingly, the odds are billions to one. This is because there are litterally billions of directions (vectors) that the two particles can be traversing, in order to reach our impact point which result in a continuing, combined momentum trajectory that exceeds escape velocity. To put it more preciscely, the higher the energy of the collision, the more precise the angle of the trajectories must be in order to cause a relative dead stop. At relativistic velocities, almost any variance (regardless of how small) would result in speedy continued motion.
So now, let's agree that two particles at least meet head-on. Do they stop? What are the odds that they stop? In order for them to stop in any arbitrary location, their relative momentums must be extremely precise. Any variance in mass or speed of either body will cause them to have continued momentum in one direction or the other.
We can easily imagine two like bodies traveling in equal and opposite directions with equal and opposite relative momentums, but how many other possibilities are there? The answer of course is billions... virtually infinite variations.
Now, let's add time. We agree that the collision occurs precisely in a given location, but when does it occur? What are the possibilities? If the universe is 13 billion years old, that means that the odds of a particular collision happening in a given location in a whole years time, are 13 billion to one! Imagine the odds of it occuring in a given minute, or even a given second!
So, let's add our observer. He's on a planet, orbiting a sun, orbiting a galactic center, orbiting a super cluster, and so on.
We now know that the odds of any particular relativistic particle collision causing symmetric momentum with him happening in any given point and time in space is quite small indeed. The only question needing to be answered then is how often these occurences happen. This is of course dependent on how many cosmic ray particles there are whizzing about. It's a lot, but even so they are so small that the odds of one hitting another in any given location is very, very small... indeed.
Your arguments are based on speculation that (1) nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. (as distinct from those larger types from solar-mass collapses); (2) that Cern CAN make them and; (3) that NATURE CANNOT produce same in abundance if it were possible to form nano-holes AT ALL. Any reasonable person need NOT worry about PROVING ANYTHING to your satisfaction, because NATURE and OBSERVATION has proved it already by the sheer probabilities involved which would have PREVENTED our solar system from being here in the first place. Since my arguments are based on observed nature and probabilities and yours are based on speculation, I think we know whose arguments are speculative and whose are reasonable.
Ah, but since yours ignore the conservation of momentum laws, the observed dark matter galaxies, the observed dark matter halos, the observed incident at the RHIC, the observation that no other planet is known to have an LHC, and common sense, I feel that yours are at least equally speculative (if not more so).
QUOTE
Don’t believe everything you read. As you yourself say, Scientists don’t know everything. Your own speculative fears are based on others’ speculative musings. Stop ‘picking and choosing’ others’ comments and make a few observations/calculations of your own using the observed probabilities and phenomena we DO know about....and THEN reconsider whether your fears would not have been realised NATURALLY and , long, long, long ago all over the universe to the point that no ‘ordinary’ phenomena/matter would persist at all into the present states we observe them in.
Why don't you try looking at the situation with an unbiased opinion, like a real scientist would?
QUOTE (->