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 vi
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 vi