Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Doomsday postponed - No BHs produced at the LHC!

  1. #1 Doomsday postponed - No BHs produced at the LHC! 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    It seems that all doomsday prophecies about the danger of producing quickly growing black holes were unjustified. There is no evidence for the generation of microscopic black holes up to a certain mass so far.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...croscopic.html
    http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...sicists-report


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    The arXiv preprint can be found here in the hep-ex section: Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    I checked out the preprint, it actually help's me understand string theory a little better. It would seem that string theory has made a prediction, albeit an incorrect one. Lot's of people have asserted that string theory makes no predictions but it made a prediction about microscopic black holes. What this mean's is that a bunch of people along with string theory were wrong. Although this probably is not the death knell of string theory, I feel even more comfortable about avoiding learning about string theory than before. The preprint doe's mention QCD and jet's so I suppose I will need to learn about quark's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I feel even more comfortable about avoiding learning about string theory than before.
    Sometimes you talk nonsense, but usually you make good sense. I think here you make very good sense. I object to string theory for several reasons, mainly philosophical. It's reassuring to know others, just as ignorant as myself, feel the same way.
    Sometimes you just have to give the snipers a chance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    I object to string theory for several reasons, mainly philosophical.
    Well, that's not very scientific. But I know what you mean. The extra(generally seven), tiny(Planck scale) curled up dimensions that are used to soak up gravity like a sponge, I don't like them. And the "branes" along with the holographic principle, just plain offensive to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I object to string theory for several reasons, mainly philosophical.
    Well, that's not very scientific.
    It is not at all scientific, but I do not consider science to be the beginning and the end. It is a tool. I have found other tools work for me also. Like art, I know what I like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Does string theory get rid of the need for renormalisation? If so, it's worth a punt IMO!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    From the Wiki~
    The RG is of fundamental importance to string theory
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group
    Apparently ST uses renormalization, I don't know, I'm swimming in deep water here.
    There's this too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization.
    It would seem that renormalization could be avoided by using a quantized lattice.
    So there's this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gauge_theory.
    And now I'm lost. Sometimes I think that modern physics is just a huge obfuscatory scam. If it is I still want in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I'm not familiar with this aspect of the LHC. Were they looking for microscopic black holes, or was there a possibility of producing micro black holes which might then grow uncontrollably?
    If they were looking for MBHs, which may have been produced near t=0 (big bang), these would have evaporated long ago due to Hawking radiation, finishing up with a spectacular explosion.
    If they were afraid of creating MBH and the ensuant planet swallowing doomsday scenario, I'd have to do a calculation to see if the amount of energy imparted to a proton sized particle by the LHC would be enough for gravitational collapse. If memory serves correctly its of the order of 10^12. What energies is the LHC capable of ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    The LHC is capable of circulating two beams of 3.5 TeV each, for a total of 7 TeV. That's 7*10^12 eV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •