# Thread: Hey, wake up! They will make a black hole

1. In the new particle accelerator 2008.

Enjoy your stay in the size of an atom:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7834

I'm telling you, this will be a very strong gain chain reaction.

2.

3. Hahahaha, oh this is funny. Banking everything on a theory that hasn't been confirmed. What disturbs me is that if black holes dissipate for another reason entirely, they'll just assume it's hawking radiation because the black hole didn't remain, and never find the real reason (welcome to "science").

Nevertheless, miniature black holes are created constantly. You are, quite literally, walking in a sea of them. They're harmless.

4. Probably they are different.

All black holes are not equall.

5. I have a theory that suggests the amount of energy that will be released will be 3 times greater than a normal atomic chain reaction.........and so calculate the number of possible chain reactions with what they are proposing and do the math. I think that to say they are playing with fire is a massive understatement.

Actually, and this may sound a little absurd, if it causes a MAJOR chain reaction, we are talking about the possibility of what Nostradamus suggested, a "ring of fire" around the 33rd parallel, because technically that is how a limitless chain reaction would resolve.....on this planet, using a big circular chain reaction device.

He might be right (Nostradamus). But then again, I don't know exactly what payload they are playing with. They may only just wipe out a part of France. I don't want to say anything because frankly it would be quite the experiment and associated proof for my theory..........and a big boooooom.

6. Originally Posted by streamSystems
They may only just wipe out a part of France.
That would be very dissapointing if they only made a black hole out of france. *planing to move to france*

7. still, it's their party, right?

8. Originally Posted by streamSystems
still, it's their party, right?
Hardly. It would be a gain unrecognised in our solarsystem, a squadgillion of pizzas distriduted over a time period of perhaps a week.

9. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Nevertheless, miniature black holes are created constantly. You are, quite literally, walking in a sea of them. They're harmless.
Elaborate?

10. I'm afraid I can't. It's all I can remember from a three-year-old discussion I had on...I believe the subject of atom behavior.

Being reminded of that fact, I actually have to withdraw my statement. As I couldn't find any material on the subject and the log file I used to have was removed during an emergency format (Damned bad programmers and their damned default options that destroy hard-drives!). sorry. Perhaps later I can convince said contact to find the log...I'll PM you the results if he does.

What I did find, however, is some extra reading.

As shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Such an energy is orders of magnitude greater than can be produced on Earth in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (maximum about 14 × 103 GeV), or detected in cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere. It is estimated that to collide two aggregates of fermions to within a distance of a Planck length with the currently achievable magnetic field strength would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the aggregates on track. Even if it were possible, any collision product would be immensely unstable, and almost immediately disintegrate.
The very particle accelerator that has concerns for creating a black hole pales in comparison to the energy constantly colliding with our planet. while I suspect the original writers claim that it's even magnitudes greater than detected energy from cosmic ray collisions, assuming micro black holes do exist, I do believe this means we're safe since we haven't already been destroyed.

From this correlation I believe it's safe to ascertain that, hawking radiation or not, the collision caused by the particle accelerator will not be enough to cause a black hole. Other safety concerns like "strange matter" are even more ridiculous than the claim it would cause a micro hole.

But perhaps this is all poppycock. after all, the writer could have pulled that statement out of his ass. As you'll note there are no appropriate sources. And I'm not a physicist. This ends "making a fool of myself" episode 1. Tune in tomorrow as I watch more Family Guy.

11. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
As shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Such an energy is orders of magnitude greater than can be produced on Earth in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (maximum about 14 × 103 GeV), or detected in cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere. It is estimated that to collide two aggregates of fermions to within a distance of a Planck length with the currently achievable magnetic field strength would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the aggregates on track. Even if it were possible, any collision product would be immensely unstable, and almost immediately disintegrate.
Surely all those black hole falls down like tiny snowflakes, right? :-D

12. You don't want to be laughing about this one guys. Yeah, people say it's safe, but it is still an experiment. And if this one is safe, what about the next one? Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University, said this:

Indeed, the fluctuations we see in the CMB are thought to be generated by a process that is closely analogous to Hawking radiation from black holes...

Ask yourself this question: Did the bible just pop into existence all on its own? Did God create it? Or did people create it? On balance of poosibilities, I know what I think: people. Now replace the word bible with big bang.

13. Originally Posted by Farsight
You don't want to be laughing about this one guys. Yeah, people say it's safe, but it is still an experiment. And if this one is safe, what about the next one? Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University, said this:

Indeed, the fluctuations we see in the CMB are thought to be generated by a process that is closely analogous to Hawking radiation from black holes...

Ask yourself this question: Did the bible just pop into existence all on its own? Did God create it? Or did people create it? On balance of poosibilities, I know what I think: people. Now replace the word bible with big bang.
Yeah, it's conceivable that a lifeform made a distortion in the fibers of existance, though that might be okay, the evolution of existence might be what we are here for.

14. Yor all concept about black holes is wrong.

15. Originally Posted by DoctorFate
Yor all concept about black holes is wrong.
Why don't you prove it.

16. ..........are u 2 "busy".........""super"......."thing".......

..........are u 2 "busy".........""super"......."thing".......

What are you guys, bots? why can't you talk like normal people?

18. lol ^^

19. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I have a theory that suggests the amount of energy that will be released will be 3 times greater than a normal atomic chain reaction.........and so calculate the number of possible chain reactions with what they are proposing and do the math. I think that to say they are playing with fire is a massive understatement.

He might be right (Nostradamus). But then again, I don't know exactly what payload they are playing with. They may only just wipe out a part of France. I don't want to say anything because frankly it would be quite the experiment and associated proof for my theory..........and a big boooooom.
What happens to your theory when they fire the new LHC up and it happens that the Frenchies troddle on with their everyday lives as no big boom or BOOOOOOOOOM follows??
Wanna bet?? What about one month's pay?? I have a PP account

20. Are you sure your parents know you are using the internet?

I doubt the frogs will be able to sustain a chain reaction of the magnitude spoken of..........space-time has it's way of staying stitched. I said, "in theory".............

Guess what: I haven't tried the experiment.

Guess what: theory does suggest many possibilities, none the less.

Guess what: I am betting my theory will last longer than contemporary science.

21. In theory, once the clumping begins........... wouldn't it continue until all the matter on Earth had been swallowed up?

I mean, at first, it sucks up all the air immediately around it, right? Then that creates a vacuum, which more air then rushes into, which then also gets sucked up, which creates another vacuum............

22. You're talking about a black-hole in the planet.

Thank God for religion.

If something goes wrong, it could be biblical, like opening a hole to hell, so to speak, but as I said, the system has ways of keeping itself together.

Once again, "theory"..........bordering on science fiction...........because no scientist would admit to any such dangers, they have spent way too much money on the project already.

The scientific explanation (and it would seem pseudo) to how that hole would not have everything collapse in it, would, I think, be relevant to how a black hole has been associated to hell, and the reverse, a paradise on Earth, be related to heaven, and how those forces, "forces", would seem to be equally balanced.

I would think, according to how we have been trained to think through the millennia (heaven and hell, paradise and black-holes), that, depending, and note that word, "depending", on the level (the magnitude) of their antics in playing with the circuits of time (as time is no simple linear thing), well, I really don't care what happens as a result..........it is still a pathetic experiment of atomic-debris-creation that will prove nothing about a stable atom.

23. Right. The guys with PhDs in physics who are working on the project aren't worried. But you, who I assume have roughly zero physics education, think it will create a black hole. Hmm...whose opinion should I trust more...

24. What follows is the ramblings of...well, me. Reason enough to safely ignore them, but keep in mind I don't precisely agree nor disagree with either of you. Merely stating that there is a neutral concern that can be reached by all parties (physicists and philosophers alike). Although since I just came up with it, it could use quite a bit of cleaning...your choice if you wish to burn your eyes reading.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Right. The guys with PhDs in physics who are working on the project aren't worried. But you, who I assume have roughly zero physics education, think it will create a black hole. Hmm...whose opinion should I trust more...
I believe I should bring up the topic of history. When electricity first began to be used, many scientists became quickly fascinated by it. The story of Frankensteins Monster was based upon many scientists of that day, experimenting with electricity on dead subjects (both animal and human).

In those days, they went too far based on too little knowledge.

One can apply the situation to what they're doing now. We hope that such experiments would never create a black hole. On the other hand, since we assume hawking radiation is true (with no empirical evidence), a comparison can be drawn between the experiments from both then and now.

Now, we rely on an axiom. Back then, so did they. One could say the only reason they didn't succeed in reanimating matter is because electricity doesn't work that way. If it did, their science would have succeeded.

So what happens if matter doesn't work the way such theorems decree it does? My faith in pure-mathematical theories only goes so far, I personally prefer empiricism to axioms. Nevertheless, I did present ample evidence that shows such an experiment is too weak to create the critical mass required for a black hole (we're pelted with much stronger things daily anyway).

25. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
So what happens if matter doesn't work the way such theorems decree it does? My faith in pure-mathematical theories only goes so far, I personally prefer empiricism to axioms.
How do you know that any science experiment won't create a black hole, or some other fantastical global catastrophy? One should have some reason to believe that a black hole might be created before worrying about it.

26. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
How do you know that any science experiment won't create a black hole, or some other fantastical global catastrophy? One should have some reason to believe that a black hole might be created before worrying about it.
I know. In my post I referenced to a previous post that proved such an experiment WONT cause a black hole, my statement was directed more at the future of science. I prefer it when people read what I write before they attempt to rebuke it.

27. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Right. The guys with PhDs in physics who are working on the project aren't worried. But you, who I assume have roughly zero physics education, think it will create a black hole. Hmm...whose opinion should I trust more...
Guess who will stand corrected when it is discovered that an improved theory for time is more useful than your current PhD models for space-time?

"presumably zero physics education"?

This is where you fail.

The word "presumably" for you appears to be a type of lens you see the world with, according to your own self-content chatter.

Anyone who knows anything about physics will know that anything observable is a potentially createable thing, and if "physics" claims to use the stars as a model for atomic phenomena, however large or small, that includes black holes.

Theory, boy!

28. Stream, perhaps you should work less on physics and more on making sense.

29. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Guess who will stand corrected when it is discovered that an improved theory for time is more useful than your current PhD models for space-time?
If an improved model of space-time is developed, it will almost certainly come from a trained physicist. Just like if a new microchip is developed, it will most likely be created by an electrical engineer. Or if a new creature is genetically engineered, it will most likely be done by a biologist. The odds of a person with no formal training contributing anything useful to cutting-edge science are close to zero. I suppose it’s theoretically possible, but it would probably be the first time in the history of physics.
"presumably zero physics education"?

This is where you fail.
Oh, I'm sorry for assuming too much. Where did you get your physics degree?
The word "presumably" for you appears to be a type of lens you see the world with, according to your own self-content chatter.
I am simply observing that the opinions of a large group of people who have spent years intensively studying a subject is probably more useful than the opinion of a single person who is self-taught.

30. I should have money on the fact that by the time you are dead I still wouldn't know what a blow job is.

......because I don't feel sucked off right now.

31. @stream
I sense some....let's say immature tendencies from your side. Just mocking someone for asking a legitimate question doesn't really help in the discussion at hand.
The thing with theories is: they make predictions. How can I get this through to you???? Let's say from the paper:"The electrodynamics of moving bodies" it absolutely necessarily follows that a Myon (some exotic particle with 206 times the mass of an electron) moving in a Synchrotron of 15 meters diameter with a frequency of around 6,366*108 Htz has a lifetime of 44,1 microseconds compared with the ordinary lifetime of a Myon at rest of 1,52 microseconds. This is the prediction of the theory presented in the above paper. If someone finds that this is not the case and the lifetime stays basically the same under both conditions, well than there is a serious flaw in the theory. Then it is back to the drawing board for the guy who wrote the paper. Then we need another explanation than the one he came up with. (But rest assured, the lad who wrote the paper was not disproved until today and he wrote that paper and three others quite some time ago)
So a theory is not something that is just sitting there beeing happy that it exists.
Another thing that constitues a theory is that you have to be able to disprove it. No, not prove it. This you do by making predictions. You have to be able to design an experiment that in principle can have an outcome that proves that the theory is not correct. For example: "Intelligent Design" (what's supposed to be so intelligent about it escapes me but that's a totally different story ) can not be disproven so it's a bunch of hogwash. It does not make any prediction either, so who cares.
But I will be happy to discuss your theory if you do not mind sharing it with me.

Guess who will stand corrected when it is discovered that an improved theory for time is more useful than your current PhD models for space-time?

32. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Guess who will stand corrected when it is discovered that an improved theory for time is more useful than your current PhD models for space-time?
If an improved model of space-time is developed, it will almost certainly come from a trained physicist. Just like if a new microchip is developed, it will most likely be created by an electrical engineer. Or if a new creature is genetically engineered, it will most likely be done by a biologist. The odds of a person with no formal training contributing anything useful to cutting-edge science are close to zero. I suppose it’s theoretically possible, but it would probably be the first time in the history of physics.
"presumably zero physics education"?

This is where you fail.
Oh, I'm sorry for assuming too much. Where did you get your physics degree?
The word "presumably" for you appears to be a type of lens you see the world with, according to your own self-content chatter.
I am simply observing that the opinions of a large group of people who have spent years intensively studying a subject is probably more useful than the opinion of a single person who is self-taught.
What are you talking about? Any idiot could have come up with Einstein like breakthroughs. As well as any idiot can judge how science is mostly wrong from just reading a wacko novel saying so.

33. ......if this forum begins to address it's potential for being relevant to ANY, and I mean ANY.....ANY "things" you consider as "time ahead" as opposed to "retrooooo"..........I may as well think whatever it is in my mind to show INTEREST right noew STEMS from the fact I believe I am about to have some type of sensible conversation..........for once.............about the FUTURE of scientific development...............

34. Originally Posted by streamSystems
......if this forum begins to address it's potential for being relevant to ANY, and I mean ANY.....ANY "things" you consider as "time ahead" as opposed to "retrooooo"..........I may as well think whatever it is in my mind to show INTEREST right noew STEMS from the fact I believe I am about to have some type of sensible conversation..........for once.............about the FUTURE of scientific development...............
How old are you?

35. zip it.

36. Hey stream,
pretty snappy, don't you think? You are asking other people if their parents know they are using the internet for asking legitimate questions and when someone in return does the same to you you tell them to shut up......
Mmmmmmmmm.........sorta measuring with different yardsticks here, are you?

Anyway, that brings me back to the question at hand. Do you care to discuss your theory about the process in the LHC that creates more than triple the energy of any other chain reaction?

Oh, and BTW....if you are scared about black holes beeing created in the LHC with energies of around 7 TeV, you also should be scared about Black Holes beeing created in the upper atmosphere. Up there you can find some high energetic particles with an energy of up to 20 TeV. Given, those are no beams that are directed at each other, but these particles zip around up there constantly for a couple of billion years. So I guess there was ample time to create Black Holes and we are still there as far as I can tell.
So you have two explanations: No Black Holes are created or they follow quantum-mechanics and dissipate within a couple of nanoseconds. None of which really scares me.

37. I had no idea there was an "audience".

38. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
No Black Holes are created

39. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
No Black Holes are created
Why do you think they will create some in the LHC?? This by the way is just possible (at the energies they are capable to accellerate the particle in the LHC) if the assumption that there are 10 or 11 dimensions is correct. Otherwise you are only smashin' particles toghether creating interesting events that are quite fascinating but nothing else. And nothing near "wiping out parts of France" or anihilating earth and the solar system.

40. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
if the assumption that there are 10 or 11 dimensions is correct.
in empty space or in matter cause matter have aproximately 15000000000*365*24*60^2/higgstime dimensions, in this approximation that I have done, which is based on the fact that time is atleast a part of that we call all and all is made of the smallest partless particles hence time is atleast some of the smallest partless particles and all that can be experienced must contain time and all that can be experienced is made of partless and all those are made of time and everything can be experienced.

And this happens to be caused of that we were partless that fusioned all of that time ahead of all others (in the sun), all others are indeed at the same time as we are, but we got there first which means that we had the time we have now before they got there but it took equally long time for us to experience it as it take for them to experience the same time.

41. 15000000000*365*24*60^2/higgstime
What is that suppose to mean?? Some arbitrary number (where do you get that from anyway???? ) mutiplied with the seconds that make a year (why the hell stop at a year?? Why don't you just take the age of the universe in seconds and put it into the "equation"?? ) squared divided by "Higgstime". Whatever this is. I know Planck-Time (10^-43 seconds), but you may enlighten me.
BTW...if you are just looking for an expression for an extremely large number, why don't you use Gogol = 10^100. And for insanely large numbers you might use Gogolplex = 10^100^100. No shit.

all is made of the smallest partless particles
So you say all is made of nothing?? Or do you mean by partless particles fundamental particles that do not consist of other particles?

all that can be experienced must contain time and all that can be experienced is made of partless and all those are made of time and everything can be experienced.
Man, you really should cut back on these funny mushrooms or increase your daily dose of Haloperidol to 100mg
So time is an inherent quantity of all matter and if you so happen to destroy matter (for example by bringing it in contact with some antimatter) you also destroy time. Innnnnterestinnnnnnng concept.
Or do you just "release" time from that matter so the time is free from it's earthly burden and goes to heaven??

all others are indeed at the same time as we are, but we got there first which means that we had the time we have now before they got there but it took equally long time for us to experience it as it take for them to experience the same time.
By "others" you mean..............???
THEY speak to me, THEY are in my head, make THEM go AWAAAAAYYYYY!!!

42. "THEY speak to me, THEY are in my head, make THEM go AWAAAAAYYYYY!!!"

No.

Though all that will share all with me more fairly I will share all with more fairly.

All parts of this world treats me like it knows me.

So, you have shared all more fairly, I can hear your thoughts sporadically, you think your nightmares is a bad thing; they are not

imagine the smallest joy, that you feel it; it is partless, yet it have time.
Joy is time, time is indifferent so time is joy. Pain feels good, it is the void of feeling that it speaks of that you believe is bad, it is a belief.

43. Nassim Haramein, E.A. Rauscher (The Resonance Project)

When the CERN 7 TeV Large Hadron Collider (LHC) comes on line in the next few years, hypothesis is that significant experimental discoveries may verify the Higgs boson and the production of short lived Planck size mini Schwarzchild black holes, both of which are fundamental to a unified particle and cosmological standard and supersymmetry model. The Higgs mechanism relates to particle mass in the standard model and the mini black holes may relate to the cosmological mini mass problem as well as yield clues as to the structure of the vacuum. These points are of particular interest to our research [1,2], and the discovery and identification of mini black holes (mbh) is basic to our scaling law model [1]. Hawking radiation from the production of mini black holes from accelerated Hadrons are expected to be observed from x – and \gamma – ray lepton production from subcomponents of quarks or partons. Our model [1,2] and Hawking’s picture [3] may demonstrate that mbh hold basic clues about the very nature of the fabric of spacetime itself. We examine the Kerr-Newman black hole production cross section in detail at the energies of the LHC.

(1) N. Haramein, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. AB006, 1154 (2001), (2) E.A. Rauscher, lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 661 (1972), (3) S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D53, 3099 (1996).

45. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

Abstracts? That's straight from the American Physical Society.

46. Originally Posted by Guaged
Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

Abstracts? That's straight from the American Physical Society.
You do not seem to know the meaning of the word "abstract".
It is short summary of a longer article for those who do not have the time to read every article in full.

But what did you add to the discussion at hand by Copy-and-Paste-Fu an abstract that states what allready has been said. Yes, they might create black holes that are highly unstable and (if the theory is correct) can be detected by the particles they emmit when the decay. I allready stated that jsut some post above. But some other seem to believe that this means the the end of life as we know it. And in my oppinion this is not correct. So your point still is??????

47. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Originally Posted by Guaged
Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

Abstracts? That's straight from the American Physical Society.
You do not seem to know the meaning of the word "abstract".
It is short summary of a longer article for those who do not have the time to read every article in full.

But what did you add to the discussion at hand by Copy-and-Paste-Fu an abstract that states what allready has been said. Yes, they might create black holes that are highly unstable and (if the theory is correct) can be detected by the particles they emmit when the decay. I allready stated that jsut some post above. But some other seem to believe that this means the the end of life as we know it. And in my oppinion this is not correct. So your point still is??????
It is an effective, and credible summary of the topic at hand. Simple.

Edit: As I understand it, physics does not deal in philosophy.

48. Here is more you may enjoy chewing on:

Quantum Geometry of Isolated Horizons and Black Hole Entropy.

Stephen Fairhurst (Penn State University)

The notion of an isolated horizon'' has recently been introduced to model the local geometry of an isolated black hole's event horizon. Beginning with the classical Hamiltonian framework, the sector of general relativity admitting non-rotating isolated horizons as inner boundaries has been quantized non-perturbatively. Polymer like excitations of the bulk geometry pierce the horizon endowing it with area. The intrinsic geometry of the horizon can then be described by the quantum Chern-Simons theory of a U(1) connection on a punctured 2-sphere. Heuristically, the intrinsic geometry of the horizon is flat everywhere except at the punctures where there is a deficit angle. With this structure at hand, it is possible to count the number of horizon microstates corresponding to a black hole of a given area. The logarithm of the number of states is proportional to the area of the black hole and is independent of non-gravitational charges. Hence, black hole entropy can be accounted for entirely by the horizon microstates in quantum geometry. This analysis is applicable to all non-rotating black holes, including astrophysically relevant ones far from extremality.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement