# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  May 2008 (LHC) Particle Accelerator - Miracle or Catastrophe?

## Jeff777

_T_he entire particle physics community is counting down to May like it was their birthday, Christmas and the Second Coming of the Lord all wrapped up in a clutch of Superbowls.  It's when the Large Hadron Collider comes online, but while most are hoping for data and praying for the bashful Higgs boson to finally show it's tiny little face, *some Russian mathematicians are warning that we might get more than we bargained for.  Specifically, time-travellers: futurenauts using our ultra-duper atomsmasher to punch a hole in causality and hop back from the future*.

_The idea dates back to Einstein's explanation that spacetime can be deformed by large energies or masses.  Since the Large Hadron Collider is atwenty-six kilometer ring of superconducting magnets designed to do nothing but give a particle as large an energy as possible, that sounds like it could be an issue.  Small deformations in spacetime (like Earth) give us the force of gravity, severe deformations give the cosmological trash compacting black holes, and an extreme case could cause a wormhole - a link between two points as spacetime folds over to touch itself_ (no sniggering).

When asked about this risk, CERN scientists just look at the sky - but they aren't daydreaming, they're providing a counter example.  Even the most massive human experiment is a pale imitation of the galactic-sized particle accelerators that fire cosmic radiation at us daily, and with all that high-energy activity in the sky if techno-mutants from the year Q4099 did want to invade they wouldn't have to hang around supercooled Genevese caverns to do it.

The Russians aren't the first to raise concerns over the "Let's bang these things together REALLY HARD" school of research - Dr Walter Wagner has been campaigning for years to stall the LHC program until someone can convince him that turning it on won't detonate the universe.  He accuses the scientists involved of downplaying the risks, using his own kind of maths to "show" a 10% chance of everything ever going kablooey.  The basic formula is "it's very unlikely BUT it would kill EVERYTHING so that multiplies up the risk", which might sound reasonable, but by the same argument I could say "Nobody eat apples in case one contains a rare virus that could RENDER EVERYONE IN THE WORLD STERILE".  He even has a donation site to raise money for legal action, but considering he's going up against a five billion dollar twenty-country co-operative project, his chances of winning are even unlikelier than his fears.


(actual image of the LHC)

article taken from: http://dad2059.wordpress.com/2008/02...d-time-travel/

Thoughts?

----------


## Sanquis

Ahhh! We're all gonna DAI! 
No- seriously. I read something about a time-travel machine been invented on the radio. But it all sounds pretty sci-fi doesn't it?  :wink2:

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

I've been anxious to see what the Hadron could do, ever since I read about it last year. 

I say bring it on.  ::cooler::

----------


## Adrenaline Junkie

I can't wait to see this, it could really be an advancement for our understanding. 

I really cannot wait for this thing to go online. Its an opportunity to learn more about ourselves and where we came from.

----------


## Riot Maker

Yeah i never heard of this before but it all sounds sci-fi. Never thought i would see the day we could petentially destroy the universe. 22km long thats friggen crazy. They should sell tickets to this, if they did they would probally break even.

----------


## Adrenaline Junkie

> Yeah i never heard of this before but it all sounds sci-fi. Never thought i would see the day we could petentially destroy the universe. 22km long thats friggen crazy. They should sell tickets to this, if they did they would probally break even.




No, its real, not science fiction. With it recreating the first moments of the big bang they may be able to find out information on the origins of the universe.

Interesting stuff if you ask me, its a risk well worth taking if you ask me, the dangers are very very VERY slim.

----------


## Man of Shred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6P...x=0&playnext=1

here is a playlist for a seried a videos about the LHC.

----------


## Cyclic13

Wouldn't it be funny if we inadvertently were the explanation for that which we were trying to explain? 

We end up being god, creating itself and falling back into it's own creation. Only to spring up somewhere else trillions of years later to question how we got there and find out that in some remote part of the galaxy everything seemed to have sprung up from an empty point in space, that we now call 'earth', so we attempt to recreate it on that planet. And the circle of paradoxical questions and answers continues. Wheee...  :poof: 

The god particle

----------


## Universal Mind

The experiment has been postponed to December 21, 2012.

----------


## Cyclic13

::chuckle::  That would be great, wouldn't it?

[Edit: I know where you got this topic idea Jeff... fan of theduderinok on youtube much? I just checked out his recent upload yesterday, and saw this and smiled.]

----------


## Man of Shred

Solskye, I had this on playlist and jeff asked me what i was listening to. so i guess he checked it out.

----------


## Jeff777

Yeah, theduderinok has good stuff.

----------


## CoLd BlooDed

> The experiment has been postponed to December 21, 2012.



lmao UM.  That made me laugh.

SolSkye, that's really a crazy thing to think about.  Cool.

This machine, as unbelievable as it sounds, would be intense.  What if we jumped into the future and there was nothing there?  Or if humans were there, would they anticipate our arrival?

----------


## juroara

scientists can't even find a cure for aids, yet they think they can control time

 ::bowdown:: 

scientists don't even know everything about the bottom of the sea, yet they are so sure their theory of the big bang is 100% accurate? ? ? I mean the bottom of the sea is here and now and the big bang was when? yet they act like they can tell it to us like they were there

scientists are vain and retarded. who pushes a red button without knowing what it really does? 

twelve year olds on an ego trip

----------


## Cyclic13

Hear Hear! *nods* 

I believe that above post calls for this...  ::chuckle::

----------


## Pyrofan1

> scientists are vain and retarded



exactly! science never gave us anything good, except for things such as TVs, computers and modern medicine.

----------


## Jeff777

> exactly! science never gave us anything good, except for things such as TVs, computers and modern medicine.



Citation dubious.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> scientists can't even find a cure for aids, yet they think they can control time
> 
> 
> 
> scientists don't even know everything about the bottom of the sea, yet they are so sure their theory of the big bang is 100&#37; accurate? ? ? I mean the bottom of the sea is here and now and the big bang was when? yet they act like they can tell it to us like they were there
> 
> scientists are vain and retarded. who pushes a red button without knowing what it really does? 
> 
> twelve year olds on an ego trip



That's actually a pretty ignorant thing to say about "scientists, in general" as if "scientists" are a cult of one mind that all believe the same thing and have the same agendas. "Scientists" are people that look at things and explore things through a scientific perspective. Many of them disagree on the same theories and principles, though they use the same analytical principles to try to find the basis of certain things. So to try to throw a blanket over "scientists" as if they are all in opposition to what you believe (even if what you believe is the "spiritual") is just not accurate at all.

----------


## Cyclic13

Here's the recent Coast to Coast interview with Investigative mythologist William Henry talking about this very topic...

Henry's investigation in Abydos, Egypt uncovered depictions of the 'Osiris Device,' which he described as a kind of a energy tower that could also serve as a teleporter for light beings. 

Upcoming experiments at CERN with the Large Hadron Collider seek to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang. Is humankind on the verge of discovering the primordial secrets of God-- seeing the light of first creation?, Henry pondered. Ultimately, humans have the ability to transform themselves through consciousness into light beings, he asserted. 

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11

----------


## wasup

I'd also like to point out that he is saying he doesn't understand how his perception of "Complex scientific discoveries" could have been discoveried by what he believes to be more simple ones.  Just because your mind can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's complex (or simple, I suppose).  

Furthermore, you should RESEARCH things before you make rather retarded assertions about them.

Let me give you a simplified example that represents the big bang versus the bottom of the ocean.

Over your head, you hear a loud rumbling noise, and a minute later you look up and see a long trail of streamer clouds following it.  You can probably figure out that that was a plane, right?  In your hand, you have a box.  This box is solid titanium, and it completely encases a small piece of paper that had a poem written on it.  Get to the poem.

Does it make sense for me to tell you you are "retarded" because you can't get to the box right in front of you.  Proximity in time and location is not a prerequisite for scientific apparentness.  If you research, you will find the big bang was "discovered" in a similar way: by observing it's after effects, and looking "in the past" (we can actually see light from it that occurred very soon after it, still).  

Take this line.  ______________x
If you had to describe the line position on X, wouldn't you say it would be _?  That is another method basically used by the big bang scientists -- extrapolation.  I don't want to make you think it is all guess work though... do some RESEARCH before you make assertions about it.  They aren't just throwing ideas out there and claiming they are "100&#37; correct."  Simply put, the big bang is an extremely well-researched, documented, and supported theory, and the best one we have.

The people who criticize science the most have no idea how it is is done.

----------


## bluefinger

> scientists can't even find a cure for aids, yet they think they can control time
> 
> 
> 
> scientists don't even know everything about the bottom of the sea, yet they are so sure their theory of the big bang is 100% accurate? ? ? I mean the bottom of the sea is here and now and the big bang was when? yet they act like they can tell it to us like they were there
> 
> scientists are vain and retarded. who pushes a red button without knowing what it really does? 
> 
> twelve year olds on an ego trip



So how is trying to understand and quantify the various workings of the universe an ego trip?

Scientists aren't gods, so of course they don't know everything. That is why they do stuff like this, in order to find proof for whatever hypothesis and theory they have. _Experimentation_ and _Research_ are vital in order to progress with _discovery_. Without Science, we would have never understood nor come up with Quantum Mechanics, without which we would not have computers.

Scientists may not know everything, but they don't assume they know everything. And Scientists do know more or less what will happen when they flick on the switch to LHC, since they've done a HELL of a lot of designing and theoretical work for LHC. They just aren't sure if it will find the elusive particles they wish to see. If not, then Scientists see that either LHC is not big enough or simply see that the Higg's Boson just does not exist and another hypothesis/theory has to be drawn up in order to explain mass. If they do, well, experiment is a success and we understand the workings of the universe more clearly.

So at least Scientists are _trying_ to further our knowledge and understanding of the world and universe. That hardly constitutes an ego trip.

----------


## Cyclic13

ETERNITY!!!

----------


## Pyrofan1

> nor come up with Quantum Mechanics, without which we would not have computers.



modern day computers do not involve Quantum Mechanics.

----------


## Cyclic13

Hurray for pettiness, and that feeling the need to constantly one-up people...  :wink2:   ::thumbup:: 

Just look at all them ego-filled posts, and that much ado about nothing...Yay!  ::banana:: 

Leggo that ego... ::meditate::

----------


## Man of Shred

> Hurray for pettiness, and that feeling to constantly one-up people...  
> 
> Just look at all them ego-filled posts, and much ado about nothing...Yay! 
> 
> Leggo that eggo...



  Yeah i  dunno why people do that.  Always try to have one-up on you. It's really annoying. these people know nothing about social vibing.  Are they insecure?

 eg1 Good conversaton:

 Friend 1: wow I've never been to a city like Toronto before. these building are huge!
 Freind2: Yeah. man they are pretty sweet. wait till we drive in farther so we can see them old style houses.

 eg2: The guy you just wanna smack:

 Friend 1: wow I've never been to a city like Toronto before. these building are huge!
 Freind2: bahh not really the ones in NYC were way bigger.

----------


## Sandform

> The point he's making is that Hawking radiation occurs faster for smaller black holes. This means that a smallish black hole would decay too quickly to keep existing, even if it had a constant supply of mass to guzzle. Personally I didn't know that Hawking radiation is so fast...
> 
> No? Does the gravity of the moon suck up Earth? :\



Or the earth the moon...hehe.

----------


## drewmandan

Yes, according to Gauss's Law, which is a solution of LaPlace's equation, all massive objects are physically equivalent to a point mass (singularity) placed at their center as seen from outside their radius. So if you put a singularity the mass of the moon in place of the moon, nothing would happen. Of course, it would vey quickly evaporate because it has an event horizon, but ignoring that.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> Dude, that's just flat out, plain wrong. Take a string. Wrap the two ends around your fingers so you have a good grip. With your left hand, pull the string left. With your right hand, pull it right. The string will break if you pull hard enough, you fucking moron.



The black hole pulls all of your atoms in ONE direction, you are pulling both strings in the opposite direction.

EDIT: I have no idea why I replied to this ancient post. It showed up at the top of my page for some mysterious reason.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> The point he's making is that Hawking radiation occurs faster for smaller black holes. This means that a smallish black hole would decay too quickly to keep existing, even if it had a constant supply of mass to guzzle. Personally I didn't know that Hawking radiation is so fast...
> 
> No? Does the gravity of the moon suck up Earth? :\



Isn't hawking radiaton just a hypothesis? It has never actually been seen or measured. Am I right?

----------


## Xei

Yes.

----------


## Ardent Lost

To play the Devil's advocate: I don't know anything about physics and i know next to nothing about this LHC or particle accelerators in general, and i haven't read the whole thread, but if the theories they are basing this experiment on are unproven, don't we have grounds to be a little concerned? If there were even a grain of chance that a black hole could be created and sustained well enough to swallow us all whole, don't you think there are grounds for concern? I understand there are well-qualified scientists armed with assurances that nothing bad will happen, but our knowledge of matter is far from trustworthy, else this LHC would not have been built. This is especially true if these well qualified-scientists don't actually have any substantial evidence for Hawking Radiation. Aren't the same people in this thread, who demand concrete proof for everything, the same people saying that everything will be fine because a bunch of scientists have a solid _theory_ on what will happen?

Just one more thing i'd like to bring up, just to be pedantic (and i don't know if it has been pointed out yet):




> The basic formula is "it's very unlikely BUT it would kill EVERYTHING so that multiplies up the risk", which might sound reasonable, but by the same argument I could say "Nobody eat apples in case one contains a rare virus that could RENDER EVERYONE IN THE WORLD STERILE".



Honestly, if you were given even a shade of a reason to doubt the safety of apples for humankind, would you eat one? Honestly? If you calculated your risk wrong you would effectively be destroying mankind. There is, after all, reason to peoples' objection to this particle accelerator, so there would likewise be reason to doubt the safety of apples. They sure are delicious and healthy though, aren't they?

But, as i say, i'm simply playing Devil's advocate with these questions, which people more knowledgeable than i are welcome to answer. I for one don't really care about whether they flick the switch or not. If they do we will probably have some new and interesting information about our world. If they don't, those discoveries will wait. Life goes on. I don't think the world will end, but then as i pointed out in the first place: i'm ignorant on the matter. I do however see that any doubt from anybody who knows anything about physics is valid. This Wagner fellow may not be Stephen Hawking, but still seems to know one or two things about physics. No great physicist has been without their errors, i'm sure.

You know, i've always wanted to know what it was like to be sucked into a black hole. Maybe i'm in favour of this LHC after all!  ::D: 

(i voted undecided, because i'm not worried either way at this stage)

----------


## Xei

Well it's kind of ironic that everybody's saying 'silly science, what about black holes??' considering if it weren't for science we wouldn't even have any concept of a black hole in the first place.

But yes there is a certain moral ambiguity I'd say.

When they first tested the a bomb there was a small chance that it could have ignited Earth's atmosphere.

----------


## LucidFlanders

God damnit!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> God damnit!!!
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html



It's gonna happen...It's inevitable!
I bet the administrator ordered the scientists to power up the machine to 110% even though no one knows whether it can tolerate such levels...

----------


## Sisyphus50

Yes, because the people in charge of the largest particle accelerator in the world are going to be laymen administrators that demand MORE POWAH! while bashing their fists on the control panel.

----------


## drewmandan

Phew...God saved us, again.

----------


## Sandform

> Yes, because the people in charge of the largest particle accelerator in the world are going to be laymen administrators that demand MORE POWAH! while bashing their fists on the control panel.



Don't take my dreams away with sarcasm...

----------


## Man of Shred

on a joking note: It's obvious aliens intervened and caused the problem.

----------


## LucidFlanders

This sucks.  :Sad: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8556621.stm

----------


## Jeff777

Ah yeah it does LF =/.  Buuut, I guess caution beats clumsiness  :tongue2:

----------


## Timothy Paradox

In my opinion, the LHC is a joke.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> In my opinion, the LHC is a joke.



Because the advancement of physics is so funny, right?

----------


## LucidFlanders

> In my opinion, the LHC is a joke.



Come on man, it's a chance to see how this shit all happened. How is that a joke? i'd prefer to see how we were born, then just wonder about it.

----------


## dajo

abstruse goose comics are awesome.  :smiley:

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> Because the advancement of physics is so funny, right?



Why is the advancement of physics a joke? I think it's amazing to discover how it all began, and to explore "reality" we live in even more.
The LHC project is a joke. The damn thing has been shut down for longer than it's been active. Not to mention that it's never even worked on full power.

Don't immediately assume that critisism on the LHC project means I hate physics. Don't make a religion out of it.
To Dajo: good job immediately assuming I'm a religious nut or anti-science conservative/fearmonger. That's not very scientific now, is it?

----------


## Scatterbrain

Don't immediatly assume the LHC is a failure then.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

What I said is fact. The LHC has never functioned on full power, and somehow it keeps breaking down before they can even start using it.

----------


## dajo

actually, it wasn't really directed towards you, I just wanted to post that hilarious comicstrip.

----------


## Caprisun

> What I said is fact. The LHC has never functioned on full power, and somehow it keeps breaking down before they can even start using it.



It's only been operational for a year and a half, you haven't even given it a chance.  You'll fail a lot in life if you are that quick to admit defeat.

----------


## Spartiate

Not to mention it's the largest machine ever constructed by man, and its own prototype.  It's not something that works at 100% right out of the box.

----------


## Jeff777

> Not to mention it's the largest machine ever constructed by man, and its own prototype.  It's not something that works at 100% right out of the box.



Perhaps it should have been "Made in China"?  :Big laugh: 

Couldn't resist.   :tongue2:

----------


## Xaqaria

Is it really a wonder that it hasn't been at full power during its 1.5 year life span? When you are talking about machine that is theoretically capable of imploding the earth and demonstratably capable of leaking powerful radiation. Something this big should rightly take years to test even if no problems are encountered.

----------


## LucidFlanders

> Is it really a wonder that it hasn't been at full power during its 1.5 year life span? When you are talking about machine that is theoretically capable of imploding the earth and demonstratably capable of leaking powerful radiation. Something this big should rightly take years to test even if no problems are encountered.



I agree, so does that Thanks.

----------


## khh

> Is it really a wonder that it hasn't been at full power during its 1.5 year life span? When you are talking about machine that is theoretically capable of imploding the earth and demonstratably capable of leaking powerful radiation. Something this big should rightly take years to test even if no problems are encountered.



It doesn't have a theoretical capacity to implode the earth, that makes no sense. It's just an example of doom-sayers.

However, it is a very complicated and super-advanced piece of machinery, and so it takes some time to get it functioning properly.

----------


## Xaqaria

> It doesn't have a theoretical capacity to implode the earth, that makes no sense. It's just an example of doom-sayers.
> 
> However, it is a very complicated and super-advanced piece of machinery, and so it takes some time to get it functioning properly.



How much do you know about it? The "doom-sayers" are legitimate scientists. The idea that this is not something to worry about is based on the fact that any black hole created by the LHC will be small enough that they will evaporate through hawking radiation before it is able to absorb any other matter. Hawking radiation has never been observed and so if that theory is incorrect, then such a black hole could indeed gain mass and become self sustainable. If this were to happen, it would fall through the earth, collecting matter on the way, get trapped in the earth's gravitational field and seesaw back and forth through the planet until the entire thing is consumed, thus imploding the earth.

The possibility of this is extremely small, and yet not zero. This is just one reason why we tread lightly.

----------


## Black_Eagle

Didn't all this LHC danger hype originate with some random highschool science teacher?

----------


## Scatterbrain

> How much do you know about it? The "doom-sayers" are legitimate scientists. The idea that this is not something to worry about is based on the fact that any black hole created by the LHC will be small enough that they will evaporate through hawking radiation before it is able to absorb any other matter. Hawking radiation has never been observed and so if that theory is incorrect, then such a black hole could indeed gain mass and become self sustainable. If this were to happen, it would fall through the earth, collecting matter on the way, get trapped in the earth's gravitational field and seesaw back and forth through the planet until the entire thing is consumed, thus imploding the earth.
> 
> The possibility of this is extremely small, and yet not zero. This is just one reason why we tread lightly.



Just like hawking radiation, the idea that there's a chance of micro black holes forming in the LHC is too a theoretical prediction.

----------


## Spartiate

I'm no physicist, but I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole.  Black holes require enough mass to implode themselves through gravity, and the mass of a couple of subatomic particles is, well...

The Earth gets bombarded by near-light speed cosmic rays all the time and we're all still alive.

----------


## slash112

> I'm no physicist, but I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole.  Black holes require enough mass to implode themselves through gravity, and the mass of a couple of subatomic particles is, well...



The black holes being talked about with this thing are extremely extremely tiny.





> The Earth gets bombarded by near-light speed cosmic rays all the time and we're all still alive.



That's cause it's not particles.

----------


## Spartiate

> The black holes being talked about with this thing are extremely extremely tiny.



Say two protons collide and somehow form a black hole, the resulting black hole would have a mass of at most two protons.  Black holes aren't vacuum cleaners that suck everything around them, they attract stuff through gravity.  I don't think a singularity billions of times less massive than a spec of dust (if one could even sustain itself) would pose a threat to the planet.  The power of stellar black holes comes from the fact that they are many times more massive than our sun yet are only a few kilometers across.





> That's cause it's not particles.



Yes they are.





> Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements, electrons (beta particles), or gamma ray photons.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. However, when they were first discovered, cosmic rays were thought to be rays. When their particle nature needs to be emphasized, "cosmic ray particle" is written.

----------


## khh

> Say two protons collide and somehow form a black hole, the resulting black hole would have a mass of at most two protons.



Exactly. While the they might be so close that their gravity prevents them from being separated, they won't have enough mass to exert that kind of power on any other particles, and therefore no new mass will join them.





> The power of stellar black holes comes from the fact that they are many times more massive than our sun yet are only a few kilometers across.



The singularity itself is theoretically only a single point, even if the event horizon is bigger.

----------


## slash112

> Say two protons collide and somehow form a black hole, the resulting black hole would have a mass of at most two protons.  Black holes aren't vacuum cleaners that suck everything around them, they attract stuff through gravity.  I don't think a singularity billions of times less massive than a spec of dust (if one could even sustain itself) would pose a threat to the planet.  The power of stellar black holes comes from the fact that they are many times more massive than our sun yet are only a few kilometers across.



Yea, I never said that they were going to get bigger.

I was just saying that this was wrong:




> I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole.





And as for this:




> Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements, electrons (beta particles), or gamma ray photons.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. However, when they were first discovered, cosmic rays were thought to be rays. When their particle nature needs to be emphasized, "cosmic ray particle" is written



...Touché

I forgot about the alpha and beta radiation.
But protons aren't particles. (i.e. the 90% that hits the earth)

----------


## Xei

> Exactly. While the they might be so close that their gravity prevents them from being separated, they won't have enough mass to exert that kind of power on any other particles, and therefore no new mass will join them.



I don't understand this. Doesn't the strong force increase faster than the gravitational force with decreasing distance anyway? Talking about two neutrons here.

And with two protons, the electrostatic repulsion force increases at the same rate as gravity, but it's always greater than it by a very large ratio.

----------


## Xaqaria

> I'm no physicist, but I have a hard time believing that a collision alone (like in the LHC) can create a micro black hole.  Black holes require enough mass to implode themselves through gravity, and the mass of a couple of subatomic particles is, well...
> 
> The Earth gets bombarded by near-light speed cosmic rays all the time and we're all still alive.



As far as the fabric of space time is concerned, mass and acceleration are the same thing. 

The cosmic ray argument is refuted by the simple fact that if cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole in our atmosphere (and it didn't immediately decay), its momentum would carry it through the earth and out the other side, off into the void of space. A black hole created by a particle accelerator would start out relatively stationary and so would get trapped in earth's gravitational field.

I get the feeling that most people here are arguing against these sorts of possibilities not because they know a whole lot about it, but because they are getting defensive; they think that their science is being attacked. These sorts of questions are the heart of scientific exploration. If you can't ask the hard questions then you shouldn't be talking about science at all.





> But protons aren't particles. (i.e. the 90% that hits the earth)



Protons are particles.  ::?:  A single proton has another name, hydrogen ion. Perhaps you were thinking photon? You would still be wrong since those are particles too but I would understand the mix up a little better.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> The cosmic ray argument is refuted by the simple fact that if cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole in our atmosphere (and it didn't immediately decay), its momentum would carry it through the earth and out the other side, off into the void of space. A black hole created by a particle accelerator would start out relatively stationary and so would get trapped in earth's gravitational field.
> 
> I get the feeling that most people here are arguing against these sorts of possibilities not because they know a whole lot about it, but because they are getting defensive; they think that their science is being attacked. These sorts of questions are the heart of scientific exploration. If you can't ask the hard questions then you shouldn't be talking about science at all.



I call shenanigans.

Micro black holes haven't yet been observed, they're a theoretical prediction. In spite of that, the idea that the we may accidentally create those micro black holes is purely speculative, because theoretically the LHC is not even close to being able to produce them.

Given the variety of possible collision scenarios for cosmic rays, there are plenty of imaginable situations where the relative speeds would result in not so fast moving black holes, add to the fact that the formed micro black hole would also be affected by electromagnetic forces. And any black hole that escaped the Earth would still have to deal with the Sun and our other neighbours.

----------


## Spartiate

> The cosmic ray argument is refuted by the simple fact that if cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole in our atmosphere (and it didn't immediately decay), its momentum would carry it through the earth and out the other side, off into the void of space. A black hole created by a particle accelerator would start out relatively stationary and so would get trapped in earth's gravitational field..



Do you have proof that cosmic rays can pass through the Earth?  Momentum is  mass x velocity, so a proton, no matter how fast it is traveling will never have much momentum because it has so little mass.  Getting through the atmosphere is one thing, but the entire Earth...

----------


## Xaqaria

A miniature black hole created by cosmic ray particles is not the same thing as a cosmic ray particle. If (and lets be clear that it is a big if) cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole, the black hole that is created would be significantly smaller than the particles that interacted to create it. It would pass through the earth in much the same way that neutrinos do, since it would be so small that it would hardly interact with anything at all. I'd also like to point out that this is all theory, both the existence of miniature black holes, and whether or not they would decay near instantaneously or persist. I started this all by saying that the LHC is _theoretically_ capable of imploding the earth. The prediction is based on several versions of string theory that require extra dimensions of space, without which much more energy would be required to create a miniature black hole and therefore it wouldn't be possible to do with the LHC at all.

----------


## slash112

> Protons are particles.  A single proton has another name, hydrogen ion. Perhaps you were thinking photon? You would still be wrong since those are particles too but I would understand the mix up a little better.



I meant to say "photons"... I thought that is what the source said. But I guess it didn't say that... But I think it should say that...

----------


## Spartiate

> A miniature black hole created by cosmic ray particles is not the same thing as a cosmic ray particle. If (and lets be clear that it is a big if) cosmic rays were to create a miniature black hole, the black hole that is created would be significantly smaller than the particles that interacted to create it. It would pass through the earth in much the same way that neutrinos do, since it would be so small that it would hardly interact with anything at all. I'd also like to point out that this is all theory, both the existence of miniature black holes, and whether or not they would decay near instantaneously or persist. I started this all by saying that the LHC is _theoretically_ capable of imploding the earth. The prediction is based on several versions of string theory that require extra dimensions of space, without which much more energy would be required to create a miniature black hole and therefore it wouldn't be possible to do with the LHC at all.



OK, so say all this is correct and the micro black holes don't dissipate, how do you propose they are a danger to the Earth given their extreme low mass?

----------


## Xaqaria

> OK, so say all this is correct and the micro black holes don't dissipate, how do you propose they are a danger to the Earth given their extreme low mass?



If they came in contact with other particles, their mass would increase, eventually to the point of absorbing the entire planet. This would not be instantaneous. Think; Katamari Damacy.

This article is a pretty good read. They say that the conditions for this possibility should exist in every neutron star so since neutron stars exist, there is no chance that the theory is correct.

----------


## Xei

> Doesn't the strong force increase faster than the gravitational force with decreasing distance anyway? Talking about two neutrons here.
> 
> And with two protons, the electrostatic repulsion force increases at the same rate as gravity, but it's always greater than it by a very large ratio.



Can somebody answer this? I don't know why high energy collisions should create black holes.

And why should the resultant black holes absorb mass? I mean, quarks are singularities but they don't suck in everything around them. The resulting micro black holes still have a strong-force field don't they?

----------


## Spartiate

> If they came in contact with other particles, their mass would increase, eventually to the point of absorbing the entire planet. This would not be instantaneous. Think; Katamari Damacy.



Why would the new particles bind to the black hole if it only has the mass of a couple of subatomic particles?  That isn't enough to attract or trap new particles due to gravity.





> Can somebody answer this? I don't know why high energy collisions should create black holes.



Playing devil's advocate, in reference to your quote, I'm pretty sure that when two protons (which I believe is what the LHC accelerates) collide in a particle accelerator, they don't remain protons and whatever that's left has different properties.

----------

