LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html

Why don't you respond to the question of providing a link to posts where you claim I said all the things you claim I said.

You keep saying that we should be on topic and then you ask 'a chatbot quiz'. Not ontopic. I ask you to prove your claims about my comments on the topic and you refuse.

Hypocrisy, they name is ubavontuba.

Equally, he keeps requiring us to link to things that we say that he's said, but refuses to back up his claims about things that he thinks we've said.

Typical behaviour.

What? What? What? When and where did I say anything like that?

When and where did they say this, and who are you talking about?

Well, hell! I have no idea what you are talking about, but the only pedagogical reason to use an example is to discuss an unfamiliar phenomenon in terms of more familiar phenomena. Just how are you supposed to relate to the mass of a mountain? How big of a mountain are we talking about? How are you supposed to relate to the Schwarzschild radius?

Are you making this up as you go along? You definitely don't seem to be quoting anything I wrote. In GR, a mass of 10^11 kg would have a Schwarzschild radius of close to 0.15 fm which is not nearly as large as an atom.
(0.15 fm is roughly the diameter of one of the "o"s in the word Proton on this page http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/ )

For a mediocre mountain on the order of 10^11 kg, this is true, but seems apropos of nothing. Mountains aren't the subject matter of LHC, quarks and bosons are.
A single proton exerts over 25 times the force on an electron as this hypothetical 10^11 kg black hole ... at the same distance. It would require direct collisions to ionize to normal atoms.

You've simply mangled the math and facts too much for others to rely on your storytelling. Link to the page or give up.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 25 2008, 09:40 AM

I suspect that in this regard, Ubavontuba has managed to confuse himself.

Ubavontuba has forwarded the hypothesis that Microblackholes make up dark matter.

He has related this to the mainstream hypothesis that Primoridal blackholes constitute some fraction of dark matter.

It has been stated by several people on this thread that if stable micro blackholes exist, they pose no threat, because their velocities would be thermalized, and given the observed density of dark matter in the universe, Earth should have encountered at least one that it could gravitationally capture in its lifetime, but we're still here, therefore they pose no threat and are safe.

Somehow Ubavontuba has interpreted this as people in this thread saying that Mountain sized primordial black holes are safe.

I may have added to his confusion because in more then one post I switch between Primordial and Micro black holes, with the intent of (in the context of my post) drawing analogies between the pair of them.

In retrospect, I can understand how this might have caused confusion for someone with Ubavontubas demonstrated levels of Physics knowledge, and basic reading comprehension.

1. Steven B. Giddings is a professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Michelangelo L. Mangano is employed by the theoretical physics division at CERN. On or about June 20, 2008 they published a paper called "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" which is available at http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PH-TH_2008-025.pdf or in preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 and which comes to the conclusion that there is no empirical or theoretical reason to suspect that the future habitability of Earth might be at risk from gravitationally collapsed objects resulting from LHC operations.

2. For microscopic black holes to be possible at LHC, the dimensionality of space-time must be greater than 4 and at least some of these extra dimensions must be so much larger than the presumed natural size of 1 Planck Length that black holes have a minimum mass of 14 TeV or less, two hypotheses without evidence at present.

3. Hawking describes a process where black holes evaporate, and extending his methods to microscopic black holes in extra-dimensional theories results in the general expectation that any such microscopic black holes would decay with a characteristic, recognizable signature inside the experimental area. Since Hawking predicts this process is slow for stellar-mass black holes, even though this process of decay is expected to be quite fast for microscopic black holes, it is called evaporation.

4. In an completely separate approach, ’t Hooft and others have shown that basic quantum field theory also leads to the conclusion that black holes decay. In the experience of particle physicists, everything decays into smaller particles unless protected by a "conserved quantum number." A microscopic black hole formed from elementary particles gains no such "conserved quantum number" and so is expected to quickly decay.

5. Nonetheless, the suggestion was raised that predictions of evaporation may depend on the unknown physics at the Planck Scale, which remain unknowable. Even though we have many theoretical reasons to expect that microscopic black holes quickly evaporate, Giddings and Mangano felt compelled to study the case where, argumendo, the microscopic black holes did not evaporate and ask the question was it conceivable that they pose a risk to Earth.

6. Natural cosmic rays continually hit the Earth with center-of-mass energies which can exceed 100 TeV. Anything that is possible in the LHC from parton-parton collisions should happen in Nature. If microscopic stable black holes could form in the LHC, they should form all over the Earth, albeit at speeds very close to the speed of light. So we investigate ways that microscopic stable black holes could slow down.

7. Because at the energies involved at the LHC or Cosmic rays, any such microscopic stable black holes would be charged with electromagnetic and chromodynamic quantum numbers. If we hadn't excluded, argumendo, Hawking evaporation, we could rely on the related Schwinger mechanism to quickly neutralize this charge and render the microscopic stable black holes electrically and chromodynamically neutral. Basic electrodynamics shows that the Earth is sufficient to stop a charged particle of up to a mass of about 7 TeV, and the Sun, which is also hit by cosmic rays, could stop a charged particle of up to a mass of about 100 TeV. Thus the stability of the Sun over 5 billion years shows that any such charged microscopic stable black holes pose no danger.

8. Let us assume, argumendo again, that the dimensionality of space-time must be greater than 4 and at least some of these extra dimensions must be so much larger than the presumed natural size of 1 Planck Length that black holes have a minimum mass of 14 TeV or less, the microscopic black holes did not evaporate, and that the microscopic stable black holes are kept neutral somehow.

9. Higher dimensional models of gravity are parametrized by a number of "active" dimensions, D, a reduced-Planck-mass, and in some theories a warp factor. Experiment rules out D=5, and separately rules out reduced-Planck-mass below 1 TeV. because D >= 7 implies that the growth of a neutral microscopic stable black hole in the Earth takes at least 6 billion years, these cannot be considered dangerous.

10. For comparison to LHC black hole concerns, a 10^11 kg black hole, which conventional theory sets as the lower mass bound of a hypothetical surviving primordial black hole would need more than 47 million years or so to eat the Earth if captured by the Earth's gravity.

11. To study the potential of threat for D=6 neutral microscopic stable black holes, which would have enhanced gravity out to about a radius of 3mm, we study the natural cosmic ray case. A body of the Earth's density would need a diameter 500 times larger just to slow a cosmic-ray-produced D=6 neutral microscopic stable black hole to non-relativistic speeds. But a neutron star could do that in 0.1 mm. And a white dwarf could do it in 1 mile, and if it had a mass of the sun, it could slow it even a 14 TeV cosmic-ray-produced D=6 neutral microscopic stable black hole to below escape velocity. So if D=6 neutral microscopic stable black holes are possible below 14 TeV, neutron stars and white dwarfs are at risk for natural black holes produced by cosmic rays. But white dwarfs are known to exist for billions of years, which is a contradiction with the D=6 prediction of an average lifetime of less than 2000 years.

12. Neutron stars often have high magnetic fields, which would tend to shield them from cosmic rays, but some of them have companion stars which would convert cosmic rays into D=6 neutral microscopic stable black holes, some of which would be intercepted by the neutron star. In addition neutrinos of cosmic ray origin, could be expected to create black holes in the neutron star. The neutron star (unless we are completely wrong about the composition of cosmic rays and the effects of gravity on neutrinos) should die within a year of encountering a cosmic-ray black hole.

13. "Only in scenarios such that the crossover scale to four-dimensional gravity is larger than about [20 nm] does one have significant accretion at times short as compared to the natural lifetime of Earth. This is a-priori unlikely, due to the additional fine-tuning required to realize such a TeV-scale gravity scenario."

14. "In these scenarios where black hole accretion time on Earth is short as compared to natural time scales, white dwarfs would likewise be accreted, on much shorter time scales, in contradiction to observation."

15. "Unless cosmic rays have dominantly a very heavy composition, and moreover either the expected neutrino flux doesn't exist or has unusual gravitational couplings to hadronic matter, neutron star decay would likewise be catalyzed on time scales, contradicting observation."

16. "[The Giddings-Mangano study] finds no basis for concerns that TeV-scale black holes from the LHC could pose a risk to Earth on time scales shorter than the Earth’s natural lifetime. Indeed, conservative arguments based on detailed calculations and the best-available scientific knowledge, including solid astronomical data, conclude, from multiple perspectives, that there is no risk of any significance whatsoever from such black holes."

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 25 2008, 10:43 PM

A wonderful summary, rpenner.

Unfortunately, in spite of the facts, ol' u-whatshisname is not about to be silent. After all, it's his "life's work" that is now at stake --- not the lessor safety of the planet! So he'll come up with something to keep his pride intact.

http://www.lbl.gov/publicinfo/newscenter/f...2/AFRD-LHC.html

Yet another paper that examines dark matter capture by the solar system as a whole, and individual planets within it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3767

Looks like Ubavontuba was wrong again.

Oh well, I guess we're all getting used to it by now aren't we?

Just to remind the readers, Euler has admitted that he doesn't know any GR and therefore he can't discuss any of the relevant physics.

Yet another empty post devoid of anything but drivel.

Again, you prove you're incapable of conducting a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

So you can shove your dishonesty up your **** you pathetic dishonest disgusting lying little cretin.

I very much doubt you knew what it is, until you just looked it up.

Looked it up on Wikipedia, did we?

Try again. Cars don't violate the conservation of momentum.

Well, you've once again demonstrated you don't anything about the conservation of momentum. Should I be surprised?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 28 2008, 05:59 AM

Be specific, or #### off.

I don't have to prove anything to you.

Specifically, it's not about "accelerating the electric charge."

No, this isn't true. Euler is extremely competant at GR. Even more so than myself.

I bet you cannot link to a post backing up your claim Euler said that. Because, yet again, you lie without shame.

I have to assume that you have realised you've failed to back up anything you've said and so you've decided to become as incoherent and irrational as possible. Because you accuse people of not saying anything relevent but all your posts are not are "You claims [something] but I won't prove it" and "You're not who you say you are!!". You have yet to justify your claims, post on topic or show you can do any relativity.

Hypocrite.

I don't care what you think.
Actually, I do happen to have Woodward and Mahood's original paper from 2000 sitting on my hard drive.

Wikipedia has an entry on it? Gee, I wonder how you would know that.

Personally though, I prefer to get my informstion from the source (or as close to it as i can manage.

That's fine, I didn't say they did violate the conservation of momentum, I said they could appear to. Huge difference there.

Liar.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Jun 28 2008, 06:18 AM

I did. I told you to make it worth my while.

You can't even identify the chatbot quiz, can you?

AlphaNumeric must stand for HAL9000, R2D2, C3PO, or some such. Perhaps you're a distant cousin of WALL-E?

Do you even know to what I just referred?