Black holes at CERN?, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news12171.html

Yeah, but this isn't really unquantifiable. You just have to be willing to look at the issue with a different point of view.

You want the experiment to proceed, so you seek reasons to justify it. I also used to think it was a nifty thing. But for fun, I decided to look at the physics of the experiment objectively, using it as a study in collision models. I think it's needless to say that my results quickly began to alarm me.

No model of quantum gravity has been verified. Anything can happen.

Not really. You just have to use your head and examine the known facts objectively. This is how I determined the relevance of the conservation of momentum issue.

The speculative parts aren't to be trusted, so the smart thing to do is to imagine the worst (understanding that nature can often be much worse than we might imagine).

Say what?

Right. I recommend starting with the well understood theories of Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 5 2007, 04:05 AM

AlphaNumeric,

This was the best argument you've made to date. Thanks for making me rethink my position. It hasn't changed, but I'm less worried over all.

And you claim they aren't important without examining them for their relevance.

I've not admitted to anything.

But the Hawking Radiation model is completely unverified.

But people do win the lottery, regularly.

So you admit that you can't setup this calculation? Wow. And you claim to be such a math whiz!

Or the energy level that was thought to be required in GR is simply wrong. Variance in the strength of gravity concepts in regards to scale are just starting to be examined. The most famous ones are in relation to the extremely large scale and the phenomenom known as "Dark Energy."

And so you admit that hodgepodging them together like that is a bad idea?

I read that paper a couple of years ago. Here's a link for anyone interested.

Many might baulk at using "string theory" and "scientific methology" in the same sentence. However, you seem to be particularly fond of doing so.

More deflection. This was about the neutron star capture model. Do I really need to tell you what the important factors are?

The subject was you calculating your own neutron star capture model. Don't deflect the argument with generalizations.

The relative momentums of the collision products generally aren't discussed. 0.001% is typically low, but there's no law of physics which states it can't be zero.

I'll admit it. The window is relatively small. This applies even more strongly to the natural cosmic ray collision model. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. Remember, they intend to make thousands of them at a time, and they're trying to minimize the relative momentums.

And I've stated time after time that I agree the risk is small. But nonetheless, there is a risk.

More deflection.

"Don't know nothing 'bout history, don't know much biology..."

I've read a lot on it. As stated above, the actual relative momentum of the collision product isn't generally discussed. Do you know where I might find more information on this?

Sure I have. I just haven't seen an argument that justifies risking the whole earth yet, even if the odds of danger are vanishingly small. The stakes balance heavily on the scale, against the justification for the experiment.

You've just ignored them.

My case might be weak, but the stakes are so high that it's worth airing.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 5 2007, 06:35 AM

Oh buzz off you arrogant little worm.

For the record here is the post I was referring to, and specifically, this is the part that as near as I can figure, he has taken exception to:

It was the term 'Actualized energy' that I was refering to.

For some arcane reason here he seemed to think that I was referring to force

Ironicaly though, inspite of his incessant whining over a term that I used once, as a teaching tool, even though the physics he speaks of is incorrect when he says "Kinetic energy isn't always actualized though." He actually contradicts himself, although doesn't seem to realize it. That sentence alone, and especially when put in the context of the sentence that follows it, implies that he grasped what I was trying to communicate when I said 'actualized energy' another equivalent term that I have heard used when trying to teach the difference between the two forms is 'real energy'.

It's simply a teaching tool to try and teach the difference between energy that is doing stuff (or involved in doing stuff), for example, Kinetic Energy. And Energy which has the potential to do stuff (or is doing stuff).

I then performed the same dimensional analysis three times to try and prove that Work was energy (yes Eric, a change in energy is still energy) and not Force as he seemed to think.

Edit:
Ubavontuba: I also notice that you're very quick to avoid my statements which are directly relevant to your arguments.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Sep 5 2007, 07:00 AM

Clearly no grasp of statistics.

Chances of (over here) the lottery being won: Approx 1
Chances of the lottery being won by an indvidual: Approx 1:4,000,000
Chances of the lottery being won three weeks in a row: Approx 1
Chances of the lottery being won by the same individual three weeks in a row: 1:64,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Please note the absurdity of countering "Approximately the same as an individual winning the lottery three weeks in a row"

with

"But people do win the lottery, regularly"

You're talking about comparing things that are seventeen orders of magnitude different.

It might be to you and me and every day velocities but it's not even 0.1% of the velocity they were moving at and it's less than 0.0001% of the original energy they had.

By the way, isn't 0.1% like 100 times greater than the typically low 0.001%? So, the window is wide enough?



This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 5 2007, 07:38 AM

And here are the beer coaster calculations I promised earlier:

Inner core density 12.85 g/cc (REM). (Probing the absolute density of the Earth’s core using a vertical neutrino beam Walter Winter).

Composition:
Fe 85%
Ni 4%
O 8%
S 2%

Atomic Mass:

Fe: 55.845 g/mol
Ni: 58.594 g/mol
O: 15.999 g/mol
S: 32.065 g/mol

Ionic Radius

Fe: 83.5 pm
Ni: 83 pm
O: 126 pm
S: 170 pm

Ionic Volume (4/3 * Pi*r^3) (1)

Fe: 2,438,641 pm^3
Ni: 2,395,095 pm^3
O: 8,379,155 pm^3
S: 20,579,526 pm^3

Stoichiometry of 1 cc ((Abundance * Density) / Atomic Mass)

Fe: 0.196 mol
Ni: 0.00877 mol
O: 0.0643 mol
s: 0.0160 mol

Number of atoms in 1 cc (Molality * Avogadros Number)

Fe: 1.180 *10^23
Ni: 5.281 *10^21
O: 3.872 *10^22
S: 9.635 *10^21

Ionic Volume converted to cc's (Ionic Volume *10^-30)

Fe: 2.439 *10^-24 cc
Ni: 2.385 *10^-24 cc
O: 8.379 *10^-24 cc
S: 2.058 *10^-23 cc

Total Occupied Volume in 1 cc (Ionic Volume * Number of Atoms)

Fe: 0.288 cc
Ni: 0.0126 cc
O: 0.324 cc
S: 0.198 cc

Total Occupancy of 1 cc of Core material: 0.823 cc
Empty Space in 1 CC of Core Material: 0.177 cc

So, even at the core of the Earth, there is 17.7% EMPTY SPACE

Calculations treat atoms as a solid sphere.
Use of Ionic radii (Ni(II) and Fe(II))

I have talked you through various calculations, orders of magnitude descriptions and given you overviews of how quantum systems interact. I am familiar with quantum scattering processes and what plays important parts in them.

Are you?

In other words, no. You'd explain how you did have hands on knowledge if you actually had some.

So are microblack holes.

Ahahahaa!! You really have no grasp of statistics do you?

I said, it's like someone winning the lottery three weeks in a row, not like the lottery being won three weeks in a row. See the difference?! If that's a demonstration of your abilities to critique statistics, your claims are utterly baseless!

I've shown you the equations for absorption cross sections of black holes in terms of relative velocities. Are you struggling to actually use them?

Dark energy isn't an example of GR being wrong, just an effect we'd not considered. GR describes it fine.

No, I'm pointing out the contradiction you make by you were referring to GR's description of a quantum process, after saying GR applied to QFT is a hodgepodge.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Yet you didn't understand it. It talks abotu effective field theories, dualities and the string theory description (the AdS/CFT correspondence). It doesn't say an actual black hole was produced.

Says the guy who made reference to the 'dual black hole' when it's a string theory description which talks about black holes! More contradiction from you.

No, but statistics says it's fantastically unlikely. Then theory (very tentative theory, even more dodgy than Hawking radiation you so deny) says it's even more fantastically unlikely a black hole would form from such a collision and then any theory which says that say it'll evaporate.

So even for a black hole to form, you're looking at the coincidence of two fantatistically unlikely events. Then you have to deny the theory you are relying on to talk about black hole formation and say it won't behave as the theory says.

More 'trying to have your cake and eat it'.

Nope. They are aren't intending to make any. And much less than 1000/s. And they cannot minimise the energy to the level you're talking about because it's a hadron collider, not a lepton one.

I went to an hour long talk by a guy involved in constructing the LHC yesterday (the technical difficulties are mind boggling!) and he talked about the fact you cannot tune the energy to a small range due to the composite nature of hadrons. So even if they tried, they'd be relying purely on change to get an equal collision. That further reduces it's probabilty.

He mentioned LEP, which was a lepton collider, and even the very fine tuning they used to do would be only to be few MeV. Remember, anything over a few eV in energy will be enough to escape. The machines simply cannot do it deliberately.That's straight from the horse's mouth.

The collision product momentum is an essential component of the entire system. It's what people measure, they built 1000 ton detectors to do just that! Do you know anything about colliders other than what you read on conspiracy websites?!

I suggest starting at the CERN homepage!

Some feared nuclear weapons would ignite the atmosphere. Some feared GM crops would spread like wildfire.

Relative energy of colliding particles : 10TeV. Relative energy compared to Earth needed to escape gravity : < 10eV.

Ratio? 1 in a trillion.

Then factor in things like angle spread of collisions, imprecise nature of the beams, preferencial particle production, specific method of interaction and then the fantastic unlikelihood of a black hole being formed, according to theories much more tenious than things like Hawking radiation, and the assumption Hawking radiation then doesn't apply (despite the theory you just used to justify the black hole production says Hawking is right) and you're looking at very long odds.

But I'm sure you'll just continue to whine and ignore actual science.

This ubavontuba character seems rather > a little dim. Perhaps he should attend remedial classes or something.

1) Quantify "goodly percentage."
1a) What is the radius of the formed black hole: 10^-4 fermi
1b) What is the internal motion of the partons of a proton in its rest frame? 0.99995c (Feel free to use another figure, but include a cited source.)
1c) What is its correlation with boost direction? none
1d) What is that boost amount? 0.999999995c (reference: 10 TeV protons implies γ = 10000 ).
1e) If A is the angle between the velocities, what is the Einsteinian sum of velocities? Expressed in terms of , v1 = (1 - 5×10^-9)c, v2=(1 - 5×10^-5)c, we have v║ in the direction v1 and v┴, perpendicular to it, we have v║= (v1 + cos A v2) / ( 1 + cos A v1 v2/c²) and v┴ = (sin A v2) √(1 - v1²/c²)/ ( 1 + cos A v1 v2/c²)
1f) What is the probability distribution that the angle will be within dA of A? sin A dA
1g) What is the momentum of a parton with |v|² = v? m v / √(1 - v²/c²)
1h) What is the momentum, in the lab frame, of a composite particle formed from two identical particles of 3-velocities (vx,xy,vz) and (ux,uy,uz)? m [ (vx,vy,vz) / √(1 - vx²/c² - vy²/c² - vz²/c²) + (ux,uy,uz) / √(1 - ux²/c² - uy²/c² - uz²/c²) ]
1i) What is the expression for |v|² of the composite particle? Remember that while v║ and u║ are aligned in the lab frame, v┴and u┴ are uncorrelated.
1j) What is the geometry that has to be integrated over to make a statement of probability? S2×S2 or S1×S1×S1 depending on scheme.
1k) What is the probability of the composite |v| being less than escape velocity of Earth? You can use 3.8 × 10^-5 c.
1l) The above assumes it is realistic that v1 = -u1, that the two beams are perfectly equal in energies. Is this likely? Will an imbalance in the beam energies make the probability of sub-escape velocity more or less likely?

2) Quantify the growth of these black holes over time.
2a) What is the radius of the black hole? Cite sources.
2b) What is its capture cross-section as a function of particle velocity? Cite sources.
2c) What is its surface gravity? Cite sources.
2d) What is the time it takes to make a semi-orbit of the Earth's interior, assuming zero initial velocity ?
2e) What is the total volume of the cylinder of captured Earth material?
2f) What is the mass growth rate? (2 amu or 2 GeV at radius of 10^-4 fermi).
2g) Black holes have been called sloppy eaters. Explain what role the conservation of angular momentum plays in this description.
2h) What is the radius of a 1 kg black hole in GR? What does this say the growth in radius of a 10^-4 fermi black hole in some non-GR theory?

3) How is "1/second" -- a figure used both by you and me in my 2006 calculations, a "copious abundance" which 45000 years of 1/second do not lead to the Earth's premature demise -- even before you calculate what percentage of that 1/second could be formed at below Earth escape velocity?

I might be.

Not necessarily. It might jeopardize my position (assuming I have one).

It's entirely possible the RHIC fireball was one. It's also reasonable to suspect that dark matter may be massive clouds of them.

Oh come on. You couldn't read the sarcasm? I thought it was funny.

Don't change the subject. Show me the calculations for your neutron star capture model.

Really? That's news to me. Please elaborate.

I like cake!

Maybe blackholes at any scale are simply GR phenomena. After all it is an infinite density regardless of its size, right?

Right. It's string theory. It could say anything and not be provable. It's a profound question: Does string theory describe the universe?

We don't know.

That was you! You brought that up first. I guess I'll have to chalk this up as more evidence that you're just another chatbot. An inability to track topics is their most obvious weakness.

Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they can form (we have evidence they might) and maybe they don't radiate (anyone ever seen any Hawking Radiation?).

Which has happened to the "standard model" repeatedly. Why should this case be any different?

Yum yum!

Then why do they state just the opposites in their own literature?

I think you meant "chance" where you wrote "change," is that right?

I don't like the idea of playing dice with the earth.

Technology marches forward. Have you seen the steering magnets in the LHC? Wow!

The collision product momentum relative to the earth/lab is the information I'm seeking. I've been looking for it, but it's not readily apparent in the literature. I've only found a few references and they aren’t specific.

Been there.

Not me.

Wow. Talk about bad math. The relative energy of the colliding particles has no relevance to the relative momentum of the final product with the earth.

Not long enough, considering the possible cost.

What actual science? You mean like the proof that Hawking Radiation works? You mean like the proof that string theory is an accurate representation of the universe? Where's the proof?

This is blatant BS.
It means that in order for the alleged micro-blackholes to be formed, with a residual momentum less than the escape velocity (a pre-requisite for capture), that the momentums of the colliding particles need to cancel to part in a Trillion.

This involves acheiving an accuracy of ±0.0000000001%

Not so irrelevant now is it?

And what justification or rationale do you have for that being a viable thing to take from the experiment, other than your desperate wish for some justification for your claims?

The 'fireball' was a mass of quark formed parts. What made it interesting was that they didn't hadronise immediately, they formed a plasma of sorts.

How can I when you refuse to tell me the important factors for such models?

Since you've obviously never studied it, I'l tell you.

When computing the Einstein Field Equations, there is a constant of integration which you can include. That constant is the 'cosmological constant', which models dark energy. For decades it was set to zero but now it's set to a tiny value, as experiments imply. So it's not that GR couldn't model it, we just didn't consider it.

No, the long distance effects of black holes are GR related. The actual 'singularity' and the region extremely close to it require quantum considerations.

Yet it forms the basis for your only method of relating the RHIC experiment to black holes and even then it never said an actual black hole formed.

You originally brought it up and I had to correct you on it, that it wasn't a black hole.

Another pointless, irrelevent attempt to side track the 'discussion' by mentioning "you're a chatbot". I bet it's all the more galling that a chatbot knows more science and logic than you.

Every time a crank insults me, it just reflects even more on them because it means they are being corrected and shown for idiots by "a child" or "a chatbot".

Yes, that's true but your ability to grasp relative likelihood of "Maybes" is not exactly good.

And it's not happened on many occasions. See how your logic is flawed?

Why? Were you involved in the Manhattan project in 1945?

It tells you the 'fine tuning' required to get into the tiny range you talk about. It's entirely out of the ability of the collider.

Everytime you've been shown some equations, you ignore it. Besides, you're the one leaning on string theory for even the slightest black hole related thing to current collider physics.

I have to retract this statement. There have been a great number of contributions to science by W.L. Wagner's -- But Walter L. Wagner turns out not to be one of them. I did a quick literature search and found many papers which given the biographical details we know about Walter L. Wagner, seemed reasonable. Unfortunately, this turns out to be the work of William L. Wagner and Warren L. Wagner. Also, I was incorrectly counting some publications from before 1970.

So my estimate of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications in the biological sciences cannot be correct. It may well be that his letter to Scientific American may be the most "illustrious" publication of Walter L. Wagner's career.

As AlphaNumeric recently wrote:

So, I am forced by the evidence to amend my statement as:
I continue to assert that "there is NO evidence that Walter L. Wagner has "expert" status in any area of particle, quantum, relativistic or gravitational physics" or biology.

He doesn't state where or in what field he received his doctorate, he has no CV published, World Botanical Gardens has no research arm, or even a staff list confirming his relationship with them.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Sep 6 2007, 05:37 PM

Did you check Wilfred?

I attended a brief talk on primordial black holes today and the speaker commented that given the prediction of outputs of Hawking radiation in the gamma photon range, it was possible to use experimental observations of said range of the EM spectrum to put bounds on the amount of matter in the universe taken up by microblack holes.

Ub said previously that microblack holes were a possible candidate for a considerable amount of dark matter, which is estimated to take up approximately 25% of our universe. Experimental observations put the upper bound at 0.00001%.

So much for that one.