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

Would you believe:
"Wilfried Lothar Wagner Loris Bennett"

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?c...002689798168088

Physics World has rang in:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/30679

Also, didn't Walter L. Wagner also try to shut down Berkeley's Bevalac in the 1980's?

http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/publ/cup.pdf

Still waiting for a physical argument, but to date every single prophecy has been built on more than one crazy assumption. After the second crazy assumption, the laws of debate would seem to allow the opposition to offer one crazy assumption. So here's my candidate:

I guess the author of that literally believes "Hell is other people" and its corollaries.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Sep 7 2007, 05:55 AM

Is there any reason why this can't happen?

I've referenced articles on it before, but you won't (can't?) access and read pertinent information. The suggestion it was a blackhole came from the researchers.

It also lasted (relatively speaking) an unusually long time.

So you can't determine them for yourself? Oh yeah, you told me previously that you can't do any original work.

Yeah, Einstein's "greatest blunder." However, he was thinking of a steady-state universe, not an outwardly accelerating one!

Maybe so, but there's a lot of unproven postulates in it. For instance, it isn't proven that virtual particles exist.

It's undetermined.

I only said it may have been a blackhole. You're the one that brought up the dual of a blackhole, string theory thing.

You're a slippery one, but I've held my own with you in the past.

My point is that the stakes are so high that it's not worth the risk.

It's happened. Maybe our individual interpretation of "many" is different, but it has happened.

No, but I know enough about nitrogen combustion properties to know that it has too much entropy to support a flame (at atmospheric pressures).

Correction, It's beyond its intentional ability. It could happen though.

No, I'm relying on observational evidence.

It's possible that string theory is right about the hidden dimensions, but wrong about Hawking Radiation. As I wrote above, there's scant observational evidence that virtual particles even exist.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 7 2007, 07:18 AM

This just supports my contention that Hawking radiation might not work!


This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 7 2007, 07:26 AM

Somehow I'm not surprised. No comments from the scare-mongerers about my calculations.

Of course, using the Ionic radius mprobably isn't that accurate, given that atoms themselves are mostly empty space.

A little research tells us that that the typical nuclear radius is 10-14 fm.
Substituting this value in gives us a volume of 11,494 fm^3
This reduces to 1.149 *10^-35 cc
Using this new figure gives us a total occupancy of 0.00000000000256 cc
Which means that even in the core of the earth, it's still 99.999997% EMPTY SPACE.

Read the paper, learn something about AdS/CFT correspondence.

Not that that has anything to do with your claims.

Every time someone puts a calculation infront of you you claim "It's not considering all the factors!!" so I'm waiting for you to actually quantify what those factors are.

Yet more twisting of truth and putting words in my mouth.

You asked me if I'd ever done any original work. At the time (many months ago) the answer was no, I'd instead been spending the last few years learning about various mainstream results so that now I could be in a position to hopefully extend some of them. So it wasn't I couldn't, it was I hadn't.

Now, several months down the line, the situation has changed. I have done original work and infact my supervisor and I plan to put pen to paper properly in the coming month or so and then I'll be published.

What original, published, work have you done? How much time and effort have you put into learning GR and QFT? The answer to both questions is obviously none.

The size of the constant is what determines wether a space-time is expanding or contracting or static.

I'll add 'basic cosmology' to the list of things you should learn befor shouting your mouth off.

Casamir effect.

Yep, so your claims about the black hole at RHIC are all the more tenious.

No, the paper YOU cited brought it up. Your claims stem from that paper and the paper even had 'dual' in the title!

Keep kidding yourself. The reality of it is clear.

So it's not worth doing any particle physics research on the fantastically unlikely grounds it could destroy the Earth. Why do you still have your computer on, when it's risking the entire Earth?!

Quick, shut down your PC!

My point stands, it's not a viable argument.

That's not including the pressure from an atomic blast.

Funny how you go so quickly from "string theory is hodgepodge" to "I need a result of string theory!"

So quantify the risk.

• Empirically, the number of objects destroyed by sub-stellar black holes or stranglets: Zero
• Empirically, the evidence that 450 EeV cosmic rays form black holes: Zero
• Physically: Number of coherent attempts at non-quantum gravitational theories which predict that a black hole is possible to form at collider energies: Zero
• Physically: Number of coherent attempts at quantum gravitational theories which predict that a black hole is possible to form at collider energies: Maybe One -- can't judge this from a press release.
• Physically: Number of of coherent attempts at quantum gravitational theories which predict that a black hole formed at collider energies could be dangerous: Zero

If the risk is actually zero, then the amount of the stakes are irrelevant.

All the working physicists are asking is for a coherent model of how anyone is put at risk by any collider experiment at all. With viruses or chemistry or coal mining or mountain climbing, the risks are quantifiable. Why should physics be held to a higher standard?

But it is completely unknown how the experiment might put anyone at risk, and this is why AlphaNumeric's example is so relevant. If we are allowed to guess the risk of something that has never been observed to happen -- a pure guess not based on any calculation from known quantities -- then your are replacing logic with fantasy. That's why, even though you are using "scientific" language, scientists think your question is, "Isn't it possible that a dimensional rift to empty space has opened up in my apartment while I was away, and the next time I put the key in my lock, I could be putting the entire Earth at risk of losing atmosphere?" So going home from work could be as risky as any LHC experiment by that pseudo-reasoning. Using a computer could be. Thinking could be. It is a completely unreasonable fear of the unknown based on the unknowable.

In 1999, four authors put a bound on collider-based black holes based on the only successful models of gravity at the time: General Relativity and First Order quantum gravity. The risk is zero.

In the speculative paper on the creation of black holes in the TeV range, this is a quantum model which includes Hawking Radiation as an easy prediction. Your position on Unruh radiation is inapposite. (W.L. Wagner perhaps can tell you what that last word means.)

In the RHIC paper comparing the quark-gluon plasma to the mathematical properties of a high-dimensional black hole evaporating by Hawking Radiation, the fireball has no ability to grow by "sucking in" matter -- it's an analogy only. Likewise, there are other analogues for black holes, but just because some of the math is the same doesn't make them black holes.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...5-12/index.html

Stop using press releases and unchecked pre-prints in lieu of actual scientific papers. Stop using fear as a substitute for reason.

Been there, done that. Have you read it?

It has a lot to do with my claims. Can you be sure the core completely dissolved, or did it just stop radiating?

These factors are pretty obvious. Are you really afraid that I might successfully argue against your self-acclaimed skills?

Figure it out, AlphaNumeric. How fast must it grow to be captured?

No. I asked you if you can do any original work.

Yeah. This is one of the nifty (albeit tentative) changes I mentioned earlier, to the standard model.

Basic cosmology has changed quite a bit these past few years. Dark matter and dark energy have really mucked things up. Before their effects were discovered, we thought we had a pretty good handle on things.

This only tends to support the concept of a ZPE. It doesn't necessarily reflect the form of the ZPE.

Aside questions: If the energy transferred to the Casimir plates was real, did the supposed VP's that caused it also become real? What if only one of the virtual pair hit a plate? Wouldn't this cause the other to have a net positive (real) energy?

Could a Casimir cavity be used to induce the production of antimatter?

I never claimed it was a blackhole. I only stated that it's possible it was. I'm not even the originator of that claim. The researchers themselves are.

No you brought it up and told me to read about it. I then explained I had and I provided the reference to back up that claim.

Whatever.

Heavy (short lived) elements, antimatter, parton radiation, and such are one thing, strange matter and blackholes pose a fundamentally different risk altogether.

Why are you such a doofus?

So you think things like: the CP (now often called CPT) violation, the cosmic microwave background radiation (and mapping), neutrino mass, dark matter, and dark energy are irrelevant additions to the standard model of cosmology?

Which is only local to the blast. NOx is induced locally by the heat and pressure of the blast, but nitrogen combustion isn't self-sustaining beyond the blast.

That's not what I said.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 8 2007, 08:24 AM

Actually there is evidence of purely dark matter galaxies. Where did the ordinary matter go? Is it unreasonable to suggest that the dark matter halos for these galaxies collapsed upon the ordinary matter?

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Theories that successfully and verifiably describe gravity: Zero.

CERN and other physicists seem quite confident that it will happen. They've even nicknamed the LHC "The Blackhole Factory."

Proof that it's safe: Zero.

The risk is not Zero.

Because the stakes are orders of magnitude higher.

If it is observed to happen even once, who will be left to note down the results?

We have plenty of observational evidence that these activities of mundane existence are safe. We don't have that reassurance with the LHC.

Have you ever heard the phrase; "Man plans, and God laughs." Have our theories always been such accurate predictors that it's reasonable to risk all of humanity on them?

Hooray! Someone actually looked at the Unruh paper!

I only referenced that dual of a blackhole paper in relation to AlphaNumeric's challenge to read up on the subject. Earlier, I referenced a BBC article that simply described it as a possible blackhole.

The Unruh Radiation issue contradicts Hawking Radiation!

This one was an object in spacetime with properties that resembled a blackhole. Was it a blackhole? I don't have enough information to make a determiniation.

However, some radiation is going to be apparent around a newly formed, but purely classical blackhole. It isn't clear whether it completely dissolved, or just stopped radiating.

I generally use papers and articles that are available from reliable sources. Which ones (specifically) are you objecting too?

I also try to be objective and reasonable. It's called, "critical thinking." I highly recommend it.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 8 2007, 09:23 AM

Problem is: everything in and from the GR or Newton's gravity regarding the strong field, being "large" or "small", is totally wrong and cannot be used in any estimation. Also, the "Hawking radiation" is a poor speculation as almost all the related contemporary "physics".

So, both of "two sides" in this discussion are wrong but from different reasons. Or in other words, in this dicussion there is no real "reasons", only empty arguing. And let me say, the LHC is the first (in this historical turn) experiment of its kind which could harm local equlibrium of Space-Matter itself and that is FAR above all known exoteric physics.

However, it seems someone behind all that is carefull and concerened enough (at the moment at least) and because of that we have "delays".

God bless

Actually there is evidence of purely dark matter galaxies. Where did the ordinary matter go? Is it unreasonable to suggest that the dark matter halos for these galaxies collapsed upon the ordinary matter?

Yes it is unreasonable, because you are just guessing. The simplest explanation is that the ordinary matter (hydrogen) did not exist there in the first place in amounts large enough to form stars. You can't say there was no ordinary matter because it was detected by radio emissions from its hydrogen.

http://www.universetoday.com/2005/02/23/fi...laxy-discovered
http://www2.naic.edu/~rminchin/virgohi21.html

So you have zero evidence for objects destroyed.

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We do see lots of EeV cosmic rays. We see no evidence that black holes are formed. Thus it is unreasonable from an empirical background to assume that particle collisions form black holes.

Theories that successfully and verifiably describe gravity: Zero.

Actually, GR has been verified in every area of the universe we have observed. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/index.html

CERN and other physicists seem quite confident that it will happen. They've even nicknamed the LHC "The Blackhole Factory."

Who did this? I know the name is popular among bloggers. The actual motivation is as a Higgs factory.

Even if you accept predictions from some CERN scientists that black holes will be produced at a rate of 1/second, the exact same theories predict that they evaporate before leaving vacuum and that less than 20 per year are below Earth escape velocity and that it takes billions of years of experiments to threaten the Earth if they don't decay.

But the motivation of a theoretical prediction of a particle-sized black hole is from quantum theories which assume facts not yet in evidence.

Proof that it's safe: Zero.

By this standard, nothing is proven safe. Actual planning requires a number, just like actual science does.

The risk is not Zero.

Then it must be a number. What is that number? How is it calculated. What parameters are unknown? What experiments would let us measure those parameters?

So the acceptable level of risk should be orders of magnitude smaller than ordinary risks we find acceptable.

The entire city of Denver is at increased hazard from radiation, but this is considered an acceptable risk. Japan and California are prone to earthquakes, but this is an acceptable risk. Extinction risks from space rocks are well-modeled.

That pretty much proves that no CERN Physicist who believes in the speculative model of gravity believes that these black holes pose a risk. While you can get a Nobel for discovering something that kills you, you can't if you kill the Nobel committee.

But why do you assume they are dangerous. GM foods haven't spread like wildfire. The Bevalac and RHIC did not cause problems like W.L. Wagner predicted. If you predict trouble and are right, then you are Cassandra -- a tragic figure. But if you predict trouble and are wrong, then you are the boy who cried 'wolf' -- a fool.

Yep. http://www.mjc.org/Rabbis%20Message/message-200202.htm
And, yep. We do that every time we do something new.

No, it doesn't. But rather than spend 20 years educating you on axiomatic quantum field theory, we have done you the honor of accepting your nonsense speculation on non-evaporating black holes for our calculations. And you respond by spitting on it.

This can only mean you don't actually have the physics or math background to argue with the calculations. And this implies you cannot understand the Unruh paper and it's implications for Hawking radiation.

Still checking for your reasoning. Also, it's not "blackhole" but "black hole."

God bless the delays!

Ubavontuba: Still no comment on the calculations I provided for your benefit I see.

Rpenner: I have a question for you. If a Black hole did form from an EeV Cosmic Ray, what evidence would we expect to see. Ubavontuba seems to be under the impression that when you say "We have bo evidence these things form" what you really mean is "Because we have not observed these things directly, they do not form". So what evidence would we expect to see? I imagine it would take the form of signature particle cascades, or emission of radiation with a certain signature?

Yes it is unreasonable, because you are just guessing. The simplest explanation is that the ordinary matter (hydrogen) did not exist there in the first place in amounts large enough to form stars. You can't say there was no ordinary matter because it was detected by radio emissions from its hydrogen.

http://www.universetoday.com/2005/02/23/fi...laxy-discovered
http://www2.naic.edu/~rminchin/virgohi21.html

"...they found a mass of hydrogen atoms a hundred million times the mass of the Sun." And yet none if this hydrogen clumps together to form even one star because...?

(cool references!)

And you can't prove that there isn't any evident destruction. I've asked you this before: Where are all the neutron stars from previous generations? Why do scientists think gamma ray bursts come from "colliding neutron stars" (a regular occurrence in the universe) and yet they don't see ordinary stars bashing into each other regularly? Since visible stars are seemingly so numerically superior, shouldn't we see this happening all over the place, all the time (provided the physics of gravitational attraction between neutron stars and visible stars is the same)?

Of course not! It would be here and gone before it could be confirmed. The relative velocity is enormous!

My bad. I meant to state: Theories that successfully and verifiably describe quantum gravity: Zero. I have no argument with GR. You know as well as I do that GR doesn't really apply well to quantum particle collider experiments.

Who did this? I know the name is popular among bloggers. The actual motivation is as a Higgs factory.

Here it is, straight from the CERN Courier:

"If the Planck scale is thus in the TeV range, the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second."
(Bold is mine)

20 per year! That's 20 too many! Do AlphaNumeric and Trippy know this (they argued against it)?

I don't buy the billions of years thing. Every calculation I've ever seen on this relies on the absorption cross section of the nano-black holes when they are small. It's extrapolated linearly from there. The ideas that the growth rate will increase with mass and that additionally, the crushing pressure of the earth's interior might push mass in, are completely ignored.

I'll concede that it may still take some time though (hopefully longer, rather than shorter), but why risk destroying the earth for our descendants? What'd they ever do to us?

Verifiable and repeated observations of safety are satisfactory evidence. You got any?

Then it must be a number. What is that number? How is it calculated. What parameters are unknown? What experiments would let us measure those parameters?

Virtually all of the parameters are unknown. Only by conducting the experiments can we determine verifiably whether it's safe or not. By then, it might be too late. How about moving the experiments to a safe distance so we can safely make that determination?

Yes!

Relatively minor destruction is not even in the same risk ball field as total destruction. Scientists are indeed already working on methods to protect earth from falling space rocks (even though the evidence indicates this only happens once in dozens of millions(!) of years or so).

What's that prove? The Titanic builders had every confidence their ship was "unsinkable" too.

Why do you assume it's safe?

I wouldn't care if they did. It'd probably be a boon to food production.

So you'd try and shame me into accepting the risk? Better a live fool than a dead Cassandra.

There's a funny reference to this in the movie "Evan Almighty."

Not true. Most risks are to individuals and/or small parties/populations. Most mundane risks are foreseeable. This one risks everything.

It'd sure be neat if someone would offer me a full sponsorship though...

That's not my intent. I'm only requesting a more accurate representation. Why is that a problem?

I thought it was pretty evident from that paper that black hole horizons might only radiate if they have high relative velocities to the observer. CERN black holes might have as little as zero.

Technically you are correct. However it seems to me that the phrasing often makes more sense when using the conjunction. The use of the conjunction, hyphen, and separate words is fairly common. However there does seem to be a concerted effort to standardize to the usage "black hole" when referring to the physics phenomenon.

Here, we see multiple images of black holes: Google pictures.

Please note the variety of usage. Even universities still use the conjunction. Let's see, there's Cal Tech, Ohio State...

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 8 2007, 10:18 PM