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

So you accept it's hypothetical and an analogy, yet you continue to try to use it or pages written about it to say "Look, they saw a black hole before!!"

Note the sentence

" To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions. "

I never said that. Exaggerating to the point of lying again.

As your own link said, it was nothing to do with gravity. If you learnt a bit about AdS/CFT you might see how it works. Suffice to say, the interaction they observed was entirely strong force mediated.

Neither have microblack holes. See how easy it is to turn your 'logic' against you?

Did you understand the Unruh paper or did you just skim read the abstract and conclusion? How many papers are there which say the opposite to that paper? How many didn't make the unrealistic assumption of modelling the electron as a scalar field (though I doubt you know what that means)? Besides, I'm sure I remember you arguing for not using Unruh to support Hawking.

More picking and choosing. You claim to be using 'critical thinking skills in assessing plausability' but given you have absolutely no physics knowledge of these things you lack the essential tools to be able to do such assessment on anything more than an emotional bias level.

As with most (or all) cranks, the vast majority of your "I've spotted a contradiction!" are due to your own ignorance of mainstream work.

It wasn't intended to be good, just demonstrate how flimsy your logic is.

You really don't get it do you.

A calculation on the back of an envelope, using highschool Trig, treating the black hole as a solid sphere, and the proton as a solid sphere, tells us the following (using figures derived from QFT, or measured empricaly).

If your alleged black hole was sitting right beside a proton in a Hydrogen atom, an electron travelling at the maximum atomic radius would experience reduced electrostatic attraction (assuming that the blackhole somehow absorbed every virtual photon that hit it - whatever that means) for approximately 0.00398% of it's 'orbit'. So even if the alleged black hole happened to absorb every virtual photon within 1000 radii, which I'm sure Alphanumeric would agree is totally unrealistic, that's still only 4% of it's orbit, and that's reduce electromagnetic attraction, not completely negated.

Another calculation tells us that for a Hydrogen atom, the alleged blackhole would have to cross the line between the proton and the electron within 9.75 fm of the electron to completely obscure the proton. At the distance of 78,000 fm that represents the atomic radius of Hydrogen, this represents 0.0125% of the radius of the orbit. Less head on approaches require the black hole to approache closer to the electron.

Now, if we assume a radius of 10 fermi for an Iron nucleus, and consider it to have a radius of 148,000 fm, then we can see that the black hole would have to approach within 1.4 fm of an electron to completely block the attractive force that that SINGLE electron feels for the Nucleus (let alone blocking multiple electrons) this represents 0.000946% of the distance between the electron and the nucleus.

To sum up? You're presumptions and assumptions amount to this: Once every 10,000 orbits of the black hole, the Black hole might pass close enough to AN Iron atom to cause it to loose AN electron, ionizing it to the +I state.

So much for undermining the pillars that hold the atom together...

Yes. Higher energy collisions happen in the upper atmosphere all the time.

No. I said the description in the paper is hypothetical/analogous.

I never said that. I only said they may have observed a black hole at the RHIC.

The author of that paper, "says that his calculations show that the core of the fireball has the characteristics of a black hole." See this article in NewScientist.

Over all, the article is a bit skeptical of the paper. Please note this quote regarding the paper:

"I wouldn't say his model is wrong, but it's clearly under construction." -Carlos Nunez, a string theorist at MIT

I never said that. Exaggerating to the point of lying again.

Yes you did, numerous times! Here's a typical reference from this very thread:

That's merely a string theory hypothesis (meaning, baseless speculation) based on the fact that the RHIC wasn't expected to have the ability to create such a phenomenon.

In addition to the RHIC thing, it's entirely possible they have observed micro-black-holes. Dark matter is quite often hypothesized as being primordial black holes - micro and intermediate sized black holes that have existed since the Big Bang - without radiating away!. It should be noted that this hypothesis is being suggested by astrophysicists in spite of the implied contradiction to Hawking Radiation! How can micro-black-holes in space be permanent fixtures in space-time, but collider ones not?

Unruh radiation hasn't been observed (despite repeated attempts).

No, I argued that the apparent lack of observed Unruh Radiation (despite repeated attempts) might indicate that Hawking Radiation also might not work (similar mechanisms).

No. I clearly wrote that my assessments are "based on information from actual observations and other resources."

Assessing data is what I do, professionally.

If you have information on any actual observations that contradict my statements, please provide references.

So the hypothesis that neutron stars ram into each other regularly (causing gamma ray bursts) is not contradicted by the fact that regular stars aren't observed to be constantly colliding with neutron stars, or each other? What?... does gravitational attraction work differently for neutron stars? Do they self-maneuver around the cosmos in order to run into only each other, all the while avoiding regular stars and other ordinary matter on the way?

Ironically, it simply demonstrates how flimsy your logic is.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 14 2007, 07:05 AM

It's arguable that nothing really exists in terms of our understanding of the term "solid."

So what matters isn't how much space there is, but how energies and forces in a given volume interact.

Please explain why it is that when I argued that CERN black holes can have less than escape velocity you vehemently opposed my argument, but after Rpenner said it, you and AlphaNumeric are now apparently okay with it.

Are your arguments objective, or merely contrary?

How can I argue with someone that opposes my arguments simply for the sake of opposing them, rather than thinking about and finding fault with them objectively?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 14 2007, 07:39 AM

So here's some things that you're ignoring with that comment.

1) Binary neutron stars loose energy by emitting gravitational waves. The inward spiral has been observed directly (Hulse & Taylor, 1975). This is something that is not observed in normal main sequence binary systems.

2) Although compact objects tend not to merge with normal stellar objects (at least AFAIK) there are some occasions where something similar happens. Type Ia supernova are one example, and J1756.9-2508 (recently discovered by SWIFT and reported here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ond_pulsar.html )

3) There is evidence that main sequence stars undergo mergers - there's some evidence that SN-1987a may have been one such star. Others include Andronov; Pinsonneault; Terndrup; (2006) who although primarily interested in modelling were looking at M67 as well, and comparing their modelling results to observations. Note that mergers of main sequence stars are required to explain some anomalous stars that have been observed. Or this paper by Nikolay Andronov that was published in 2005 as part of his PhD thesis.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/Dept/D...ns/Andronov.pdf

Note that the mechanism for loss of angular momentum in main sequence binaries is different from that in binary pulsars, so you got that much right at least - sort of.

So your objections really have no basis.

Regular stars do collide and merger with each ther.
Neutron Stars do regularly collide with normal matter, and normal stars.

I have no idea what the **** you're going on about here.

Really.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with RPenner on whether or not CERN was capable of producing blackholes with velocities below escape velocity (although I still find it unlikely, as that would still require tuning to parts per million or parts per billion, I don't know what the technical specs of the LHC are. I haven't looked into it in all that great a detail.

I notice you're asutely avoiding the calculations though.

What I did ask RPenner though was what evidence we might expect to observe if a micro blackhole was produced by a cosmic ray collision in the upper atmosphere.

After all, if the theoies predict that when a blackhole is formed by such a collision that there should be a particle cascade, or a burst of photons with a very specific signature, and that signature has never been observed, then I would say that that's pretty conclusive evidence that Blackholes are not forming under those conditions wouldn't you think?

I addressed your concerns about force feeding blackholes by demonstrating that even at the pressures found at the core of the earth, 1 cubic centimeter of core material still contains 99.9997% (or whatever it was that I calulated) empty space.

I addressed your concerns about a micro black hole by demonstrating that a nano-black hole would have to pass within 1.4 Fermi of an electron (specifically valence electron) to be able to disrupt the electromagnetic attraction between that electron and the nucleus, and that's assuming that it's even possible for a black hole to absorb virtual photons.

Which you have absolutely zero evidence for. Noone at RHIC says is. Do you have access to their raw experimental data? If not, what are you basing your claims on?

New Scientist is always dubious, given their tendency to sensationalise or publish articles on totally unjustified theories.

Besides, the whole point of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that QCD processes take on the characteristis of gravitational system, under a certain description. Two things being 'like' one another on a metaphorical level is quite different from being the same on a literal level.

A New Scientist quote is hardly going to delve into the details of the theory. Both a direct quote from the author and the paper itself say it's nothing but a string theory dual description, it wasn't a black hole.

You claimed I'd said " they couldn't have less than escape velocity!". Your quote of me doesn't justify that. The tiny energy range they must end up is is tiny[/i] and it is out of the ability of the collider to allow the scientists to deliberately do such a thing.

So RHIC attained a new, previously unobtained, gluon state. If anything it helps demonstrates that super high energy QCD collisions don't make black holes.

So now you're just desperately grabbing at straws. The evidence at RHIC or any other collider doesn't support you so you're back to "But maybe they did! Maybe they don't realise! Maybe ... maybe..... maybe...."

That wasn't an answer to the question I asked you. Also, Unruh is a very subtle effect, so difficult to generate. Experiments are being planned.

Remember, sometimes physicists do experiments which are unlikely to succeed just to see if there's a suprise. If a theory predicts a phenomen at energy X, an experiment at X/2 isn't predicted to pick it up but they do it just incase it is and then they've a new bit of data to work into their models. Unruh radiation experiments haven't got up to the levels of acceleration commonly expected to give measurable radiation.

Are you claiming that, it's your professional job, to analyse the raw data output from CERN, RHIC or SLAC? Are you saying you're a professional phenomenological physicist?

You'll forgive me if I think that's a big fat pile of crap. You bearly grasp basic physics, never mind the finer parts of the SM.

Or are you just someone who works in an office looking at data from an entirely unrelated area of business and you're just trying to twist the truth about what you do?

We do see stars spiraling into one another. We do see neutron stars stripping other stars. Besides, the neutron star gamma burst thing is so powerful it's seen across the visible universe. If even a small number of binary neutron stars exist in our galaxy, totally across the entire universe that's a lot of gamma bursts.

Physicists do actually factor in things like "How frequent would that imply our model says gamma bursts are?" when putting forth an hypothesis. You're obviously unfamiliar with research methods.

Coming from you, the guy who has to just say "Maybe they didn't see.... maybe that..... maybe.... maybe.... maybe...." all the time and has zero evidence for his claims, that's pretty funny.

Even in secondary and tertiary collisions? Surely there are regularly many natural secondary collisions (from the shower of particles caused by the primary collision) with very low total momentum.

Here's some more calculations for you Eric.

I said earlier that we should expect a Neutron or Proton to be absorbed by the Black hole once every 390,625,000,000 orbits.

Now, the equatorial radius of the Earth is 6,378,135 m, and we know the acceleration due to gravity at the earths surface is 9.81 m/s/s.

Take:

d=1/2 a.t^2

Solve for t to give us:

t= (2.d/a)^0.5

Substituting the values we have gives us the time taken for the alleged blackhole to fall to the core of the Earth.

We get the figure of 1,140.32 seconds. This equates to about 19 minutes.
Including the trip back up the other side gives us the figure of 2,280.643 seconds, or about 38 minutes. One Orbit includes the round trip, so the total time taken is 4,561.286 seconds, or 1 hr, 16 minutes.

As I sit here writing this, it occurs to me that the figure I qouted as being the number of orbits, actually represents the number of cubic centimeters of core material that the alleged black hole would have to travel through before we would expect it to collide with a nucleus.

This actually works in your favour, because that comes out at 3,906,350 km of core material, or about 612.5 earth radii. This means in fact that we would expect the alleged black hole to collide with the nucleus of an atom once every 612.5 orbits.

Which means that we expect that your alleged black hole is going to at most experience one feeding event every 2793787.675 seconds (or once every 32.3 days). Now, here's something to bare in mind. I'm treating the nucleus as a solid sphere, which is not very realistice, but, using a realistic treatement reduces the chances of an effective collision, by introducing more empty space. I'm also treating the earth as a solid sphere of core material, which, obviously is also not realistic, and obviously because the Inner core, mantle, and Lithosphere are all less dense then the core, this increases the length of time required even further.

So, for example, this alleged blackhole weighing in at 20,000 amu would have to complete 12250000 orbits before we could expect it to double it's mass. This would take (approximately) 3.422 x10^13 seconds, or 5.7 x10^11 minutes or 396,109,942 days, which equates to 1,085,232 years.

So you see, even though I've made a bunch of simplifications which work in YOUR favour, it's still going to take a little more then one million years to simply double its weight.

Trippy, its hard to know how fast a black hole would grow. For example, it doesn't have to collide with another nucleus, it just has to get near to it and gravity will do the rest. It seems its really the first few milliseconds of eating matter that would decide our fate. This is because the bigger the black hole is, the slower it evaporates. So there'll be one of two very quickly divergent processes--the hole either evaporates quickly or grows quickly. Also, to set the record straight (not that it matters much) note that g varies with depth and drops to zero at the center of the Earth (or this may have been an intentional simplification on your part). But all this is moot because...

In my mind, the best and most iron clad argument (I know you agree--this is for ubavontuba, et. al.) is that natural collisions have been continually occurring on the several planets and many stars we've been watching for the last couple thousand years, and those collisions certainly result in secondary collisions with energy several orders of magnitude more powerful than LHC yet with resulting objects traveling far below orbital velocity because they are caused in secondary collisions, yet none of those heavenly bodies have ever been seen to wink out.

This post has been edited by fleem on Sep 15 2007, 11:19 AM

Hmmm... maybe the problem arises from some not realizing what that shower of particles (in a natural collision) is really like.

When there is a collision as some of the more powerful ones we've seen naturally, there are tens of thousands of primary particles that shower forth from the initial single collision, and thousands more that spew forth when each of those secondary particles collides with other nearby matter. Certainly some of those "tertiary" particles with almost equal but opposite momentum collide regularly with energies still orders of magnitude above LHC, yet we've seen no planet or nearby star wink out..

Not really, not as much as you might think anyway.

We know how much empty space there is at the Black holes scale. We know from that what the chances of the blackhole are colliding with things at a given scale.

All I've really done is work out what would happen if the black hole were to behave in an 'average' fashion iunder the conditions found in the core of the earth.

We're talking about something that weighs 20,000 AMU. To put this in perspective a molecule of Hemoglobin weighs 24,000 AMU.

And yes, I'm aware that g varies with depth, and decreases to 0 at the center - it was one of the simplifications that I mentioned that worked in Ubavontuba's favour - it works in his favour in that modelling g correctly would increase the amount of time taken for one orbit, and thus increase the expected amount of time between feeding events (and here you will find me deriving g as a function of height as the first step in a proof of the conservation of energy).

I'm also aware that the models that predict the blackholes also predict it should evaporate before it reaches the edge of the container let alone the core of the earth.

To set the record straight, when I refer to the expected amount of time for things to occur, I'm talking about statitistical expectation values which are based on probabilities, and I'm assuming that Ubavontubas wild assertions about "What if Hawking Radiation doesn't exist" are actually correct

Ubavontuba has repeatedly disputed the "It happens all the time in nature" argument because of problems around the relative velocity of the generated singularity. As far as he's concerned the black hole sin the LHC would have zero, or nearly zero momentum, where as the black hole's generated by cosmic rays, he claims, should have velocities of significant fractions of the speed of light.

Ok, I thought that might be the case--I'm just too lazy to go back through it all

Thanks for that.


Ubavontuba, can you address the issue of tertiary particles? I agree the immediate secondary particles would virtually never fly below escape velocity. But among the tens of thousands of secondary particles from a single natural collision among the guzillions of natural particles striking all visible heavenly bodies over last few thousand years that we've been watching them, two secondary particles would strike nearby matter and produce two tertiary particles that can easily have almost equal but opposite momentum, and they could collide--all with energy orders of magnitude over LHC.

I apologize, but I do not regularly post in this forum. If you wish to see where I regularly post, go to www.sciforums.com and you can see my posts in numerous areas of science. If you wish to communicate with me, PM me at that forum.

Unlike most of you who post in this forum, when I began working in high-energy cosmic radiation physics, you weren't yet born. That is, you weren't anywhere around in this Universe of ours, when I was discovering a novel theoretical particle which was first deemed by myself as a likely magnetic monopole. See "Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole", Price et al., Physical Review Letters, August 25, 1975, Volume 35, Number 8. For those of you who actually trouble to read the paper, please note that the work was mine, even though I was only noted in the appendix, and not as the "author".

However, in the intervening 32 years since that discovery, we've increased much of our knowledge of physics, and most of you have been born into this universe and developed minds of your own.

It is true, I have not done all of the calculations myself. I have relied on others. The general description that an "appreciable percentage" of any MBHs manufactured by a opposite-beam collider would be at less than escape velocity was based on work I deemed reliable, in which it was calculated that approximately 14% of the central collisions would result in a MBH [or other novel particle, such as a strangelet] would have residual velocities below 40,000 km/hr.

The simple fact remains that the general idea is to try to have the beams of equal and opposite velocities. Of course, the particles will not have exactly equal velocities [unlike gamma photons, for example, in which the energy is discrete and identical if emitted from the same type of nucleus], but some few of the particles in each opposite beam will have very close to equal but opposite velocities. If one of you would like to do the calculation anew, and see if you come up with a different precentage than 14%, I'd enjoy reading your work too.

THe other simple fact remains that high-energy cosmic rays striking the moon [or other solar body], if it merges with the nucleus that is struck [to form a MBH, for example], would impart a huge momentum such that the new particle [MBH] would be travelling at 0.99+ c

There is no getting around the situation that those are entirely different operating parameters - the cosmic ray scenario is entirely different than the collider scenario, and therein lies the risk.

If you wish to discourse about this, please contact me at sciforums as I indicated, as I only happen upon this forum from time to time.

Regards

Walter L. Wagner


P.S. The World Botanical Gardens is a hobby of mine. I am the founder, and spent ten years developing it.

Also, just for a little background, my professional affiliations are at www.snm.org and www.hps.org stemming from my work commencing in 1979 in nuclear physics.

-------------------------------------