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

LIAR! Here it is again:

No, they aren't...

See? You clearly stated in response to my assertion that they are conserved separately with, "No, they aren't."

Make up your mind!

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 30 2007, 05:47 AM

:

Wow! .... my virtual time machine really works!

This post has been edited by Rabbit on Sep 30 2007, 06:20 AM

Do you have any relevant information to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep predicting that you're going to post again?

Here is what I originally said:

It was you that started talking about how this was impossible, because it would allow the conversion of kinetic energy to momentum allowing reactionless drives:

But here's Alphanumeric saying what I was trying to say in the first place.

So... Here's the thing. The Mass of the black hole depends upon the total energy available in the collision (I initially said kinetic energy, but the total energy includes the kinetic energy modified by Gamma).

The Momentum of the black hole that is produced is going to be the same as the momentum of the incoming particle, Or rather, the momentum of the atom the cosmic ray is colliding with AND the momentum of the particle before the collision are the same as the momentum of the black hole and the atom being collided with after the collision. (I was trying to explain this, perhaps I was to obscure and you did not understand me).

What I initially asked was if there was some mechanism for generating a more massive black hole, because a more massive black hole would, as demanded by the conservation of momentum, be travelling slower. What I initially considering was that in an ideal situation, a black hole of mass x would be created by a collision of energy y, and that there might be some mechanisms involved that leached energy away from the nascent black hole, resulting in a 'low mass' (for example radiated particles leeching away energy). What I was initially asking was if there was some mechanism by which a more massive black hole might be formed, which would result in the black hole having a lower residual velocity.

Somehow YOU misinterpreted this as meaning that I was wanting to convert the momentum into mass, or something equally ridiculous, which was never what I was getting at.

I have since found out that yes, there is a mechanism by which this might occur, and it's to do with the cross section, and geometry of the collision viz-a-viz a head on collision will produce a more massive black hole with a lower residual velocity then would say a glancing blow, because more of the total energy is 'available' in the 'space' that the collision occurs in a head on blow. (There might be a better way of describing this, but it's the closest I can verbalize to what I envisage).

Now, bareing all of that in mind. There is nothing that I have said that violates anything that Alphanumeric has said.

The final mass of the black hole is a function of the total energy available.
The final velocity of the black hole is a finction of the mass of the black hole, and the momentum of the particle before the collision.

So, I would appreciate if you would apologize for calling me a liar.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Oct 1 2007, 02:14 AM

Oh, and for the public record.

I am graceful enough to admit that at an earlier stage of this discussion I may have been under the impression that it was the momentum of the incoming particle that was important in determining the mass of the black hole.

As a result of my self directed research, and a PM conversation with Alphanumeric, I am aware that it is the total center of mass energy (which includes momentum and mass energy) that is important in determining the mass of the resultant black hole, rather then my prior somewhat erroneous assertion that it was solely the momentum.

This mis understanding on my part may have led me to misrepresent what I was trying to say.

Yes there is. Denying it isn't going to make it go away.

Here, you definitely appear to be trying to convert momentum into mass/energy:

Why did you spin those quotes so hard out of context? Why did you drop this paragraph from AlphaNumeric's response:

Clearly, he was corroborating my statements.

For spinning those quotes so far out of context (presumably to CYA), and for baldly denying you made a statement you clearly had, I'm doubtful I should show any grace at all. However:

You may not have been intentionally lying, but clearly, you certainly were contradicting yourself!

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 2 2007, 06:01 AM

Now that's more like it. Honesty! It was noble of you to come clean.

Let's keep it that way, shall we?



This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 2 2007, 05:57 AM

The fact remains Ub, none of your whining supports your claims at all and just demonstrates how you have to remain ignorant of mainstream work in order to convince yourself you're onto something.

In what way have I clearly been wrong? Have you seen any Hawking radiation that I'm not aware of? Perhaps a little Unruh radiation?

Was I wrong about the conservation of momentum aspect?

Was I wrong about the inevitability of some CERN blackholes having less than escape velocity?

Was I wrong in stating that CERN itself used the term, "black-hole factory" in regards to the LHC?

Really, other than bullyrag bluster, have you a valid argument that clearly demonstrates the safety of this experiment?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 2 2007, 07:22 AM

The profusion of neutron stars in the universe and the stability of any other large object for billions of years (thus experiencing trillions of trillions of trillions of collisions with sufficently high energy particles) negates your claims.

You were asked for your mathematical derivation of precise predictions, we saw none. Anyone who provided you with derivations you didn't like, you ignored.

But you are completely ignoring actual quantities. 'Some' could be 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Or it could be 1 in 2. You rely on :

1. Black holes being possible to form (requires some extremely tenious part of parameter space in a few theories to be true)

2. Black holes can be formed by the LHC (ie at sub 10TeV levels)

3. The fraction of collisions which will be able to form black holes at the LHC (they cannot tune the machine)

4. The resultant black holes are at sub-escape velocities

5. Hawking radiation doesn't exist. Every theory you have used in points 1 and 2 says point 5 is false.

6. The absorption rate of matter by the black hole is fast enough to destroy the Earth before the Sun does. Even if you 'switch off' Hawking radiation, every theory says this point is false.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199

CERN specifically outlines that it's a very small section of parameter space.

You have been shown computations for many of points 1 through 6, each one showing the statistics involved for just one step being possible. For all 6 to be possible, (that's a lot of ifs which go against everything we know), you're looking at a very unlikely event.

No, I can't say it's 100% safe, but then I can't say turning on my computer won't kill me by electrocution, but I do it every day.

Stuff off you arrogant little shit.

Now it's your turn.

Admit you were wrong.

It's been demonstrated that cosmic rays can produce black holes with residual velocities below the escape velocity.

It's been demonstrated that such black holes can slip between atoms for a couple of billion years before the double their mass, and that's making the absurd assumption that the Hawking radiation is wrong.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Oct 2 2007, 07:40 AM

Alphanumeric what the difference between stellar object that emit extremely short wavelenghs and object that don't appear to emit spectrum at all. The difference would perhaps be the volume of mass in the stellar objects.

Like to speculate with respect that perhaps what's at the center of our galaxy is the same as whats at the center of our solar system in the context of my postulation: that perhaps the emissions from the massive stellar objects can only be such short wave lengths that they are almost an non-alternating waves. The balance of emissions that shine from these stellar object are skewed towards gravity waves, non-alternating fields(your mythical gravitons). The undetectable with radio telescopes `almost non alternating waves' would have extremely high energies that perhaps don't shake up matter but push it instead. That could be a basis of anti gravity engines given there were methods of generating that particular part of the spectrum.

With sub-atomic indivisible/invisible particle perhaps they would absorb low spectrum re-emitting it at much higher spectrum's without increasing their discrete mass/volume properties?

This post has been edited by Soultechs on Oct 2 2007, 08:27 AM

I've already been here. The odds of a perfect collision relative to a third object (like a planet) make this scenario unlikely (to say the least!)

I didn't ignore them. I merely pointed out what they were missing. It's not my fault you didn't want to correct them.

I don't think it's wise to play dice with our only home.

It's certainly possible.

It's highly anticipated.

They expect about one per second.

If you simply graph the probabilities you'll see a bell curve tending toward capture.

Tell that to the guys studying dark matter. I'm not alone in hypothesizing stable nano-black-holes.

I never said that. I said the pressure of the liquid filled earth will push matter in.

And yet you insist on proposing the capture model (probabilities against it are infinities within infinities)

Sure, but electricity has been readily apparent since before man walked the earth. We know its potential. We know, for instance, that it cannot destroy the earth. We don't know that about nano-black-holes.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 2 2007, 08:47 AM

Still banging that drum in the hopes that someone will listen?

You've been shown how that's wrong.

Give it UP!