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

Still msulking over being proven so thoroughly wrong in the other thread huh?

I'll maintain civility when you display humility and intelligence.

Right back at you kiddo.

Go back and read my previous response again. I went ahead and gave you a full response (even though you don't deserve it).

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 24 2007, 05:11 AM

.
Hi all!

If a 'traditional' BH (micro or otherwise) is causally separated from its environment by its event horizon, it can only interact with other bodies/particles via its associated/enveloping electric 'charge' and or magnetic field line patterns.

IF GRAVITY is a ONE WAY affair (ie, a gravitational field exists around a body even were it the only body in the universe?), then the BH could NOT be affected by OTHER bodies' gravitational field (since the BH INTERIOR, whatever it is, is effectively isolated from the effects of surrounding 'spacetime'----be that spacetime "CURVED" or "FLAT").

Otherwise, the question arises, HOW does the BH 'interact' with the 'spacetime' environment and other bodies/particles apart from via the electric/magnetic properties/effects that SURROUND it ABOVE the BH event horizon?

That is to ask, while something can be 'gravitationally captured' by a BH, how can another body 'gravitationally capture' a BH if the latter is effectively causally separated from the surrounding spacetime 'curved' by that other body's gravitation?

Just a thought that might help with the 'conjectures' on both sides of this fascinating discussion.

Cheers all! See ya'll another day; I hope! hehehe.

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Oct 24 2007, 05:25 AM

Ubavontuba.

Let's break this down real simple.

At which point do you disagree with what I'm saying:

1. We start with a particle, let us consider a Proton, with a total energy of 1150 TeV
2. Because the particle is a Proton, we know it's restmass (about 938 MeV) and can therefore calculate it's velocity (According to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton, the total energy of the particle is equal to the energy due to it's mass, and the energy due to it's motion).
3. Although I haven't stated it, it should be intuitive that here I am talking relative to a stationary observer. (If you want to get picky, we can define stationary as relative to the earth, or relative to the fixed and distant stars. I don't really care either way).
4. Let us consider then an oxygen atom, trundling along minding it's own buisiness. According to NASA, the average velocity of an Oxygen atom is 480 m/s. The rest mass of an average atom of Oxygen is 15,015 MeV, and it is travelling at 0.0000016 c, which gives us a gamma value of 1.000000000001, and a kinetic energy equivalent to 0.038 ev What does this mean? To a good approximation (one in 1000 billion) the total energy of the Oxygen atom is 15,015 MeV.
5. Consider the proton again, with a total energy of 1150 TeV. The total energy of a particle is given by the equation E = μγc^2 (according to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz, and Thornton) rearranging this allows us to calculate the velocity of the proton, and it comes out at 0.9999c before the collision.
6. If we assume that all of the energy available to the Proton is converted into rest mass, we get rest mass of 1.2 million AMU.
7. The momentum of the Proton before the collision is p=mγv
p = 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s So, the momentum of the black hole after the collision must also be 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s.
8. Using the above equation we can see that γv = 1255020, which if I've done my math correctly works out at a residual velocity for the black hole of 239 m/s. The escape velocity of the earth is 11000 m/s. This represents 2% of the escape velocity. The black hole would need to radiate away (about) 98% of it's energy as Partons and secondary particles in order to acheive escape velocity (making it's rest mas one fiftieth of what I've calculated it).

If you have maths and references that say anything different, please, feel free to go into details. Otherwise admit you were wrong.

If a proton could form a black hole it would possibly never grow any larger unless it could combine with other proton black holes. It has the attractive force of a single proton which is small enough that it cannot absorb any constituents that we know of from any other proton or any other atomic particle we know of.

.
Hi all!

Just another aspect of cosmic-ray produced (still conjectured/putative) micro black holes that would necessarily be produced IF such energy levels DO produce these alleged micro holes AT ALL.

Has any event (in cloud/fluid chambers etc) ever 'left' a collision product 'unaccounted' for?

That is, has anything been observed to speed away from the event that could in any way be identified as a micro hole?

If all particles/energies ARE 'accounted for' and all 'resultant particles' HAVE been identified, then that may be the FINAL/REAL PROOF that such 'micro-holes' CANNOT be formed in the first place....OR that they immediately 'decay' to give harmless 'classical' particles before they can accumulate and be dangerous.

Your thoughts?

Cheers all!

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Oct 25 2007, 12:22 AM

That's one of the next generation of experiemnts - it's expected that we should see a characteristic signature of particles, the main problem being that the secondary particles produced by the black holes decay via the hawking mechanism are mostly (IIRC) horizontal, so they're in the process of doing a very specific search (or looking for funding or something similar).

Right there. You're assuming an impossible collision result. Show me a collider experiment that didn't radiate away in a parton explosion. Even without Hawking Radiation, a nano-black-hole inducing collision would radiate (not all of the energy can be captured).

You're assuming this rest mass has no inherent momentum. The momentum of all of the energy is conserved (even the kinetic energy). The energy wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for the relative motion. Energy doesn't have to have mass to carry momentum. Even photons carry momentum.

That's so wrong. Now you're trying to make your collision result into a rocket. Parton distribution isn't even, but it's statisticaly random enough to prevent such a strong rocketlike effect. Your assumptions are completely wrong, even when they're wrong to begin with!

Only every collider experiment ever conducted!

Besides, if I was so wrong and you were so right, AlphaNumeric and Rpenner would've been all over this by now. They're being quiet because they don't want to have to agree with me and tell you how wrong you are (again).

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 26 2007, 06:17 AM

I covered this - but apparently in your crusade for irrationality, you're ignoring it.

No I'm not. Everything is conserved. The total energy before and after the collision are conserved. Momentum before and after the collision are conserved. If I assume that there is no inherent momentum, then why do I then go onto calculate the residual velocity of the black hole using the momentum of the original particle which requires the assumption that it's constant before and after the collision.

No. You're wrong. I'm not saying anything remotely along those lines. I think you need to go back and study the conservation of momentum, and while you're at it, brush up on the conservation of energy for a falling object (and no, I wont try and apply a classical result to a quantum system, or a relativistic one, that's just stupid with a capital S).

If there's so much evidence that I'm wrong then where are the references from published journals?

You assume their silence is them agreeing with you? Maybe they just think that I'm doing a perfectly good job trashing your BS, and have more interesting things to discuss.

So here's what I see in your last post. More hot air. No calculations, no cited refferences, nothing of substance, just more "I don't like it so it must be wrong"

This post has been edited by Trippy on Oct 26 2007, 06:31 AM

So you agree then? Your whole premise is impossible?

Where's the momentum of the energy (which you use to build your ridiculous mass)?

That's funny (coming from you).

References? We don't need no stinking references! Where are the references that back your assumptions?

I guess you don't know them very well then. They watch me carefully, constantly looking to point out a slip up. Sometimes, I mislead them into thinking they've found one, only to slam them for it.

It's your hypothesis. You provide the references.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 26 2007, 06:45 AM

You claim I'm violating the known laws of physics when I say that "Because we're increasing the mass of a particle thousand fold, take energy out of the particles total energy (through radiating partons) the black hole must be travelling slower then the original particle, so it may be possible for cosmic rays to create black holes to be created that have velocities after the collision that are less then the escape velocity of the earth". (Note that the heavier the object, and the higher it's escape velocity, the more likely this is to happen). I've even gone as far as providing calculations to back my claim up.

You're the one that wants us to believe, on faith, with no further justification then "Because I said so" that somehow we can increase the mass of a particle, decrease the total energy of the black hole (relative to the original particle) all at the same time that we keep the velocity constant (which given that p=mγv increases the momentum of the black hole relative to the original particle).

Who's violating the known laws of physics again?

What part of total energy don't you understand.
Why are you persisting with this absurd BS.
I went as far as calculating the momentum of the original particle, taking relativistic effects into account - it's kind of a neccessary step. Or did you ignore that FACT

Where are the refferences that back my assumptions? I told you already, in the post that I did the calculations in what my refference was.

Fishbane Gasiorowicz and Thornton.

It's my first year physics textbook (which I kept because of how dam useful it is, it covers everything from what you need to revise to what we're actually talking about).

It's title is "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" affectionately referred to as "Fishface" by most of the physics students I knew.

I own the first edition, I think they're up to edition 5, and the first 3 were written by these three.

Let's go over this, real slow.

1. You think if there's a lot of parton distribution, the collision result will be faster (relative to the earth), than if there is no parton distribution, right?

Please describe the parton distribution.

Is it radiating in only one direction in order to change the velocity of the particle (causing an acceleration), or is it radiating relatively evenly (without a net acceleration)? It can only be one or the other.

If the former, how does it know which way to throw the parton distribution (propellant).

If the latter, how can the center of mass accelerate with no net force acting upon it? You do know that acceleration cannot occur without a net force, right?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 26 2007, 07:11 AM

What part of energy/mass equivalency don't you understand? Where does your ridiculous mass come from? Does it appear as if by magic, all of a sudden in place? Did it have a source? What is the nature of the source?

You did the calculations. Where are the calculations others have done before you?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 26 2007, 07:20 AM

I have, in all honesty, no idea what precisely the parton distribution is, but, I know this much.

unless partons are emitted in pairs travelling in opposite directions, in a plane that is completely orthogonal to the direction of travel, then they will influence the velocity of the particle, changing it's direction and/or speed.

Why? Because any emitted particles carry away some of the energy, and some of the speed of the original particle. Momentum is a vector, and the sum of the vectors of the black hole and the partons must, according to the conservation of momentum, be the same as the incoming protons was.

All of this is ignoring the atom that the proton collided with, which is another place that some of the protons momentum and energy can be transfereed to.

This is the same thing that resulted in the discovery/hypothesizing of the neutrino.
It's the same thing that results in molecules and atoms recoiling when a photon is emitted.

The list goes on.

By your logic, the molecule should recoil at c.