James Blodgett
Jul13-04, 08:34 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nI appreciate your discussion. But most of that discussion does not =\naddress the original post. 1) "the gravitational pull of a black hole =\nparticle would be no larger than a normal atom." Granted. That is why "a =\nmini black hole would be about as reactive as a neutrino." 2) "The =\nexperiment is routinely performed at "*much* higher energies/nucleon" =\nGranted. The original post considered cosmic rays, and asked whether =\nthere might be a critical difference between cosmic-ray-created black =\nholes (the black hole would always fly off--am I right about this? ), =\nand black holes created at colliders (some would be moving at less than =\nescape velocity from earth.) Then the question is whether there is an =\naccretion mechanism that will let a stable micro black hole orbiting =\nwithin earth grow. I can imagine several such mechanisms. All would be =\nexponential, albeit with a low starting rate. Absent a theory of quantum =\ngravity I am not sure we can model them convincingly. Perhaps you-all =\ncan. I think that to demonstrate safety we have to demonstrate that no =\nsuch mechanism exists. Absent a demonstration of safety, we have to talk =\nabout probability and expected values. In this case, even with a low =\nprobability, the negative expected value is high.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I appreciate your discussion. But most of that discussion does not =
address the original post. 1) "the gravitational pull of a black hole =
particle would be no larger than a normal atom." Granted. That is why "a =
mini black hole would be about as reactive as a neutrino." 2) "The =
experiment is routinely performed at "*much* higher energies/nucleon" =
Granted. The original post considered cosmic rays, and asked whether =
there might be a critical difference between cosmic-ray-created black =
holes (the black hole would always fly off--am I right about this? ), =
and black holes created at colliders (some would be moving at less than =
escape velocity from earth.) Then the question is whether there is an =
accretion mechanism that will let a stable micro black hole orbiting =
within earth grow. I can imagine several such mechanisms. All would be =
exponential, albeit with a low starting rate. Absent a theory of quantum =
gravity I am not sure we can model them convincingly. Perhaps you-all =
can. I think that to demonstrate safety we have to demonstrate that no =
such mechanism exists. Absent a demonstration of safety, we have to talk =
about probability and expected values. In this case, even with a low =
probability, the negative expected value is high.
address the original post. 1) "the gravitational pull of a black hole =
particle would be no larger than a normal atom." Granted. That is why "a =
mini black hole would be about as reactive as a neutrino." 2) "The =
experiment is routinely performed at "*much* higher energies/nucleon" =
Granted. The original post considered cosmic rays, and asked whether =
there might be a critical difference between cosmic-ray-created black =
holes (the black hole would always fly off--am I right about this? ), =
and black holes created at colliders (some would be moving at less than =
escape velocity from earth.) Then the question is whether there is an =
accretion mechanism that will let a stable micro black hole orbiting =
within earth grow. I can imagine several such mechanisms. All would be =
exponential, albeit with a low starting rate. Absent a theory of quantum =
gravity I am not sure we can model them convincingly. Perhaps you-all =
can. I think that to demonstrate safety we have to demonstrate that no =
such mechanism exists. Absent a demonstration of safety, we have to talk =
about probability and expected values. In this case, even with a low =
probability, the negative expected value is high.