## Black hole in LHC?

 Quote by cristo I wonder how difficult it is to get into scientific journalism? It's something I've always pondered doing.. it really hurts to see such terrible articles being written
I think, unfortunately, you would be a very unpopular journalist. Which means, they know very well what they are writing I'm afraid. I wish I'm wrong.

Mentor
 Quote by humanino I think, unfortunately, you would be a very unpopular journalist. Which means, they know very well what they are writing I'm afraid. I wish I'm wrong.
That may be true, but then again I've seen some very good scientific columns/sections of certain (free) papers. I'm fully of the opinion that it can be done: that is, one can sell a subject to the general public without having to sensationalise it: especially something like the LHC.

 Quote by cristo That may be true, but then again I've seen some very good scientific columns/sections of certain (free) papers. I'm fully of the opinion that it can be done: that is, one can sell a subject to the general public without having to sensationalise it: especially something like the LHC.
You are completely right. I'm just being negative

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Science Advisor
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by cristo That may be true, but then again I've seen some very good scientific columns/sections of certain (free) papers. I'm fully of the opinion that it can be done: that is, one can sell a subject to the general public without having to sensationalise it: especially something like the LHC.
Humanino is right: you'd be a bad writer

Blog Entries: 27
Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
Science Advisor
 Quote by mal4mac By the way, this issue is exploding in the UK at the moment. It was a lead item on news radio this morning ("Today"), and the satire shows are really panning physicists (Mock the Week on BBC2 yesterday and Armando Iannucci's Charm Offensive on Radio 4 while I'm writing this!). CERN need to get their PR machine working...
From BBC radio (Armando Iannucci's Charm Offensive) this afternoon:
 The Large Hadron Collider is recreating the first moments of our universe, which is actually the most extreme historical re-enactment society you can ever get.
 well um our science teacher told us that in LHC if the atoms didn't collide at the speed of light on wednesday, that the world will become a huge black hole and suck us in！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ Is this true!????This scared the whole class!! Help me by analysing this ~~!Thanks ~!~
 In short, no. I don't understand the rationale, particles won't be accelerated to the speed of the light under any circumstance in the LHC. Very close to it, but not quite there. Particles collide at far less than the speed of light in other colliders, and everyday in the upper atmosphere and we are still here. I don't know if your teacher was joking or if you just misunderstood him, but I can't tell you where he's coming from here.

 Quote by jms5631 In short, no. I don't understand the rationale, particles won't be accelerated to the speed of the light under any circumstance in the LHC. Very close to it, but not quite there. Particles collide at far less than the speed of light in other colliders, and everyday in the upper atmosphere and we are still here. I don't know if your teacher was joking or if you just misunderstood him, but I can't tell you where he's coming from here.

Thanks!! I am just a freshman(not physics major).The controversies on LHC have disturbed me a lot for so many days. I feel much better now.
 I understand, there are a ton of misrepresentations and media sensationalism out there. As someone without a significant science background, you are in a position of vulnerability to these misunderstandings and manipulation of the fundamentals, like the majority of the people out there. Just know that the aim of science is to uncover objective truths about the world to deepen our understanding; surely that would diffcult to accomplish if it were oblitierated. Scientists have a very solid thoeretical and observational grasp of the physics involved in high energy collisions such as these. We see higher in the atmosphere on a regular basis. Even if you can't understand the substance of these papers, read the conclusions of the reports to put your mind at ease. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.4087v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3349v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.3414.pdf

 Quote by mal4mac Dr Adrian Kent, a seriously qualified quantum theorist of DAMPT at Cambridge, has worries: "What's an Acceptable Risk for Destroying the Earth? From time to time, people have raised the worry that a particular physics experiment just might destroy the Earth. The first time this was seriously considered seems to have been before the first A-bomb and H-bomb tests. More recently, the possibility was raised that, if unknown physics included some particularly unfortunate features, the RHIC experiments at Brookhaven, or the forthcoming ALICE collider experiments at CERN, could have disastrous consequences. When physicists address these worries at all, they've tended to argue that (a) something would have to be very wrong with our understanding of physics for the risk to be present at all, (b) even if it is, we can show on empirical grounds that any risk must be so small that the possibility just isn't worth worrying about. Which rather begs the question, of course: how small *is* an acceptable risk? On this point, the various analyses seem to have been extraordinarily cavalier. At various times physicists have argued for going ahead with experiments without further ado on the basis of risk bounds ranging from 1 in 5000 (!) (the first Brookhaven analysis of the RHIC experiments) through 1 in 300,000 (Compton's estimate of the probability of igniting the Earth's atmosphere in the first A-bomb test) to 1 in 50,000,000 (the CERN analysis of the RHIC experiments). It seems to me that a little thought suggests all these risk bounds are far, far too large for comfort."
From page two of "A critical look at risk assessments for global catastrophes" by Adrian Kent http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204v6.pdf:
 II. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES The first catastrophe mechanism seriously considered seems to have been the possibility, raised in the 1940s at Los Alamos before the first atomic bomb tests, that fission or fusion bombs might ignite the atmosphere or oceans in an unstoppable chain reaction. Investigation led to an analysis by Konopinski et al. [3] which fairly definitively refuted the possibility. Compton was later reported, in a published interview [4] with Pearl Buck, as saying that he had decided not to proceed with the bomb tests if it were proved that the chances of global catastrophe were greater than three in a million, but that in the event calculation proved the figures slightly less.
 Quote by kressworks.com A black hole ate my planet ... Yet in November 1975, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists claimed that Arthur Compton, a leading member of the Manhattan Project, had said that there really was a risk of igniting the atmosphere. It turned out to be a case of Chinese whispers: Compton had mentioned the calculation during an interview with the American writer Pearl Buck, who had got the wrong end of the stick.
http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_..._my_planet.htm

Ahem. But of course, this is according to Kressworks (NewScientist). For what that's worth, I dunno.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Science Advisor
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by OAQfirst From page two of "A critical look at risk assessments for global catastrophes" by Adrian Kent http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204v6.pdf: ... At various times physicists have argued for going ahead with experiments without further ado on the basis of risk bounds ranging from 1 in 5000 (!) (the first Brookhaven analysis of the RHIC experiments) through 1 in 300,000 (Compton's estimate of the probability of igniting the Earth's atmosphere in the first A-bomb test) to 1 in 50,000,000 (the CERN analysis of the RHIC experiments). It seems to me that a little thought suggests all these risk bounds are far, far too large for comfort." ....
I'm a genius !
 Here are two questions, thanks Question.1. I've read about the introduction about LHC and I know that the temperature produced in LHC would be 10,000 times higher than the center of the sun. As the temperature is so high, what materials are used in LHC to prevent from being burned into ashes....????????? Is there any possibility that such a scaring temperature causes a disaster???? Question.2. If the LHC produces millions of black holes, would these mini black holes combine to a larger one which does not evaporate and has the ability to suck things in?? What's wrong with my thoughts above?? Please point it out to me ..Thanks!

Blog Entries: 27
Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
Science Advisor
 Quote by chinatruth If the LHC produces millions of black holes, would these mini black holes combine to a larger one which does not evaporate and has the ability to suck things in??
Hi chinatruth!

A black hole has no sucky-power …

a black hole has exactly the same gravitational attraction as any star of the same mass.

It doesn't vacuum-up the things around it …

it's like one of those sea-creatures that just sits there open-mouthed and hopes other things swim into it.

Anything that goes past a black hole, however close, carries on past it, just like a comet "grazing" the sun.

Black holes in space only get larger because of collisions between other bodies, accidentally sending one of them in just the right direction.

And anything that accidentally falls into a black hole would have crashed into a star of the same mass in the same position long before.

If the sun or the moon were replaced by a black hole of the same mass, we wouldn't notice any difference (well, except for it being darker ).

An uncharged mini-black hole would find it very difficult to hit anything!

Even a charged mini-black hole would probably just go into "orbit" round an ordinary particle (like an electron "orbiting" a nucleus) … and if it did manage to swallow anything of the opposite charge, it would become uncharged.

 Quote by tiny-tim Hi chinatruth! A black hole has no sucky-power … a black hole has exactly the same gravitational attraction as any star of the same mass. It doesn't vacuum-up the things around it … it's like one of those sea-creatures that just sits there open-mouthed and hopes other things swim into it. Anything that goes past a black hole, however close, carries on past it, just like a comet "grazing" the sun. Black holes in space only get larger because of collisions between other bodies, accidentally sending one of them in just the right direction. And anything that accidentally falls into a black hole would have crashed into a star of the same mass in the same position long before. If the sun or the moon were replaced by a black hole of the same mass, we wouldn't notice any difference (well, except for it being darker ). An uncharged mini-black hole would find it very difficult to hit anything! Even a charged mini-black hole would probably just go into "orbit" round an ordinary particle (like an electron "orbiting" a nucleus) … and if it did manage to swallow anything of the opposite charge, it would become uncharged.

Thank you very much for giving me such a specific answer!!!!!!
What about the first question?? About the temperature??
 Mentor There is a difference between heat and temperature. You can stick your hand in an oven at 200C for a few seconds with no ill effect. If you tried that in a pot of boiling water at 100C, you would be very badly burned.

Mentor
 Quote by mal4mac At various times physicists have argued for going ahead with experiments without further ado on the basis of risk bounds ranging from 1 in 5000 (!) (the first Brookhaven analysis of the RHIC experiments)...
Kent is being more than a little disingenuous here. The 5000 number is actually 10000, it was in an other-than-final version of the paper, and most seriously, it is not what he claims it is. It's an intermediate step, and Busza et al. use this to explain why they prefer to use the astrophysical limits of Dar et al. instead of the astrophysical limits set by the moon surviving five billion years.

Personally, I think the standard Kent sets for risk ($$10^{-22}$$) is absurd. Consider the risk that if we open a bottle, an angry genie will emerge from it and wipe out all life on earth. Since we've made maybe a trillion bottles to date, and this hasn't happened yet, we only know that the risk is less than around ($$10^{-12}$$), a full ten billion times larger than Kent would permit. According to his argument, we should ban bottles.

 Quote by mal4mac It reports that CERNs top theorists are suggesting we shouldn't worry. I'd be much happier if Moscow and CalTech had produced such a comment. Aren't CERN theorists just slightly :-) interested parties? There's a one in many millions chance of Dr CERN-Theorist being exterminated if CERN goes online, but zero chance of them getting a Nobel if it doesn't! So the odds look great to them...
Once you've decided that physicists are murderous liars, willing to slaughter everyone on the planet (including their friends and families) in pursuit of a Nobel prize, there's really nothing left to say. Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence for your claim?
 Then what are the differences between cosmic rays and the experiment in LHC?? CERN compared cosmic rays with LHC and got the conclusion that LHC would not produce any black holes because our earth or other planets have been being bombarded by cosmic rays for billions of years but we are still safe. From this logic, I can also get a prediction that we cannot find any "Higgs boson" because we didnot find that in any cosmic rays observed.(absolutely this is wrong) I mean, the comparison between LHC and cosmic rays cannot hold water with me, I want to know what's wrong with my thought.

 Tags black hole, conservation, lhc, thermodynamics

 Similar discussions for: Black hole in LHC? Thread Forum Replies Astrophysics 44 Cosmology 33 General Physics 3 General Astronomy 26 General Physics 5