Exploring the Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

[humanino]

I can identify at least four existential logical quantum numbers in General Relativity, based upon existential physical metric properties.

(gravity quantum number, mass quantum number, charge quantum number, angular momentum quantum number):
(g, m, q, j), (0 = non-existent, 1 = existent)

Why would you count "electric charge" as a "general relativity quantum number" but not (say for instance) "weak charge" ?

A black hole is entirely determined by its charges (including electrical), mass, and angular momentum. Your "gravity quantum number" indicating a horizon is therefore redundant.

 

[Orion1]

Why would you count "electric charge" as a "general relativity quantum number" but not (say for instance) "weak charge"?

The logical value of the charge quantum number is derived from the General Relativity length-scale corresponding to the 'electric' charge Q of the mass in both the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr-Newman metrics:
$$r_{Q}^{2} = \frac{Q^{2}G}{4\pi\epsilon_{0} c^{4}} \; \; \; q = 1$$

A quantum black hole with a weak charge is interesting, however it would require a modification of the General Relativity charged metrics length-scale for a weak charge.

Length-scale corresponding to the weak charge w:
$$r_{w}^{2} = \frac{\hbar G}{c^3} \sqrt{ \frac{T_{\Delta}}{T_{\Sigma}}} \; \; \; w = 1$$

Where $$T_{\Delta}$$ and $$T_{\Sigma}$$ are the lifetimes of the these particles.

Your "gravity quantum number" indicating a horizon is therefore redundant.

Not all General Relativity astrophysical masses and no Standard Model particles have an event horizon, therefore the gravity quantum number is valid.

 

[humanino]

Not all General Relativity astrophysical masses and no Standard Model particles have an event horizon, therefore the gravity quantum number is valid.

Would you imagine that electric dipole moment is a valid quantum number ?
Would you imagine that X, Y and Z spin projections are 3 required quantum numbers ?

 

[JustinLevy]

Why would you count "electric charge" as a "general relativity quantum number" but not (say for instance) "weak charge" ?

I'm never sure how far the "no hair" theorems have gotten, but I believe John Baez said things like color charge are also excluded by the no hair theorems. Maybe weak charge is as well?

I'll look for some references on this.

Therefore, the distinguishing quantum number for a Standard Model quantum particle versus a Schwarzschild metric quantum black hole particle of the same mass is g, an event horizon.

This makes no sense. I agree with humanino here... if they have the same mass, and all other quantum numbers besides your "is this a black hole?" indicator, how could the space-time metric resulting from them be different?

Furthermore, this can't possibly be a quantum number for the simple reason that it's conservation is violated by gravity (the very coupling you proposed it for). As a black hole can form from a star, and no particles there-in have your "event horizon exists" quantum number.

EDIT: Oops, quoted wrong thing. Fixed now.

 

[JustinLevy]

As for the limits of the "no hair" theorems, I've found a reference claiming:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9603/9603396v1.pdf

Moreover, even though electrons can interact via long-range neutrino-exchange
forces, these cannot be used to measure the electron-number of a black hole (“a black hole
has no neutrino hair” [23]).

And their reference is:

[23] J. B. Hartle, in “Magic Without Magic: John Archibald Wheeler,” p. 259, (J. R. Klauder, Ed), W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1972.


I don't have access to that original source. Does anyone else happen to have that book?

This is still short of claiming there is absolutely no way to detect the weak charge of a black hole though. I'll keep looking.

 

[Orion1]

Would you imagine that electric dipole moment is a valid quantum number ?

The electric dipole moment and magnetic moment are both a consequence of the existence of electric charge and mass, the mass quantum number, the charge quantum number, and these moments are not included in any of the General Relativity metrics listed.

X, Y and Z spin projections are 3 required quantum numbers?

Affirmative, if a quantum black hole has an angular momentum quantum number (j = 1), then according to quantum mechanics, the angular momentum of any system is quantized.

how could the space-time metric resulting from them be different?

A particle with a gravity quantum number zero (g = 0), does not have a Schwarzschild radius.
The Schwarzschild quantum numbers of a (4+n)-dimensional black hole: (1, 1, n, n)

As a black hole can form from a star, and no particles there-in have your "event horizon exists" quantum number.

The gravity quantum number is conserved once the quantum particle crosses an event horizon and the gravity quantum number transforms, or is evaporated from an event horizon via Hawking radiation. Any quantum particle inside an event horizon, becomes a quantum black hole and now has an event horizon.

Higgs (0, 1, 0, 0) <-> EH <-> QBH (1, 1, 0, 0)

The no-hair theorem in astrophysics postulates that all black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. All other information about the matter which formed a black hole or is falling into it, "disappears" behind the black-hole event horizon and is therefore permanently inaccessible to external observers (see also the black hole information paradox).

The no-hair theorem in General Relativity applies specifically to solutions to Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism, it does not implicitly rule out a possible weak charge solution for a black hole.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox"

 

[JustinLevy]

how could the space-time metric resulting from them be different?

A particle with a gravity quantum number zero (g = 0), does not have a Schwarzschild radius.
The Schwarzschild quantum numbers of a (4+n)-dimensional black hole: (1, 1, n, n)

That in no way answered the question.

Let's say you have two point particles with no charge and no angular momentum and of mass M, and in fact the same in all quantum numbers except for some reason one has an event horizon and the other doesn't ... you don't see a problem with that? How can one couple to gravity different, yet still have the same momentum and energy?

And since your "gravity quantum number" is not conserved even in gravitational coupling, then how can you possibly claim it can be used to calculate gravitational couplings?

The no-hair theorem in General Relativity applies specifically to solutions to Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism, it does not implicitly rule out a possible weak charge solution for a black hole.

The original no-hair theorems were purely classical. There are many now, and cover many quantum situations as well (in a classical spacetime background).

John Baez said color charge was ruled out by confinement. And the references I gave above suggest weak charge is ruled out as well (maybe the fundamental reason is similar to Baez's comment... weak interactions are short range).

But let's not worry about this too much, as these are all in the classical spacetime limit anyway. Quantum micro-blackholes are expected to "have hair".

 

[Ontoplankton]

My god. New Scientist sunk to the depth of a black hole

This is entirely speculative, but moreover, this is not science, as it is not falsifiable in principle.
What is said here is that WE would observe a micro black hole, but that "in fact" it is an entire universe, but we won't find out.

I really would like to have a more 100% definitive argument than "it's speculative". Perhaps something along the lines of, "if you can create universes by slamming stuff together to create magnetic monopoles, and then slamming stuff into those monopoles, then we we know it happens 10^many times in nature because nature not only slams things together at the same energies, it slams them together with the same beam intensity". Or, "we know it won't happen at LHC because the probability of things hitting a collision product is tiny". I know cosmic ray collisions have more energy, but do things about the setup matter (for the possibility of collision products being hit again) other than the energy of collisions, like how much you concentrate them or whether you send more stuff in the same direction later, etc?

As you say, it wouldn't affect us if it happened.

And it's not creating life …

so what is the ethical problem?

If it's not creating life, I agree there's no ethical problem. Is there a reason to think that any universes created would be lifeless?

The ethical problem is that arguably you shouldn't risk creating (enormous amounts of) life if you don't have a good reason to believe it will live under good conditions. Here's someone else's argument.

 

[vanesch]

The ethical problem is that arguably you shouldn't risk creating (enormous amounts of) life if you don't have a good reason to believe it will live under good conditions. Here's someone else's argument.

The point was: it is in principle impossible to know whether you create "another universe" or not. There is no possible observation that would discriminate the theory "we create another univerrse" from the theory "no such thing happens". Not because there are practical difficulties, but rather because there is no possibility, even in principle, to verify the statement. As such, it is what's called an unfalsifiable statement, and as such, it is a non-scientific issue.
You can for instance adhere to the theory that each *photon* is another universe, but which looks to us like a photon. This theory is just as valid or invalid as the thing proposed in said article. Should we ponder whether it is ethical to switch on the light, because we will potentially (but unverifiably) create gazillions of universes which we will destroy almost immediately in the absorption process in the wall ?

I really would like to have a more 100% definitive argument than "it's speculative". Perhaps something along the lines of, "if you can create universes by slamming stuff together to create magnetic monopoles, and then slamming stuff into those monopoles, then we we know it happens 10^many times in nature because nature not only slams things together at the same energies, it slams them together with the same beam intensity".

And who tells you that in these natural processes, universes aren't created either ?

 

[ZapperZ]

I really would like to have a more 100% definitive argument than "it's speculative". Perhaps something along the lines of, "if you can create universes by slamming stuff together to create magnetic monopoles, and then slamming stuff into those monopoles, then we we know it happens 10^many times in nature because nature not only slams things together at the same energies, it slams them together with the same beam intensity". Or, "we know it won't happen at LHC because the probability of things hitting a collision product is tiny". I know cosmic ray collisions have more energy, but do things about the setup matter (for the possibility of collision products being hit again) other than the energy of collisions, like how much you concentrate them or whether you send more stuff in the same direction later, etc?

vanesch probably didn't bother to explain what he meant because there are other more well-formulated questions on this issue, all of which have been addressed in the various posts and links given in this thread. One simply cannot rationally analyze and argue against something that is unfalsifiable. That's like arguing why Intelligent Design is wrong, when it isn't falsifiable. It's a futile, time-wasting activity.

If it's not creating life, I agree there's no ethical problem. Is there a reason to think that any universes created would be lifeless?

The ethical problem is that arguably you shouldn't risk creating (enormous amounts of) life if you don't have a good reason to believe it will live under good conditions. Here's someone else's argument.

This has now gone off topic (I will not even comment on how that writer has bastardized cosmology). I will also caution you from using sources like this as "references" to support your point. Our guidelines is still strictly enforced here.

Zz.

 

[james77]

That's like arguing why Intelligent Design is wrong, when it isn't falsifiable. It's a futile, time-wasting activity.

This is the same old verification nut that's now often used against people who espouse a type of Richard Dawkin atheism. Even if the evidence suggests it's so, that doesn't mean you can say what can't be falsified, cannot therefore exist. Anyway this topic gone way off beam.

 

[vanesch]

Even if the evidence suggests it's so, that doesn't mean you can say what can't be falsified, cannot therefore exist.

How can there be any evidence if it can't be falsified ? The evidence would be part of the falsification process, no ?

 

[james77]

How can there be any evidence if it can't be falsified ? The evidence would be part of the falsification process, no ?

It's not a question of arriving at a completely adequate answer through the method if evidential falsification pre se, facts either fit, make, break or eventually amend the existing theoretical model or models in place, particularly in physics.

 

[Orion1]

Orion1-humanino metrics...

Stable micro black holes

Others have wondered about the basic assumptions of the quantum gravity program, and whether there is really a compelling case to believe in Hawking radiation[10]. It is only these quantum assumptions which lead to the crisis at the Planck mass: in classical general relativity, a black hole could in principle be arbitrarily small, once created. Accordingly, it remains a possibility that a stable micro black hole could be created at the LHC, or that they are created in nature by high-energy impacts, only to zip through Earth at nearly the speed of light (ref. 2).

Although the paper cited based a model upon the Kerr-Newman metric and a 'relativistic vortex' for a spin 1/2 particle, the paper did not address the issue of micro black hole stability. Therefore this conclusion for the model stability issues with this citation is unsubstantiated.

1) We have seen that a particle could be treated as a relativistic vortex, that
is a vortex where the velocity of circulation equals that of light or a spherical
shell, whose constituents are again rotating with the velocity of light or as a
black hole described by the Kerr-Newman metric for a spin 1/2 particle.

The issue regarding a weakly charged Orion1-humanino quantum black hole has not yet been challenged by citation.

The Schwarzschild radius r_s of an (4+n)-dimensional black hole: (1, 1, n, n)
$$r_s = \frac{r_p}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}}$$

Length-scale corresponding to the weak charge w:
$$r_{w}^{2} = \frac{\hbar G}{c^3} \sqrt{ \frac{T_{\Delta}}{T_{\Sigma}}} \; \; \; w = 1$$

Where $$T_{\Delta}$$ and $$T_{\Sigma}$$ are the lifetimes of the these particles.

Orion1-humanino metrics: (1, 1, 0, 0), (1, 1, 0, 1), w = 1
$$c^2 {d \tau}^{2} = \left( 1 - \frac{r_{s}}{r} + \frac{r_{w}^{2}}{r^{2}} \right) c^{2} dt^{2} - \frac{dr^{2}}{1 - \frac{r_{s}}{r} + \frac{r_{w}^{2}}{r^{2}}} - r^{2} d\theta^{2} - r^{2} \sin^{2} \theta \, d\varphi^{2}$$

$$c^2 \mathrm d\tau^2 & = \left[ 1 - \frac{r_s r - r_w^2}{\rho^2} \right] c^2 \mathrm d t^2 - \frac{\rho^2}{\Lambda^2} \mathrm d r^2 - \rho^2 \mathrm d\theta^2 \\ & - \left[ r^2 + \alpha^2 + \left( r_s r - r_w^2 \right) \frac{\alpha^2}{\rho^2}\sin^2\theta \right] \sin^2 \theta \ \mathrm d\phi^2 \\ & + \left( r_s r - r_w^2 \right) \frac{2\alpha\sin^2\theta}{\rho^2}\;c \mathrm d t\;\mathrm d \phi$$
$$\Lambda^{2} = r^{2} - r_{s} r + \alpha^{2} + r_{w}^{2}$$

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsZdgz5oFM"
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F9808020"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole#Stable_micro_black_holes"
http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1877224&postcount=428"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1877290&postcount=430"
http://www.wissensnavigator.ch/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf"

Leave, leave Geneva every last one of you,
Saturn will be converted from gold to iron,
RAYPOZ will exterminate all who oppose him,
Before the coming the sky will show signs.

 

[Ontoplankton]

vanesch,

And who tells you that in these natural processes, universes aren't created either?

Well, that's what I came here to ask you guys who know more about this stuff. Are natural processes similar enough (in other ways than energy) to what happens to the LHC, that we can say that if this specific thing happens in the LHC, it happens in nature? (In your light bulb example we know that this is the case, and moreover no mechanism for universe creation is given.) Please don't interpret me as saying it will happen; for all I know it can't happen at the LHC at all for reasons that are obvious to someone who knows how the thing works. I'm just curious.

ZapperZ,

vanesch probably didn't bother to explain what he meant because there are other more well-formulated questions on this issue, all of which have been addressed in the various posts and links given in this thread.

The question I see discussed in these posts/links is "what if a black hole from LHC swallows Earth", which I agree won't happen; my concern is a different one.

I assume that when you refer to the guidelines, you mean the part that says:

Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

The site I linked to is not a crank or crackpot site that tries to make up its own theories of physics; rather, it tries to look at some (perhaps far-fetched) possibilities that have been discussed in the physics literature and figure out the ethical implications.

If the ethics discussion is judged off-topic, however, then of course I accept that.

For a more proper cite, here's a paper by http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVDAQ000074000002024026000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes )

 

[ZapperZ]

The site I linked to is not a crank or crackpot site that tries to make up its own theories of physics; rather, it tries to look at some (perhaps far-fetched) possibilities that have been discussed in the physics literature and figure out the ethical implications.

And that violates another part of the PF Guidelines on speculative, unverified theory. We also do not allow links to something like that.

Just because something cites something that is published or valid, doesn't mean the article itself is valid. Just look at various crackpot sites that are citing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being violated by evolution. Just because they know how to cite a valid physics principle does not mean they know what they are citing and know how to use it properly.

This thread has now gone off-topic. If it doesn't get back to it soon, it shouldn't be a surprise what its fate will be.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

vanesch,

Well, that's what I came here to ask you guys who know more about this stuff. Are natural processes similar enough (in other ways than energy) to what happens to the LHC, that we can say that if this specific thing happens in the LHC, it happens in nature?

Yes. In the LHC won't happen any processes that don't happen already somewhere in the universe, and even on earth, the moon etc..., at least if certain very elementary principles hold, such as the principle of relativity that says that the physics is independent of the frame of motion in which it is observed, which allows us to "go to the center of mass frame".
There happen, all the time, much higher-energetic collisions between protons and nucleae around us. The main difference is that the center-of-mass of these collisions is usually at high speed with respect to, say, "the ambient fluid of matter in space" (the planets, the stars and so on). If we can "transform to the center of mass" system, then there are miriads of collisions which look exactly like those that will happen in the LHC, and often even more energetic.
Of course, if you adhere to some kind of ether theory, then you cannot say that these collisions are entirely equivalent, as they happen in reference frames which are moving with high speeds wrt the ether frame...
The particularity of the LHC collisions is that they will happen in a reference frame which is essentially at rest with the Earth (and grossly, with the "matter fluid" in space). That allows us to study them. Also, the luminosity of the beams is of course much higher than what can be found in outer space: that means, that more of these collisions happen in a smaller 4-cube of spacetime than is usually the case in outer space: in other words, the reaction rate will be much higher. That's because one wants to have the occasion to have some statistics, to have a certain number of interesting events. Otherwise, we would have to run the experiment for millions of years if we were going to have particle beam densities comparable to outer space. But there's nothing *specific* about the collisions in the LHC that doesn't happen already all the time, and all over the place, in the cosmos.

Also, you have to understand that "creating baby universes" is not something that follows "almost unavoidably" if we take standard physics at heart. It is a highly speculative idea. It's nothing that is "forced upon us" by circumstantial evidence and the theory that's built upon that.

 

[vanesch]

For a more proper cite, here's a paper by http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVDAQ000074000002024026000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes )

Ok. Granted. Still, in my book, that's an idle theorist's wet dream

 

[muppet]

If it's not creating life, I agree there's no ethical problem. Is there a reason to think that any universes created would be lifeless?

The ethical problem is that arguably you shouldn't risk creating (enormous amounts of) life if you don't have a good reason to believe it will live under good conditions. Here's someone else's argument.

Apart from the semantic issue of whether or not something could be said to constitute a universe, I'd say there's numerous reasons to suppose that we wouldn't be creating life. Admittedly, I haven't read the article- does it suggest how stable chemical compounds could arise in sufficient quantities to form self-replicating entities?

 

[The Inventor]

After certain events ocurring in my life, I have come to the conclusion that the first two feet in front of my face, or between me and my monitor, as the most interesting, keeping in mind the concepts of the Aether, quantum foam, and such. Because if it isn't happenin' there its not happening elsewhere either.

 

[Orion1]

Let's say you have two point particles with no charge and no angular momentum and of mass M, and in fact the same in all quantum numbers except for some reason one has an event horizon and the other doesn't ... you don't see a problem with that?

How can one couple to gravity different, yet still have the same momentum and energy?

And since your "gravity quantum number" is not conserved even in gravitational coupling, then how can you possibly claim it can be used to calculate gravitational couplings?

A quantum black hole is expected to interact via Strong Gravitation, however the Higgs boson is expected to interact via standard weak gravitation, therefore the gravity quantum number g, is still conserved.

Strong Gravitation: (1 Tev) (g = 1)
(Quantum BH strong nuclear reaction with a proton)
$$\boxed{t_p = \frac{4 E_b^2}{3} \sqrt{\frac{m_p r_p^7}{2 (\hbar c)^5}}}$$

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsZdgz5oFM"
http://www.wissensnavigator.ch/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf"

 

[Almanzo]

This is a sequel to post 403.

Previously I argued that there must be a minimum size and mass for any black hole carrying an electric charge, and I calculated the mass to be in the microgram range. To do this, I used an integration of the mass of the electric field in a shell around the event horizon. However in this integration I used the Euclidean volume element dV = dr *(r*dtheta) *{r*sin(theta)*dphi}, which, as Vanesch pointed out, cannot be correct near a black hole.

According to a Wikipedia article, I should keep the theta and phi part (which, just give the surface of a sphere concentric with the hole, but change dr to dr(1 -r/a+r²/b²)^-1/2. Here a is the Schwarzschild radius, and b is a radius connected to the charge of the hole.

Multiplying this length element with 1/r², and integrating from r₁ to _r2, I now don't get 1/r₁-1/r₂, as before, but a rather more complicated expression.
2/r₁(1 -r₁/a+r₁²/b²)^1/2 - 2/r₂(1-r₂/a+r₂²/b²)^1/2 + (1/a)^elog[{(1/r₂-1/2a+1/r₂(1-r₂/a+r₂²/b²)^1/2}/{(1/r₁-1/2a+1/r₁(1-r₁/a+r₁²/b²)^1/2}]

Substitting R and R+dR for r₁ and r₂, respectively, I get an even more complicated expression, which I will not reproduce here as typing in the last one cost me nearly half an hour. But the upshot of it all is that the minimum radius is twice as big as I originally calculated.

However, there are some strange things, which make me distrust the result.

One: the Schwarzschild Radius is given as 2GM/c², while I took it to be GM/c². The radius where the potential energy GMm/R equals the mass energy mc². In effect R equals a. But if R equals 2a, the result is wildly different.

Two: there is already an expression for the charge in the Wikipedia article, and using it seems to be begging the question. But if I ignore the r²/b² term, the volume element becomes infinite, the integral becomes improper, and the result suggests that no black hole of whatever size can carry even the smallest charge.

Perhaps this is as it should be. Charges communicate their existence to other charges by exchanging virtual photons with them. In effect, the mass of the electric field is the mass of these photons. If photons cannot cross the event horizon, charge cannot make itself felt as soon as it has been swallowed by the hole.

A note on something completely different. If in Nostradamuss quatrain the word RAYPOZ is to denote rayon positif (or positive ray), we must assume that Nostradamus knew about the modern convention of denoting electrons as negatively and protons as positively charged particles. But we must also assume that Nostradamus did not know about modern French orthography, which spells positif with an s rather than a z.

 

[Orion1]

The quantum mass spectrum maximum angular momentum of a charged quantum black hole with the maximum angular momentum associated with the Hilbert space underlying quantum surface area:
$$M^2_{k,j,q_e,q_m} = \left( \frac{\left[2k + 1 + \alpha q_e^2 + \alpha^{-1} \left(q_m / 2 \right)^2 \right]^2 + 4j(j + 1)}{4 \left(2k + 1 \right)} \right) m_p^2$$

The quantum black hole mass of a (4+n)-dimensional black hole:
$$m_b = \frac{m_p}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}}$$

The quantum mass spectrum maximum angular momentum of a charged quantum black hole with the maximum angular momentum associated with the Hilbert space underlying quantum surface area of a (4+n)-dimensional black hole:
$$\boxed{M^2_{k,j,q_e,q_m} = \left( \frac{\left[2k + 1 + \alpha q_e^2 + \alpha^{-1} \left(q_m / 2 \right)^2 \right]^2 + 4j(j + 1)}{4 \left(2k + 1 \right)} \right) \frac{m_p^2}{\pi} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left(\frac{8 \Gamma \left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{2}{n+1}}}$$

$$E_{BH} = 1.3 - 4 \; \text{Tev}$$

In scenarios with extra dimensions and TeV-scale gravity, neutrino cosmic rays may produce black holes deep in the atmosphere, initiating characteristic quasi-horizontal showers far above the predicted standard model rate. The fact that no such showers have been observed to date places new bounds on the scale of higher-dimensional gravity, between 1.3 and 1.8 TeV for 4 or more extra flat dimensions. Continued nonobservation of black hole mediated events over the next 5 years will increase these bounds to 4 TeV, and sharply limit the rate of black hole production at LHC. With warped extra dimensions, the bounds obtained are less stringent. On the other hand, observations of such events could provide the first evidence for the existence of extra dimensions, string theory, and creation and evaporation of microscopic black holes.

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsZdgz5oFM"
http://eprints.may.ie/archive/00000240/01/fuzzyBH-4.pdf"
http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1877224&postcount=428"
http://www.wissensnavigator.ch/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf"

Leave, leave Geneva every last one of you,
Saturn will be converted from gold to iron,
RAYPOZ will exterminate all who oppose him,
Before the coming the sky will show signs.

 

[McHeathen]

How safe is The Large Hadron Collider?

Previous concerns about its safety have focused on the prospect of black holes being created which would swallow up the earth,. Scientists such as Steven Hawkins have rubbished them as being groundless (pardon the pun).

There has been no attention given by the media to the prospect of 'strangelets' being created. There are six types or flavours of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange. The collisions of hadrons - protons and neutrons - will release the quarks which compose them.

I read somewhere that the 'strange' quark could be dangerous, if it formed a negative charged 'strangelet'. Some strangelets might become 'lower energy' (up or down) quarks. A positive charged one would merely attract a few electrons away from neighbouring atoms, but a negatively one would attract the positively charge nucleus, which in turn would become 'strange matter'. This would then go on to cause a chain reaction effect by eating up matter.

Is there any need to be concerned about such a possibility?

 

[ZapperZ]

Previous concerns about its safety have focused on the prospect of black holes being created which would swallow up the earth,. Scientists such as Steven Hawkins have rubbished them as being groundless (pardon the pun).

There has been no attention given by the media to the prospect of 'strangelets' being created. There are six types or flavours of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange. The collisions of hadrons - protons and neutrons - will release the quarks which compose them.

I read somewhere that the 'strange' quark could be dangerous, if it formed a negative charged 'strangelet'. Some strangelets might become 'lower energy' (up or down) quarks. A positive charged one would merely attract a few electrons away from neighbouring atoms, but a negatively one would attract the positively charge nucleus, which in turn would become 'strange matter'. This would then go on to cause a chain reaction effect by eating up matter.

Is there any need to be concerned about such a possibility?

It's long, but please review this thread. All your questions have been addressed here.

Zz.

 

[JustinLevy]

A quantum black hole is expected to interact via Strong Gravitation, however the Higgs boson is expected to interact via standard weak gravitation, therefore the gravity quantum number g, is still conserved.

Two things:

1] A proton (which don't have an event horizon, so by your definition of "gravity quantum number g", has g=0) and an anti-proton (also g=0) can collide to form a black hole (g = 1). Also, a black hole (g=1) can evaporate to standard particles (g=0).

Your "gravity quantum number" is NOT conserved even in gravitational coupling, so how can you possibly claim it can be used to calculate gravitational couplings?


2] If a black hole is ucharged (color, weak, EM) with no angular momentum, and has the same mass as a Higgs (this was the hypothetical question asked to you) ... then they MUST have the same gravitational coupling. Even if you postulate the strong and gravitational force somehow become unified at this scale, there is nothing in the gravitational coupling (momentum and energy) or strong coupling (color charge) to distinguish between these. So your answer is not valid.



Let me restate the problem to be more direct at what I hope to learn.

How could one experimentally distinguish between these two cases:
a neutral scalar particle with zero for all quantum numbers and has mass M is detected such that
case 1: M is just below what one would consider a "blackhole"
case 2: M is equal to the minimum what one would consider a "blackhole"

It seems to me that by necessity, there cannot be a clear and abrupt yes/no here for whether the particle has an event horizon. Unless the couplings somehow involve a step function or some other discontinuity, it seems there has to be a smooth transition between naked -> fuzzy horizon -> classical horizon. Maybe we could mark a transition as the "length scale" for transition to "blackhole-like-behavior", but it seems like there is no way to unambiguously define a minimum black hole... sort of like how we arbitrarily mark the "melting point" for waxy substances by pointing to somewhere in a gentle phase transition region.

 

[Orion1]

Quantum black hole mass spectrum...


I am surprised that nobody commented on the prediction of a quantum black hole magnetic monopole mass spectrum at Tev scale energy from equation solution on post #451.

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1882602&postcount=451"

 

[ZapperZ]

We need to get back on-topic and not continue with the discussion of such supernatural predictions. People may want to continue this elsewhere, but not here.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

We need to get back on-topic and not continue with the discussion of such supernatural predictions. People may want to continue this elsewhere, but not here.

Zz.

I moved the Nostradamus-related posts to a thread in GD.

 

[theallknower]

LHC and it's nonexistent black hole!

I've run in the numbers,and please corect me if I'm rong...

"if a black hole is created in the LHC,by the colision of 2 protons with the energy of 7TeV each,then it would have a temperature of aproximatley 12 trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion kelvines! such a temperature would require an enormous amount of energy,and since it does not exist,such a black hole can not be created"

took me a while to make the calculations with all those numbers:)

 

[Vanadium 50]

I've run in the numbers,and please corect me if I'm rong.

I'm afraid you're "rong".

Temperature is not energy. If it takes 7 TeV of energy to create an object, it takes 7 TeV of energy to create an object.

 

[Orion1]

theallknower, I believe that you are not "corect", what you have quoted is called a 'Logical Fallacy'.

"A creates B with C, C cannot exist because of A, since C does not exist, then A cannot create B."

Classical absolute maximum CMS beam temperature:
$$T_1 = \frac{E_1}{k_b} = 1.624 \cdot 10^{17} \; \text{K}$$
$$E_1 = 14 \; \text{Tev}$$
$$k_b$$ - Boltzmann's constant

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy"

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Concern at CERN - LHC

If you are like me and have a good grasp of basic physics you must be annoyed by the media's portrayal of CERN's LHC as an earth-gobbling, black hole-maker. The public hear's black hole and thinks of a galaxy swallowing behemoth and does not infact know just how tiny the black holes created at the LHC will actually be.

In fact, I don't know just how small or at what energies they will be at either. So I was wondering if anyone familiar with the LHC experiments could provide such information. What is the volume of the BH going to be and what is the critical density needed to create such a BH? Also, how will the HUP dictate just how long its lifespan will be? I've gone to CERN's website, but found it very difficult to find anything, so if you could indulge me, please do.

Cheers

 

[Orion1]

Quantum black hole mass of a (4+n)-dimensional black hole:
$$m(n) = \frac{m_p}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}}$$
$$E_{BH} = 14 \; \text{Tev}$$

Planck mass quantum black hole Hawking radiation evaporation time:
$$t_{ev} = \frac{5120 \pi G^2 m_p^3}{\hbar c^4}$$

$$\boxed{t_{ev} = 8.671 \cdot 10^{-40} \; \text{s}}$$

(4+n)-dimensional quantum black hole Hawking radiation evaporation time:
$$t(n)_{ev} = \frac{5120 \pi G^2}{\hbar c^4} \left( \frac{m_p}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}} \right)^3 = \frac{5120 G^2 m_p^3}{\hbar c^4 \sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right]^{\frac{3}{n+1}}$$

$$\boxed{t(n)_{ev} = \frac{5120 G^2 m_p^3}{\hbar c^4 \sqrt{\pi}} \left[ \frac{E_{BH}}{E_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right]^{\frac{3}{n+1}}}$$

$$\boxed{t(10)_{ev} = 4.112 \cdot 10^{-49} \; \text{s} \; \; \; n = 10}$$

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsZdgz5oFM"
https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf"
http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation"
http://www.wissensnavigator.ch/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf"

Leave, leave Geneva every last one of you,
Saturn will be converted from gold to iron,
RAYPOZ will exterminate all who oppose him,
Before the coming the sky will show signs.

 

[Max™]

I love that the automatic assumption is that the LHC will be able to produce MBC's, overlooking that it would only be able to do so if a few highly theoretical considerations are true. Namely unobserved dimensions, a remarkably low energy scale for gravity, quite a few others.

Then the idea that it would devour the Earth, which I have to thank the poster earlier in the thread who worked out the time it would take to eat 1/3rd of the Earth.

Then you should be considering what effect the gravity well of the sun would have on the MBC when it reached a certain mass.

Above all else though, there is no evidence that it is even possible to produce a black hole with such limited energies, that it is possible to produce one with less than a certain amount of mass, or that it would be stable if it was even possible.

It makes me literally angry with rage, to quote Fry, that people are seriously fighting to keep it from being used over THAT point.