Could the Large Hadron Collider Create a Black Hole That Threatens Earth?

Click For Summary
Concerns about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) creating a black hole that could threaten Earth are largely unfounded, according to physicists who emphasize that such fears stem from misunderstandings of physics. If a black hole were to form, it would be so small and unstable that it would not pose any danger, as it would evaporate almost instantly due to Hawking radiation. The discussion highlights the importance of clear communication about the LHC's purpose and the actual risks involved, which are minimal. Critics argue that public fears distract from the significant scientific advancements the LHC aims to achieve. Overall, the consensus is that the LHC will not destroy the Earth, and the focus should remain on its valuable experiments.
  • #271
malawi_glenn said:
He was not obsessed, he simply asked what will happen if a MBH reaches the detector, I tried to answer hom from my small knowledge about BH lifetimes.

"He" who? I wasn't naming names. Read my posts before accusing me, next time, please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
gendou2 said:
What the hell, man?
I apologize if my point was not made clearly, and if my point was not helpful.
The nonsense bothers me, too.
I understand if you're frustrated, too.
Give me a break, though. Seriously.

I'm just telling you that irony and sarcasm is hard to differ on forums, exspecially when smileys are not beeing used. This thread is already very tense and loaded, if one tries to answer the questions without beeing ironic or sarcastic, things will work better.

I am not telling that Iam a good example on this, you assume that people are reading the thread which they are posting in so you don't have to post things 2,3,4 times! Like that enmerkar-guy, who is a "scientist" and uses physics language and thinks he know something.. THAT is very anoying.
 
  • #273
gendou2 said:
"He" who? I wasn't naming names. Read my posts before accusing me, next time, please.

The guy "SorinK" (post #265) which you answered 5minutes ago, he was adressing a "what if question". It is quite reasonable that you was partly referring to this post.
 
  • #274
malawi_glenn said:
I'm just telling you that irony and sarcasm is hard to differ on forums, exspecially when smileys are not beeing used.

Got it. It would have been more helpful for me to mention that micro black holes evaporate quickly. So quickly, in fact, that their lifetime is well shorter than the time it takes to move an angstrom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Code: 
h = 6.62e-34
c = 3e8
G = 6.67e-11
M = 2 * 2.176e-8
t = (5120 * pi * G^2 * M^3) / (h * c^4)
t:1.1e-39
1*10-39 seconds is far less time than it takes light to travel one angstrom.
I feel safe in saying that the a micro black hole of 2 Planck masses would evaporate before it could gobble any nearby atoms.
 
Last edited:
  • #275
SorinK said:
I don't need those ugly formulas to think.
Mechanical intuition does a very poor job at the quantum level. How do you define temperature for a single particle ? Only energy matters here.
 
  • #276
Let's all please try and remember that PF has rules, which must be adhered to at all times, even in threads such as this one. Furthermore, if anyone sees a questionable post, please us the "report" button to bring it to the moderators' attention.
 
  • #277
danger of white holes

Why is everyone keeping so quiet about the danger of creating white holes?

I read somewhere that when protons and anti-protons collide, there is a theoretical possibility of creating floppions, which will decay to produce a white hole that is effectively a portal from another universe.

Far from sucking the Earth in, a white hole would drain matter from an already existing universe and pour it onto the earth.

Even if we escaped the 50% danger of this being anti-matter, thus turning central Europe white-hot, the huge added mass would considerably lengthen the day, and disturb the present earth-moon equilibrium, perhaps with the obvious catastrophic result.

Even if a benign, neutral, wormhole were established, we would still be open to invasion by unfamiliar life-forms, which depending on the maximum size of the wormhole capable of being created by the LHC could be anything in size from viruses to white rabbits.

Such species would multiply exponentially, and destroy life as we know it … and please don't tell me that couldn't happen!

And does the official "safety" report deal with these dangers?

I don't think so!​
 
  • #278


tiny-tim said:
I read somewhere that when protons and anti-protons collide, there is a theoretical possibility of creating floppions, which will decay to produce a white hole that is effectively a portal from another universe.
Where did you read this? Please cite your source. I tried looking for myself but google was no help.

As far as the white hole is concerned, I can recommend some reading:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #279
@tiny-tim they want only formulas.
They have the impression that all that is calculated is good, and if even they don't know what will happen, they know that is not dangerous because was made at a smaller scale.
If you think that a white hole will be formed you need to give them some formulas because they don't like theories with no formulas.
I was warned because I had a theory with no formulas and wrote it here.
 
  • #280
SorinK said:
@tiny-tim they want only formulas.
They have the impression that all that is calculated is good, and if even they don't know what will happen, they know that is not dangerous because was made at a smaller scale.
If you think that a white hole will be formed you need to give them some formulas because they don't like theories with no formulas.
I was warned because I had a theory with no formulas and wrote it here.

If you don't have a rigour theory that can back up your statements about physical things, then I can as well say "a pink hole will eat my grandma next week". If you want to make physical statements, then you must play the game physicsists play, and that is by doing the hard math, which is the language of physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #281


tiny-tim said:
Why is everyone keeping so quiet about the danger of creating white holes?

I read somewhere that when protons and anti-protons collide, there is a theoretical possibility of creating floppions, which will decay to produce a white hole that is effectively a portal from another universe.

Far from sucking the Earth in, a white hole would drain matter from an already existing universe and pour it onto the earth.

Even if we escaped the 50% danger of this being anti-matter, thus turning central Europe white-hot, the huge added mass would considerably lengthen the day, and disturb the present earth-moon equilibrium, perhaps with the obvious catastrophic result.

Even if a benign, neutral, wormhole were established, we would still be open to invasion by unfamiliar life-forms, which depending on the maximum size of the wormhole capable of being created by the LHC could be anything in size from viruses to white rabbits.

Such species would multiply exponentially, and destroy life as we know it … and please don't tell me that couldn't happen!

And does the official "safety" report deal with these dangers?

I don't think so!​


LOL that was even more speculative than MBH's traveling and growing large ;-)

Maybe I'll use the report button now.
 
  • #285
To try and get this thread back on a serious track, here's a live webcam of the inside of the LHC that some of you may enjoy.
 
  • #286
malty said:
Well it's written by a physicist . . .

I am a physicist and can also write such crap if I want to.. I mean what is an "electrical antiproton"? LOL watch out so that the gauge meson don't decays into a white drawf that can explode and create a new universe in your kitchen.
 
  • #287
cristo said:
To try and get this thread back on a serious track, here's a live webcam of the inside of the LHC that some of you may enjoy.

Why is the accretion disk (or whatever it is) purple??
 
  • #288
because it is a nice colour? No seriuos, it is related to wiens displacement law. Matters get hotter and well, you surley know the rest of the story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #289
malawi_glenn said:
because it is a nice colour? No seriuos, it is related to wiens displacement law. Matters get hotter and well, you surley know the rest of the story.

Yeah, but greens my fav colour, I mean if we're going to create one of these things I'd rather go out with a green one! So I think that's what I'll research how to it's colour :rolleyes:
 
  • #290
@malawi_glenn, the people that believe that a black hole will be formed are also physicist; they have more than High School info related to black holes and quantum physics.
If such thing can't happen, how is that in there math the results differ?!
All of them don't know math and the others do it in the right way?
The good way would be to meet and to show to the small group where they are wrong.
Are formulas that all of them understand and even if Otto is wrong, the other ones will understand where Otto is wrong and will not support him anymore.
But they don't do that, they prefer to say that the small group is wrong and that is all.
Hawkins theory is not proven.
I want to see a black hole that disappear or at least become smaller so I can agree with Hawkings.
 
Last edited:
  • #291
SorinK said:
@malawi_glenn, the people that believe that a black hole will be formed are also physicist; they have more than High School info related to black holes and quantum physicist.
If such thing can't happen, how is that in there math the results differ?!
All of them don't know math and the others do it in the right way?
The good way would be to meet and to show to the small group where they are wrong.
Are formulas that all of them understand and even if Otto is wrong, the other ones will understand where Otto is wrong and will not support him anymore.
But they don't do that, they prefer to say that the small group is wrong and that is all.
Hawkins theory is not proven.
I want to see a black hole that disappear or at least become smaller so I can agree with Hawkings.

Sorin,

The trouble here is that as physicist we know that there is a definite possibility of such an event occurring, but as Zapper already said it is as possible as you smashing a vase and the vase reassembling itself without your intervention. In physics this is a possibility so we cannot say the vase will definitely be destroyed, likewise we definitely cannot say that there is no chance of a black hole (or white hole [I'm sure there's some minute possibility of that too :)]) but we are incredibily more likely to be destroyed by something other than CERN, yes it could happen but there's a million other dangers in this world that are far more likely!

Anyways if you haven't already I suggest that you read this
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14

The article assesses the risk even with many of our more accepted assumptions such as Hawkins being incorrect. You don't really think that we wouldn't do worse case scenario assessments??
 
  • #292
SorinK, please watch this: http://cdspages.web.cern.ch/cdspages/1120625.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #293
SorinK said:
@tiny-tim they want only formulas.
They have the impression that all that is calculated is good, and if even they don't know what will happen, they know that is not dangerous because was made at a smaller scale.
If you think that a white hole will be formed you need to give them some formulas because they don't like theories with no formulas.
I was warned because I had a theory with no formulas and wrote it here.

This is because you have an incomplete understand of what physics is. Physics is MORE than just saying "What goes up must come down". Physics must also say "When and Where it comes down". Both of these means that there must be QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE agreements with observation! Without the latter, it is merely a hand-waving argument.

Please note that the PF Guidelines is strictly applied throughout PF, and certainly in the physics sub-forums.

Zz.
 
  • #295
malty said:
The trouble here is that as physicist we know that there is a definite possibility of such an event occurring, but as Zapper already said it is as possible as you smashing a vase and the vase reassembling itself without your intervention. In physics this is a possibility so we cannot say the vase will definitely be destroyed, likewise we definitely cannot say that there is no chance of a black hole (or white hole [I'm sure there's some minute possibility of that too :)]) but we are incredibily more likely to be destroyed by something other than CERN, yes it could happen but there's a million other dangers in this world that are far more likely!

I would again want to point out that there is NO *definite probability* that the LHC will create earth-eating things. Contrary to the probability of the vase re-assembling itself, which has a tiny but genuine probability of happening (that is, if you would do an inimaginable number of times the experiment, in some cases the vase WOULD re-assemble), we have in fact no indication at all that the LHC *could* produce an earth-gobbling thing - even if we were to build a gazillion LHCs on a gazillion Earth's.

So what can we do ? We can say that according to most of our theoretical understanding, it is physically impossible to create such an earth-gobbling thing. That would be it.

Or, we can go a step further, and say: LET US SUPPOSE, against all of what we think to know, that we are fundamentally wrong concerning our basic knowledge, and ASSUME that - despite all of what we know telling us that it is physically impossible - it is nevertheless possible. In that case, it has a hypothetical probability of happening. How high could this probability eventually be in order for it not to be in contradiction with observation ?

Now, the last point is important: it means that we have to find ways that would give us observable consequences of our hypothesis that this "theoretically impossible thing" occurs nevertheless. So it depends on our ability to do so, that we can derive UPPER BOUNDS for this probability. If we just stay in our armchair, the upper bound is something around 100%. Indeed, sitting in our armchair is not *incompatible* with our strange thing happening at 100% probability. But it could still be 0%. We simply don't know. So it is not because we sit in our armchair that the probability of creating black holes that eat up the Earth got a probability of 100% ! It's that we didn't do much work to find a better upper boundary. It's like me saying that I don't know how much money you have in the bank, but an upper boundary must be something like 1000 000 times Bill Gates' fortune. It's just because I don't know any better that I can only say something of the kind. If I would have done some better job, I'd find a better upper boundary. In no way this implies that you are so rich.

So the more work I can put into restricting the upper boundary, the lower it can become. In fact, if the actual phenomenon doesn't physically exist (as is suggested by about all of our theories), then with enough work and observation, I can put that boundary as low as I want.

Now, people did a limited amount of work, and they considered only a certain class of observable phenomena, such as planets like Jupiter, or neutron stars, that are exposed for millions of years to LHC-like collisions. From that, they could derive an upper boundary of the eventual probability for our hypothetical event to happen. It DOESN'T MEAN AT ALL, that this is an ESTIMATE for that probability. Only, we don't know any better. If we would like to get a lower boundary, we should do more observations, we should do more clever deductions, etc...

Again, there's a big difference between an *upper boundary* on an eventual probability of an event happening, which should theoretically actually not happen (but we are modest and recon that all of our theoretical knowledge could be wrong), and an *estimate* of the probability of a genuine phenomenon happening, like an estimate for a smoker to devellop cancer due to smoking.

So it is not because some or other scientist writes that "black holes have a probability smaller than 1/500 to eat up the earth" that this means that once out of 500, a black hole will eat up the earth. It simply means that with the limited set of observations, the scientist couldn't find a stronger upper boundary on the probability (which might - and most probably is - zero if we have any reason to believe current theory) starting from the set of observations he decided to start with, and considering the kind of reasoning and approximations he made.
 
  • #296
Orion1 said:
Interesting video listed in reference of what is predicted to happen when the LHC reaches full intensity!
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEzECvJDas&feature=related"
I don't see how a flashy animation of the Earth being swallowed by a black hole contributes to the discussion one bit.
You obviously need to watch this, too: http://cdspages.web.cern.ch/cdspages/1120625.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #297
What's wrong with the following syllogism?

1. Lord Martin Rees would not be trying to scare people, unless he himself were scared.
2. Lord Martin Rees is trying to scare people.
3. Therefore: Lord Martin Rees is scared.

And, by the way, I would like to suggest that if cosmic rays hitting atoms in the Earth's atmosphere are producing black holes, these holes will pass just once through the planet, and then disappear into the great unknown. Their velocity would be way beyond escape velocity.
 
  • #298
Almanzo said:
What's wrong with the following syllogism?

1. Lord Martin Rees would not be trying to scare people, unless he himself were scared.
2. Lord Martin Rees is trying to scare people.
3. Therefore: Lord Martin Rees is scared.

Sure. Or:

1. Lord Martin Rees would not be trying to scare people, unless he knew that makes his book sell.
2. Lord Martin Rees is trying to scare people.
3. Lord Martin Rees knows that fearmongering makes a good sales argument.

Or:

1. LMR would not be trying to scare people, unless blah blah
2. LMR is not trying to scare people
3. anything

Or:
...

And, by the way, I would like to suggest that if cosmic rays hitting atoms in the Earth's atmosphere are producing black holes, these holes will pass just once through the planet, and then disappear into the great unknown. Their velocity would be way beyond escape velocity.

Ooops. Didn't think of that :rolleyes:

There are two points here:
1) if ever the LHC produces earth-gobbling BH, they will ALSO pass with high momentum through the detector, the Earth and disappear in the great unknown.
2) cosmic-ray BH might eventually "zap through" the earth, but they won't zap through a neutron star without a few interactions. A few interactions is what it takes to slow them down because of conservation of momentum.
Let us not forget that the LHC has at most 14 TeV at its disposal (but actually much less for the elementary collisions of the partons) which corresponds to at most the weight of 10 000 protons. That's very tiny for a BH ! Much much much smaller than the size of a proton. So IF these things interact with a proton, they won't eat up all of the proton, but just maybe one quark of it... and hence liberate a pion. In doing so, there will be a release of energy, comparable to the binding energy of the quark in the proton (grossly, the difference in mass between a proton and a pion). So they will get random kicks. Very very soon, they'll acquire enough speed to escape the very very low Earth attraction... *unless* they eat up much faster much more mass. But if that's the case, they will be stopped by a neutron star too even if they started out very fast, and eat it up very quickly.

You can give your BH a certain set of properties, but then you have to stick to them. Once you stick to a certain set of properties, you should find out how such a BH would behave if produced in the LHC, and how it would behave if produced by a cosmic ray at the surface of a neutron star. In both cases, you have to find out whether your neutron star could have survived, and not earth. That's what has been analysed.
 
  • #299
malawi_glenn said:
man I go to church twice a week and it's such a shame that people writes that kind of ******** in religions (Gods) name =(

Yeah. Why don't they stick to the sensible stuff like ghosts descending the Earth and having it away with virgins?
 
  • #300
vanesch said:
I would again want to point out that there is NO *definite probability* that the LHC will create earth-eating things. Contrary to the probability of the vase re-assembling itself, which has a tiny but genuine probability of happening (that is, if you would do an inimaginable number of times the experiment, in some cases the vase WOULD re-assemble), we have in fact no indication at all that the LHC *could* produce an earth-gobbling thing - even if we were to build a gazillion LHCs on a gazillion Earth's.

So what can we do ? We can say that according to most of our theoretical understanding, it is physically impossible to create such an earth-gobbling thing. That would be it.

Or, we can go a step further, and say: LET US SUPPOSE, against all of what we think to know, that we are fundamentally wrong concerning our basic knowledge, and ASSUME that - despite all of what we know telling us that it is physically impossible - it is nevertheless possible. In that case, it has a hypothetical probability of happening. How high could this probability eventually be in order for it not to be in contradiction with observation ?

Now, the last point is important: it means that we have to find ways that would give us observable consequences of our hypothesis that this "theoretically impossible thing" occurs nevertheless. So it depends on our ability to do so, that we can derive UPPER BOUNDS for this probability. If we just stay in our armchair, the upper bound is something around 100%. Indeed, sitting in our armchair is not *incompatible* with our strange thing happening at 100% probability. But it could still be 0%. We simply don't know. So it is not because we sit in our armchair that the probability of creating black holes that eat up the Earth got a probability of 100% ! It's that we didn't do much work to find a better upper boundary. It's like me saying that I don't know how much money you have in the bank, but an upper boundary must be something like 1000 000 times Bill Gates' fortune. It's just because I don't know any better that I can only say something of the kind. If I would have done some better job, I'd find a better upper boundary. In no way this implies that you are so rich.

So the more work I can put into restricting the upper boundary, the lower it can become. In fact, if the actual phenomenon doesn't physically exist (as is suggested by about all of our theories), then with enough work and observation, I can put that boundary as low as I want.

Now, people did a limited amount of work, and they considered only a certain class of observable phenomena, such as planets like Jupiter, or neutron stars, that are exposed for millions of years to LHC-like collisions. From that, they could derive an upper boundary of the eventual probability for our hypothetical event to happen. It DOESN'T MEAN AT ALL, that this is an ESTIMATE for that probability. Only, we don't know any better. If we would like to get a lower boundary, we should do more observations, we should do more clever deductions, etc...

Again, there's a big difference between an *upper boundary* on an eventual probability of an event happening, which should theoretically actually not happen (but we are modest and recon that all of our theoretical knowledge could be wrong), and an *estimate* of the probability of a genuine phenomenon happening, like an estimate for a smoker to devellop cancer due to smoking.

So it is not because some or other scientist writes that "black holes have a probability smaller than 1/500 to eat up the earth" that this means that once out of 500, a black hole will eat up the earth. It simply means that with the limited set of observations, the scientist couldn't find a stronger upper boundary on the probability (which might - and most probably is - zero if we have any reason to believe current theory) starting from the set of observations he decided to start with, and considering the kind of reasoning and approximations he made.

vanesch: I think this post of yours should be framed and stickied for everyone to read before they write anything about "black holes" at the LHC!

:)

Do you mind if I copy it for my blog? :)

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Is a Small Space Hadron Collider More Efficient than a Large One?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
I How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Large Hadron Collider - can it re-create the early universe?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
A few newbie questions about the LHC.
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
I Entanglement may reveal more about black holes? ...Even micro ones!
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
B CERN: Why No Supersymmetry or Mini Black Holes?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Large Hadron Collider Black Holes
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Dangers of the Large Hadron Collider: Is James Worried About Nothing?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
25K
One quick question about Higgs boson and supersymmetry
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K