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

[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
[/Color]
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}
[/Color]
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.

 

[theallknower]

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.

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


I calculated the temperature,using the formula for the temperature of a black hole,found in Stephen Hawking's book: "the universe in a nut shell",and it goes like this:
T=(plank's reduced constant*c^3)/8pi*K*G*M,

where:c=the speed of light
k=boltzmann's constant
G=Newton's gravitational constant
M=the mass of the black hole(in this case,of 2 protons that weight as much as two Pb atoms,so put in 2 Pb atoms,AND,don't forget to convert those 14 TeV into mass(matter and energy are the same thing),and very important,in kilograms)

use only SI units,and you will reach my calculation,if I was "corect" :)

I asume a reference is required,but I don't know who developed this formula,so I'll just make a reference to the book I named earlier in the post and www.wikipedia.org ,for the exact(almost exact) values in the formula

 

[Vanadium 50]

use only SI units,and you will reach my calculation,if I was "corect"

I'm afraid not. Plugging numbers into equations without understanding where they come from is very error prone. That's why physics academic programs spend a lot of time doing these derivations.

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.

 

[Max™]

The reason you're expecting to see such a high temperature is not too far from what Hawking radiation predicts.

Essentially if Hawking is correct, a microscopic black hole should glow like a tiny supernova and then explode.

As V50 said, understanding what the math is describing is very important.

Math is a tool, trying to use a hammer without knowing what it does isn't very illuminating.

 

[james77]

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}
[/Color]
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"

In the context of the recent event with the helium leakage, your calculations are very interesting. This could of produced the necessary background conditions that may of given us a degree of stability for MBH propagation.

 

[ZapperZ]

In the context of the recent event with the helium leakage, your calculations are very interesting. This could of produced the necessary background conditions that may of given us a degree of stability for MBH propagation.

What does the "helium leakage" have anything to do with MBH?

This thread is getting more ridiculous by the day.

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

In the context of the recent event with the helium leakage, your calculations are very interesting. This could of produced the necessary background conditions that may of given us a degree of stability for MBH propagation.

Perhaps you were thinking of a http://arxivblog.com/?p=645"?

One thing they’ve found is that it is possible to switch the force between atoms in certain kinds of BECs from positive to negative and back using a magnetic field, a phenomenon known as a Feschbach resonance.

But get this: in 2001, Elizabeth Donley and buddies at JILA in Boulder, Colorado, caused a BEC to explode by switching the forces like. These explosions have since become known as Bose supernovas.

Nobody is exactly sure how these explosions proceed which is a tad worrying for the following reason: some clever clogs has pointed out that superfluid helium is a BEC and that the LHC is swimming in 700,000 litres of the stuff. Not only that but the entire thing is bathed in some of the most powerful magnetic fields on the planet.​

But this stuff is far outside of what is http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4004" and doesn't have anything to do with MBH.

 

[tiny-tim]

helium leakage

What does the "helium leakage" have anything to do with MBH?

He He He

This thread is getting more ridiculous by the day.

One black hole if by night, two black holes if by day.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Nobody is exactly sure how these explosions proceed which is a tad worrying for the following reason: some clever clogs has pointed out that superfluid helium is a BEC and that the LHC is swimming in 700,000 litres of the stuff. Not only that but the entire thing is bathed in some of the most powerful magnetic fields on the planet.

I wouldn't call them "clever clogs". (What's a clog anyway?) This argument is like saying swimming pools might explode because they contain immense quantities of hydrogen and oxygen together, and we all know that mixing hydrogen and oxygen can be explosive. The words are all right, but the order they are in indicates that they don't really understand what they are talking about.

ZapperZ, there is a collection of conspiracy theorists (I wonder what the collective noun for conspiracy theorists is - perhaps a knoll?) who believe that the LHC actually did produce a black hole on the 17th, that it lodged in the magnets of Sector 3-4 and everything you have heard is just a cover story. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for this only encourages them - it must be a really good conspiracy. <sound of my head banging on the wall>

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, there is a collection of conspiracy theorists (I wonder what the collective noun for conspiracy theorists is - perhaps a knoll?) who believe that the LHC actually did produce a black hole on the 17th, that it lodged in the magnets of Sector 3-4 and everything you have heard is just a cover story. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for this only encourages them - it must be a really good conspiracy. <sound of my head banging on the wall>

I'm no longer surprised by such stupidity. It seems that everyone with an internet access seems to think that what he/she thinks is valid regardless of the lack of evidence. This is exactly what is meant by Andrew Keen in his "Cult of the Amateur" book. People seem to no longer care on the nature of their source of information.

Zz.

 

[james77]

I'm no longer surprised by such stupidity. It seems that everyone with an internet access seems to think that what he/she thinks is valid regardless of the lack of evidence. This is exactly what is meant by Andrew Keen in his "Cult of the Amateur" book. People seem to no longer care on the nature of their source of information.

Zz.

Yeah, why don't we just disband all public forums about Science, this way all the professionals can talk themselves in serene, harmonious tones, in a place they assure me that there will of course be no disputes or arguments amongst this elite caste! Remember the mob pays for your salary in one form or another, so you have to learn to tolerate their backwardness nowadays, else they might get mad and, pull the plug.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yeah, why don't we just disband all public forums about Science, this way all the professionals can talk themselves in serene, harmonious tones, in a place they assure me that there will of course be no disputes or arguments amongst this elite caste! Remember the mob pays for your salary in one form or another, so you have to learn to tolerate their backwardness nowadays, else they might get mad and, pull the plug.

What does the general public have anything to do with the stupidity being propagated by delusional individuals who concocted those conspiracy theory? Or are you their representative and lumping the general public with these crackpots?

Again, a major disconnect in logic seems to be your common trait, which, btw, you have failed to explain.

Zz.

 

[james77]

Again, a major disconnect in logic seems to be your common trait, which, btw, you have failed to explain.

Zz.[/QUOTE]

I think solipsism is your defining trait. Your appeal to some desiccated form of logic, which must be right, because it has always been right before, is tautological nonsense, which is all the more amusing, when you consider many if the paradoxically states quantum theory throws up. It’s no wonder so few people have faith in what scientists say anymore, the know it all arrogance is as astounding as it is shocking, yet it amusing how often you guys screw up. The Helium leak was one such example.

 

[ZapperZ]

Again, a major disconnect in logic seems to be your common trait, which, btw, you have failed to explain.

Zz.

I think solipsism is your defining trait. Your appeal to some desiccated form of logic, which must be right, because it has always been right before, is tautological nonsense, which is all the more amusing, when you consider many if the paradoxically states quantum theory throws up. It’s no wonder so few people have faith in what scientists say anymore, the know it all arrogance is as astounding as it is shocking, yet it amusing how often you guys screw up. The Helium leak was one such example.

So few people have faith in what scientists say anymore? You do know that every time you fly in an airplane, you put your LIFE on the line based on what "scientists say".

The fact that "helium leakage" was never explained on how it has anything to do with "MBH" is a logical failure. You might as well argue that the full moon has something to do with it as well. There's no "desiccated form of logic" here. It is simply your failure to explain the PHYSICS of what you are connecting.

You should also consider having some of your own medicine. While you accuse me of belittling the general public that funds the work that scientists do (I did no such thing in that post), why don't you also consider that these scientists that you have very little respect for are very much responsible for your well-being and livelihood, including your ability to post your opinion on here.

This this has now degenerate into a "bash scientist" topic, I would presume that the issue of Black hole and the LHC is done.

Zz.