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

[Astronuc]

If you know what to expect from the experiment then why are you doing it?

It's called confirmation.

My suspicion is that scientists don't know what is going to happen. And all those theories and calculations they present to us are only hopes and desparations. Scientists are desparated, and that is the main reason they built this huge/expensive apparatus to have some order in their theories and calculations. So, I wouldn't trust to their claims about the risks and everything.

Not quite. It takes such big apparatuses to achieve the energies necessary to do the research/experiment to provide confirmation of models and theories.

One more thing: they are trying to recreate the big bang. I hope they "WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT"!

One is misinformed. No one is trying to recreate the Big Bang. The energies are too low. Cosmic ray particles are several orders more magnitude interact with particles in the Earth's atmosphere more or less daily. No Big Bang.

Bye! Please shut the door gently on the way out.

 

[dmitrrr]

Suppose mini black hole (BH) is created and suppose the Hawking radiation
isn't working (see doubts in Wikipedia).
Haw fast this black hole will destroy the Earth?
Under gravitational attraction BH will fall towards center of the planet.
Soon BH drops into liquid magma. Because it is liquid, then
the event horizon will be under pressure. So, particles of magma will be like
free falling into BH, constantly crossing the event horizon. Because time of free fall
into BH is very limited, soon the all magma will be sucked into BH.
The Earth core without support of magma will crush together.
Even if BH somehow remains on the surface of the planet,
the event horizon will be under pressure of the Earth atmosphere.
So, like in case of the magma, the air will very soon disappear.

 

[humanino]

Haw fast this black hole will destroy the Earth?

This depends on the cross section for absorption of matter around. You need to provide an estimation of the size of the BH. Assuming a quantum amplitude of 1 (which can not be larger anyway) then you will get an upper for the time required for absorption to occur merely from available phase space. This is were the pressure will come about, by the density of matter around. I think the time you will get is something like the age of the Sun...

 

[ZapperZ]

I've merged two threads together because we have way too many of these threads already. Any future threads started on the same issue will be merged to this one.

Zz.

 

[dmitrrr]

While discussing LHC one safety argument is, that mini black holes
would evaporate via Hawking radiation. I can't get clear picture from
Hawking's original paper
[S. W. Hawking, Commun. math. Phys., 43, 199 (1975),
(downloadable from Wikipedia)]. Can there be a contradiction?
Namely on page 207 is written:
"no particles on j^{-}" but on page 208 is written:
"the wave... propagate... out on j^{-}".
In the "particle description" the wave function corresponds
to particles. So on page 208 there are particles on j^{-}.

 

[humanino]

While discussing LHC one safety argument is, that mini black holes
would evaporate via Hawking radiation.

No. The safety argument is that BH should already be produced in the atmosphere from cosmic rays, but we are still here. This is different from "how to calculate what would happen if they don't evaporate".

 

[dmitrrr]

humanino:
BH should already be produced in the atmosphere from cosmic rays

I agree, that the energy of a single particle from cosmic ray can be much larger
than energy of a single particle in LHC, it calms.
But there remains a concern. Namely
intensity of cosmic rays is incomparably less than in LHC.
In LHC very many particles will hit the unit area of target in one second, and as result
much more energy will hit the unit area in unit of time.
So, there could be unknown non-linear effect, which will give a BH.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, there could be unknown non-linear effect, which will give a BH.

Only if you call this unknown non-linear effect "magic".

First, there is no target at the LHC. There are colliding beams. That's why it's called the Large Hadron Collider. Next, there are a series of discrete interactions, occurring every 25 ns. Are you trying to tell us that somehow space "remembers" that previously there was a collision there?

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree, that the energy of a single particle from cosmic ray can be much larger
than energy of a single particle in LHC, it calms.
But there remains a concern. Namely
intensity of cosmic rays is incomparably less than in LHC.
In LHC very many particles will hit the unit area of target in one second, and as result
much more energy will hit the unit area in unit of time.
So, there could be unknown non-linear effect, which will give a BH.

I think that you need to give the committee that reviewed the LHC safety a lot more credit for intelligence than this. After all, the notion of "luminosity" is a very common parameter in particle colliders. You need to look at the safety report and show that the issue that you have brought up has been ignored. Till then, your complain is rather moot.

Zz.

 

[Varnick]

Particle collisions like those in the LHC happen naturally, they just aren't observed by huge detectors. Thus, if the LHC were likely to produce dangerous black holes, we would have seen this naturally occurring, no?

 

[jms5631]

The energy levels produced in the LHC are only going to be a fraction of those energies produced in nature everyday from events such as gamma ray bursts and cosmic ray collisions. In a very real sense, we already use the universe as a veritable collider whose vast size amplifies the effects of cosmic events, and observe the effects of extraordinarly high energy occurances, to which the LHC pales in comparison. The fact of our continued existence is a strong confirmation of LHC's safety. However, additional safety concerns have been probed and reviewed in the CERN safety report which is exceptionally comprehensive.

 

[buffordboy23]

No. The safety argument is that BH should already be produced in the atmosphere from cosmic rays, but we are still here.

In this scenario, the colliding particles have vastly different momenta, so if a black hole forms, its velocity is likely always greater than the escape velocity of earth.

For the LHC I would imagine that the colliding protons have a greater probability of creating a black hole whose velocity is less than Earth's escape velocity, since the colliding protons will have momenta of about the same magnitude and approach from nearly opposite directions in terms of the stationary LHC frame. I think the probabilities of such a result would be very small, but possible. Does this make sense?

If this is true, I am not too concerned since the black hole would be extremely tiny and will have little gravitational effect on its immediate surroundings; its essentially a black hole with total mass no more than two protons.

 

[H0T_S0UP]

Well suppose many small black holes are created and collide. Could that pose a problem? Also couldn't it be beneficial if the LHC created microscopic black holes. That way they could be studied with very little risk.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well suppose many small black holes are created and collide. Could that pose a problem? Also couldn't it be beneficial if the LHC created microscopic black holes. That way they could be studied with very little risk.

Actually, it does. However, after chatting with a few people who worked on the Atlas detector, they all have concluded that it will be very difficult to distinguish signatures of the creation of "blackholes" versus other events. I had a Q&A session with Tom LeCompte, was recently appointed to be the science coordinator (assistant for the first year) of Atlas. You may read both parts of my session with him here.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/07/argonne-scientist-to-become-atlas.html
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/07/argonne-scientist-to-become-atlas_21.html

In the second part, he addressed my question if such black holes can be identified if created at Atlas.

Zz.

 

[Topher925]

Are black holes really thought of actually existing? I always thought of them as still being theory, although a highly supported theory. After all do we really have any cognitive proof that black holes really do exist other than mathematics based on empirical assumptions?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you mean micro-BHs? No, nobody knows if they exist. Odds are they don't.

If you mean astronomical BHs, there are a number of objects that are known to be too heavy to be neutron stars or too dense to be anything but a BH.

 

[enisys]

Black Hole miscalculation?

Hello, I understand that our equations have demonstrated that the microscopic black holes capable of being created at the LHC would quickly evaporate, but I was curious as to whether or not those conclusions were strongly based on the assumption that black holes are infinitely dense. If black holes happen to NOT be infinitely dense, would the results be much different??

 

[Orion1]

I have already calculated how much time is required for a classical 'stable' micro-singularity to consume one Iron nucleus in Terra's core at 1 Tev:
\boxed{\tau_b = \frac{4 m_{Fe}}{3} \left(\frac{E_b}{\hbar c} \right)^2 \sqrt{\frac{r_e^7}{2 G m_e^3}}}

\tau_b = 12331.540 \; \text{s} = 3.425 hrs.

Time required for a classical 'stable' micro-singularity to consume one proton in Sol's core at 1 Tev:
\boxed{\tau_b = \frac{4 m_p}{3} \left(\frac{E_b}{\hbar c} \right)^2 \sqrt{\frac{r_{\odot}^7}{2 G m_{\odot}^3}}}

\tau_b = 15.722 \; \text{s}

Based upon this particle rate, and presuming this rate is constant, how much time would be required for a single quantum black hole to consume Terra?

\boxed{t_e = \frac{4}{3} \left(\frac{E_b}{\hbar c} \right)^2 \sqrt{\frac{r_e^7}{2 G m_e}}}

t_e = 7.951 \cdot 10^{53} \; \text{s} - 2.521*10^46 years

BH horizon radius as function of energy:
r_h(E_b) = \frac{\hbar c}{E_b}

Theoretical upper limit:
\boxed{t_e = \frac{4m_p}{3} \sqrt{\frac{(m_e c)^3 r_e^7}{2 \hbar^5}}}

t_e = 6.874 \cdot 10^{131} \; \text{s} - 2.180*10^124 years

\boxed{t_a = \frac{c^4}{4 \pi} \sqrt{\frac{r_e}{2 G^5 m_e^3}}}

Time required to absorb 1 m^3 of Terra:
t_a = 6.844 \cdot 10^{16} \; \text{years}

Note that if such an event were possible, the Universe would have generated trillions of such particles.
[/Color]
Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1005179&postcount=75"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1007655&postcount=83"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1013784&postcount=90"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1044060&postcount=104"

 

[Rascalking]

New LHC article with theory on MBH's...

Hey everyone. Sorry if this topic has been played to death, but like many, I'm having pretty high anxiety about the start up of the LHC in a few weeks. Just got engaged, new job, life is really starting for me. I'm afraid it might be cut short cause of this thing. Theres so much speculation about what this machine can bring, and I'm actually seeing more doomsdayers on the internet then people with faith in the project. So, I decided to come to the most rational message board I could think of. A Physic board, since the whole machine is one giant physics experiment. I keep seeing article after article that offers a counterargument to the "its safe" theory. This one specifically caught my attention:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf

If this machine is "so safe" why are all these distinguished scientists fighting so hard against it? Some of these guys ARENT nutballs. So...is this really safe? Like I said, sorry if this has been discussed before but if I could get some reassurance from you guys, it'd be great cause I've definitely been losing lots of sleep over it.

 

[Gear300]

don't worry...what happens will happen when it happens...life is only life...do not mourn over it...do not obsess over it

 

[Vanadium 50]

If this machine is "so safe" why are all these distinguished scientists fighting so hard against it?

Which distinguished scientists?

Some of these guys ARENT nutballs.

Which ones? They all seem like nutballs to me. Particularly those who are advocating violence - see ZapperZ's blog for an interesting response.

 

[arivero]

Hey everyone. Sorry if this topic has been played to death, but like many, I'm having pretty high anxiety about the start up of the LHC in a few weeks. Just got engaged, new job, life is really starting for me. I'm afraid it might be cut short cause of this thing.

As a joke it starts to wear. But still I like this one, with an hidden scent of irony about how the world works (not in the GUT/TOE sense, but in the sense of engaged + get a life + progress etc)

 

[james77]

Which distinguished scientists?



Which ones? They all seem like nutballs to me. Particularly those who are advocating violence - see ZapperZ's blog for an interesting response.

Which ones. Well see Giddings & Mangano for example and, Plaga as noted in his paper on the 10th August 2008 and again Martin Rees in numerous articles. These guys cannot be dismissed, arrogantly as "Nutjobs". To do so is not only ignorant and offensive but deeply stupid too, as any scientific theory evolves through a process of constant refinement between inherent possibilities, and some of these possibilities are initially identified as risks. Remember Einstein's infamous but highly understandable concerns before the first nuclear tests in July 1945?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which ones. Well see Giddings & Mangano for example

As examples of scientists "fighting hard against the LHC"? This is a total misrepresentation of their report.

As far as "arrogance", I marvel at the state of affairs where someone who criticizes a report that they don't understand isn't being arrogant, but where someone who points this out is.

 

[vanesch]

One shouldn't forget that the LHC is not such an exceptionally more powerful machine than are other colliders. Tevatron has ~ 2 TeV c.o.g. energy, LHC will have 14 TeV, just 7 times more. It is just because theorists have been idle for several decades that they came up with micro black holes at LHC.
The step from accelerators to colliders was a bigger step than from the Tevatron to the LHC.

 

[Cvan]

They speculated that they could ignite the atmosphere of the Earth ablaze when they dropped the first nuclear bomb.

They speculated Columbus would fall off the edge of the world on his trip.

And now they're speculating that there's a remote possibility of creating something that has never been directly observed, and would, in any case--basically evaporate in such a fashion that the only way to know it was ever there would be after years of testing the data. And people are worried about this.

What has the world become?

 

[humanino]

<mode=general discussion>

What has the world become?

Again : when did the world change ?
</mode>

 

[jms5631]

Which ones. Well see Giddings & Mangano for example and, Plaga as noted in his paper on the 10th August 2008 and again Martin Rees in numerous articles.

Giddings and Mangano? Mangano was part of the group who studied the 2003 report and reaffirmed its safety. Then both went into even more depth in a second paper specifically exploring the question of the possibility of macroscopic, stable black holes, and here again validated the LHC as safe. I do not see how you can consider either of these scientists as people voicing their concerns about the safety of the LHC when they've specifically confirmed its safety. As for Rees, I don't know what numerous articles you're referring to...I've only heard him give the chances of anything unexpected happening at no more then 1 in 50,000,000(take note this is the upper limit of any supposed likihood, not necessarily the actual one). Even this seemingly remote possibility has been criticized as far too high by many physicists. As far as I can tell, out of the men you've listed, Plaga is the only one who legitimately supports this point of view.

 

[vanesch]

Remember Einstein's infamous but highly understandable concerns before the first nuclear tests in July 1945?

If you are referring to "igniting the atmosphere", then that's definitely not Einstein, but... Edward Teller ! And it was Hans Bethe who showed him wrong by several orders of magnitude. It's pretty ironic, because after that, Teller's obsession was... to make a hydrogen bomb!

 

[james77]

The Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard spoke to Einstein about the consequence of a uranium based chain reaction occurring after denotation. Quote 'The possibility of a chain reaction in uranium hadn't occurred to him, but as soon as I began to tell him about it he saw what the consequences might be.' A letter, signed by Einstein, was then sent to the American president, Franklin Roosevelt. This meeting occurred in a few months in advance of the first test.

On the subject of safe stable MBHs, yes indeed they may be safe (theoretically) to a certain point, but beyond the initial thresholds set, I think that it's difficult to make a prediction with regard to their ultimate stability and durability. Maybe they will vaporise as quickly as they were created, then again perhaps not. To be truthful we don’t really know, yet I imagine any catastrophic outcome is really a remote possibility as the experiments are being done in carefully controlled, graduated manner.