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

[Orion1]

What is the definition of a black hole?

A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation, can escape its pull after having fallen past its event horizon and evaporates via Hawking radiation.

What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?

It would require a cross section that is less than or equal to:
\sigma = 5 \cdot 10^{-76} \; \text{m}^2 \; \; \; n = 10

...and evaporate via Hawking radiation:
T_b = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi G M k_b}

If the cross-sections are greater or less than your calculations, would that automatically disqualify it as a black hole to you?

If the cross-sections are greater than my calculations, then it is probably a Higgs boson.
If the cross-sections are less than my calculations, then it is a probably a quantum black hole.

if your extrapolations down to the Planck scale are wrong, then you would never consider anything to be a black hole?

If my extrapolations down to the Planck scale are wrong, then this theory is wrong.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1875406&postcount=398"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1875488&postcount=402"

 

[phyzzy]

I was pondering over the stability issue of the forthcoming LHC experiment and it made me think about the concept of review committees. The biological sciences have ethics committees, and other external bodies, which try to regulate cellular-based experiments from inducing harm from whatever perspective you look from. What about experiments of this nature? Sure there have been numerous reviews done by physicists i.e. Giddings & Mangano (2008). But what external bodies did the physics community have to convince to allow an experiment of this scale the go-ahead? Or are there any such external bodies? Or are the physicists at CERN self governed/administrated thereby allowing them to perform whatever collision experiments they so choose to devise?

phyzzy

 

[Orion1]

Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes - Giddings and Mangano.

Reference:
http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PH-TH_2008-025.pdf"

 

[JustinLevy]

At the risk of sounding "condescending", did you read the actual paper that he was reviewing? The Giddings and Mangano paper is available for free.

Zz.

The paper makes no effort to define a black hole or how a black hole would be distinguished from other particles (since that is not what the paper is focussed on). And they focus on an incredibly hypothetical situation in which the black holes are stable for some reason. So if you are going to include those, you can't even use Hawking radiation to detect them ... it sounds like they could just show up as missing energy in the detector.

So no, that does not help me. If we are to include those, it makes it even more difficult to explain how we know if the collider succeeds in making a black hole. I'd prefer to just ignore that extremely hypothetical situation, as it was introduced merely as a 'worse case scenario' focussing on safety, rather than what is expected logically from all the physics we currently know.


Can you please (pretty please?) just answer the question to the best of your ability:

Since the Higgs has zero quantum number for everything, doesn't this have the same quantum numbers as a neutral black hole with no angular momentum?

Let's say hypothetically there is a micro-blackhole with the same mass as the Higgs. How would you define a black hole that would distinguish between these two things that have the same quantum numbers? Could an experiment even distinguish them in principle if they have the same quantum numbers?

Say a new particle showed up in the LHC. What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?



Orion1 suggests we would distinguish them based on cross section ... but I am confused here. If a Higgs and a black hole could have the same quantum numbers, then how could their cross sections differ at the same energy? Unless I am misreading your numbers, you are not quoting the cross sections at the same energy.

 

[Orion1]

Since the Higgs has zero quantum number for everything, doesn't this have the same quantum numbers as a neutral black hole with no angular momentum?

Affirmative.

In scattering, a differential cross section is defined by the probability to observe a scattered particle in a given quantum state per solid angle unit, such as within a given cone of observation.

how could their cross sections differ at the same energy?

Cross sections are different, for different particles at the same energy because of the physical differences in a scattered particle in a given quantum state per solid angle. (ref. 1)

How would you define a black hole that would distinguish between these two things that have the same quantum numbers?

By the differences in their cross sections and their radiation types and decay particles quantum numbers.

Could an experiment even distinguish them in principle if they have the same quantum numbers?

Affirmative, by the differences in their cross sections and their radiation types and decay particles quantum numbers.

you are not quoting the cross sections at the same energy.

The lower limit cross section for the Higgs boson at 160 Gev:
\sigma = 33.22 \cdot 10^{-43} \; \; \text{m}^2

The upper limit cross section for a quantum black hole at 10 extra dimensions and 160 Gev:
\sigma = 2.214 \cdot 10^{-76} \; \; \text{m}^2 \; \; \; n = 10

I have not studied any theory that suggests quantum black hole generation at this low energy scale.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(physics)"

 

[tiny-tim]

micro-black-hole

Which equations do I use to determine if there could be an event horizon? I already stated: GR.
GR provides that a point particle with a finite mass and zero spin and charge will have an event horizon.

But GR also provides that a point particle with a finite mass and non-zero spin (provided the spin is not too large) and non-zero charge will also have an event horizon (and an ergosphere).

So quarks and electrons should, on the same argument, be regarded as having event horizons, and as being micro-black-holes, just as much as the Higgs.

What is special about the Higgs?

However, I don't accept that "point particles" exist … the Higgs, like any other "particle" is a wave with inaccurately-defined position.​

Unless the mass of the Higgs is large enough to make its Schwarzschild radius larger than the Planck length, I don't see how it can be dense enough to have an event horizon.

Surely the Higgs can't possibly be a point, and can't even be dense enough enough to fit inside its Schwarzschild radius? ​

The question here is:
Say a new particle showed up in the LHC. What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?

I would be interested in hearing your answer.

I've no idea …

but so long as it doesn't swallow anything else up …

in other words, so long as it keeps to itself, and collides and decays in the usual way …

… that is, so long as it behaves just like any other particle …

why does it matter?

 

[vanesch]

Can you please (pretty please?) just answer the question to the best of your ability:

Since the Higgs has zero quantum number for everything, doesn't this have the same quantum numbers as a neutral black hole with no angular momentum?

I think that the answer to this one is dependent on the quantum gravity theory you consider. After all, the quantum numbers you talk about are the quantum numbers within the standard model, which doesn't say a word about gravity, and GR doesn't have any quantum numbers as it isn't a quantum theory. At most, we can find a quantum-classical correspondence of some quantum numbers, like charge or angular momentum. Who says that a "quantum black hole" doesn't have a "gravity quantum number" equal to, say, 1, while all particles in the standard model have gravity quantum number 0 ? There's no way to tell if you have no theory behind it. It is as if you were saying that quarks and leptons must be the same, simply because you ignore the color force, and hence the color quantum number. It is not because in electroweak theory, leptons have no color quantum number, and the electroweak part of quarks also have no color quantum number (simply because you ignore it), that this makes that quarks and leptons are the same. So there may be gravity quantum numbers out there, which distinguish the Higgs from BH, but without a quantum theory of gravity, how are we going to even define the quantum numbers of a BH ?

Let's say hypothetically there is a micro-blackhole with the same mass as the Higgs. How would you define a black hole that would distinguish between these two things that have the same quantum numbers? Could an experiment even distinguish them in principle if they have the same quantum numbers?

As somebody else pointed out, the interactions with say photons are different between BH and Higgs - or at least, with a mini-classical BH and Higgs.

Say a new particle showed up in the LHC. What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?

We reach here the fundamentals of science: you need to have a theory that makes predictions, and then verify observations with those predictions. If you haven't gotten any theory, then you cannot verify it. At its basis, an experiment such as the LHC just gathers a huge amount of data which describe tracks of charges in big detectors and it is up to the experimentalists and theorists to sit together and find out whether those data correspond or contradict predictions of theories.

There is no "black hole" or even "higgs" detector in ATLAS or CMS. There's just charged particle track detectors. Theory predicts a certain statistical behaviour of the events, and if you find back those statistics, then that's a kind of confirmation of said theory.

Remember, the neutrino has remained undetected for decades, even though it was massively produced in many interactions. If there are somehow some stable BH produced which don't interact with matter, it will almost be impossible to detect them, or even to find out that they were produced, given the superposition of events in LHC (so very difficult momentum balance).

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no "black hole" or even "higgs" detector in ATLAS or CMS. There's just charged particle track detectors. Theory predicts a certain statistical behaviour of the events, and if you find back those statistics, then that's a kind of confirmation of said theory.

Remember, the neutrino has remained undetected for decades, even though it was massively produced in many interactions. If there are somehow some stable BH produced which don't interact with matter, it will almost be impossible to detect them, or even to find out that they were produced, given the superposition of events in LHC (so very difficult momentum balance).

There are more than charged particle detectors. There are calorimeters, which measure the energies of both charged and neutral particles (except neutrinos and muons, which do not stop), and outer muon identifiers. So neutrals are in fact detected and measured - the exception are neutrinos, but even here balancing momentum works in the vast majority of cases where the neutrino is energetic.

Momentum balance is not degraded by multiple interactions as much as you might think. The resolution on missing energy goes as the square root of the total energy in the detector, and typical events have much less total energy than "interesting" events. Combine these two facts and overlaps make a much smaller contribution than one might at first think.

There is a mass beyond which an invisible particle is undetectable because of kinematics. This is true for all experiments. However, the reach before the technique runs out of gas is much larger for the LHC than previous experiments.

 

[vanesch]

There are more than charged particle detectors. There are calorimeters, which measure the energies of both charged and neutral particles (except neutrinos and muons, which do not stop), and outer muon identifiers. So neutrals are in fact detected and measured - the exception are neutrinos, but even here balancing momentum works in the vast majority of cases where the neutrino is energetic.

I know, but calorimeters convert neutrals into charged particles. In the end, you only detect charged particles, even with a hadronic calorimeter, be it through nuclear showers.

Momentum balance is not degraded by multiple interactions as much as you might think. The resolution on missing energy goes as the square root of the total energy in the detector, and typical events have much less total energy than "interesting" events. Combine these two facts and overlaps make a much smaller contribution than one might at first think.

In the transverse direction, this is reasonable. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that you can do a momentum-balance in the longitudinal direction, especially with 10 events superimposed upon each other, and an unknown amount of momentum escaping in the beampipe. If I understand well, the LHC bet of superimposing events (to allow for higher luminosity) was that, as you say, events with large transverse momenta are relatively rare.

There is a mass beyond which an invisible particle is undetectable because of kinematics. This is true for all experiments. However, the reach before the technique runs out of gas is much larger for the LHC than previous experiments.

Ah ? I remember that this was one of the main problems at HERA. But then, at HERA, the collisions were asymmetrical.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I know, but calorimeters convert neutrals into charged particles. In the end, you only detect charged particles, even with a hadronic calorimeter, be it through nuclear showers.

Technically true, but misleading. Since everything eventually gets converted to electrical signals, one could just as well say the detectors only see electrons. Since if a high energy neutron, photon, or K-long were to be produced, it would be detected, I think it's entirely reasonable to say the LHC experiments detect neutral particles.

But you'll have a hard time convincing me that you can do a momentum-balance in the longitudinal direction

But that's not been either historically necessary or historically used. All detectors have holes in them in that direction, to get the beams in and out.

 

[George Jones]

electrons should, on the same argument, be regarded as having event horizons, and as being micro-black-holes, just as much as the Higgs.

No.

The Kerr-Newman solution in general relativity is determined by three parameters, mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. Using the values of these parameters for some astrophysical bodies gives spacetimes that have event horizons. The values of these parameters for an electron give a spacetime that doesn't have event horizons, i.e., give a spacetime that has a naked singularity. The solution also gives the correct gyromagnetic for the electron, as noted with a ! on page 883 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.

All this is very interesting, but also very specualtive. I agree with vanesch; to make sense of things, we need a workable, accepted quantum theory of gravity.

 

[JustinLevy]

Since the Higgs has zero quantum number for everything, doesn't this have the same quantum numbers as a neutral black hole with no angular momentum?

Affirmative.[/color]

how could their cross sections differ at the same energy?

Cross sections are different, for different particles at the same energy because of the physical differences in a scattered particle in a given quantum state per solid angle.[/color]

I guess that is the crux of my confusion here. How can two particles with the same quantum numbers and same energy be physically different?

Those cross sections you provide are calculated with two different theories. One with the standard model, and the other with extrapolations using thermal hawking decay. Besides the fact that the smaller the black hole the further it will be from thermal decay if at all (thermal decay needs to give way at small scales for quantum mechanics to be correct) since thermal decay is in the classical spacetime limit, these are two completely different theories and comparing them like that seems completely unfair.

;------------------------------

As somebody else pointed out, the interactions with say photons are different between BH and Higgs - or at least, with a mini-classical BH and Higgs.

But as I pointed out earlier, the interaction of a photon with a neutral black hole is purely a gravitational coupling ... one that should be felt by all massive particles. And for GR to be the correct classical limit, this coupling needs to be the same for all particles of the same mass.

So no, the coupling between a neutral Higgs and a photon MUST be the same as a neutral black hole (with the same mass) and a photon.

So there may be gravity quantum numbers out there, which distinguish the Higgs from BH, but without a quantum theory of gravity, how are we going to even define the quantum numbers of a BH ?

Good point.
And after we have gone around this discussion for awhile, it looks like this has to be the answer.

If the Higgs and a black hole of the same mass are to be distinguished, there must be some quantum numbers which we don't know about yet in which they differ.

Very, very interesting!
And, since it would be very very unexpected to get a true black hole that far below the Planck mass, this seems to be a strong indication that there are some quantum numbers here we are missing. A good juicy little hint into the future!

Does anyone know string theory well enough to say what quantum numbers the Higgs and a black hole differ in, in that theory?

;------------------------------

But GR also provides that a point particle with a finite mass and non-zero spin (provided the spin is not too large) and non-zero charge will also have an event horizon (and an ergosphere).

So quarks and electrons should, on the same argument, be regarded as having event horizons, and as being micro-black-holes, just as much as the Higgs.

What is special about the Higgs?

Yes it is true black holes CAN have non-zero spin and charge. However, the amount of spin and charge they can have is limited with respect to their mass. If you run the numbers, you will find that NONE of the other standard model particles would have an event horizon (they have too much charge or angular momentum with respect to their mass). Only the Higgs would be a black hole according to GR.

why does it matter?

If something seems contradictory, usually something can be learned from it.

I think Vanesch has hit it on the head here. We have gained a strong suggestion that a more fundamental theory should provide new quantum numbers to resolve this situation. I find that fascinating. Don't you?

 

[tiny-tim]

No.

The Kerr-Newman solution in general relativity is determined by three parameters, mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. Using the values of these parameters for some astrophysical bodies gives spacetimes that have event horizons. The values of these parameters for an electron give a spacetime that doesn't have event horizons, i.e., give a spacetime that has a naked singularity.

ah … so an electron comes within the proviso I mentioned … "provided the spin is not too large".

But my main point still stands, doesn't it … a Higgs has no more reason to be a micro-black-hole than any other "point particle"?

All this is very interesting, but also very specualtive. I agree with vanesch; to make sense of things, we need a workable, accepted quantum theory of gravity.

Yes … I'm only concerned to point out that there is nothing special about the potential holeyness of the Higgs!

Thanks, George!

Yes it is true black holes CAN have non-zero spin and charge. However, the amount of spin and charge they can have is limited with respect to their mass. If you run the numbers, you will find that NONE of the other standard model particles would have an event horizon (they have too much charge or angular momentum with respect to their mass). Only the Higgs would be a black hole according to GR.

No … if they were "point particles" they could all be black holes … the Higgs would be the only non-naked black hole "point particle", that's all.

We have gained a strong suggestion that a more fundamental theory should provide new quantum numbers to resolve this situation. I find that fascinating. Don't you?

No … I find reality fascinating.

This speculation about the theory-that-is-yet-to-come that blends quantum theory with GR and miraculously produces micro-black-holes is boringly messianic.

 

[JustinLevy]

No … if they were "point particles" they could all be black holes … the Higgs would be the only non-naked black hole "point particle", that's all.

But your very definition of a black hole was that it had an event horizon. It seems like you are changing definitions merely to poo-poo the discussion.

As stated from the very beginning, the Higgs particle is unique from all the other standard model particles in this aspect.

No … I find reality fascinating.

This speculation about the theory-that-is-yet-to-come that blends quantum theory with GR and miraculously produces micro-black-holes is boringly messianic.

So you are not interested in thinking about something until it comes to you fully formed?
I'm sorry, but that seems reallly short sighted.

Heck, we even know the standard model is not exactly reality. We are doing the best with what we currently understand, it just happens we need to dig hard to get some insight with our current level of understanding gravity. I feel we learned something about the properties of such a theory in this discussion.

Even harder, people need to come up with ways to test these theories. It is our only probe of 'reality'.

But to each their own I guess.
Unless there is something more to add to this discussion, I consider my question here answered, so I guess this is done. Thank you everyone for your input.

 

[humanino]

But your very definition of a black hole was that it had an event horizon. It seems like you are changing definitions merely to poo-poo the discussion.

This is however the definition accepted by the majority at large, as you can see even on wikipedia. You have requested several times a definition : there you have it.

 

[tiny-tim]

But your very definition of a black hole was that it had an event horizon. It seems like you are changing definitions merely to poo-poo the discussion.

There you go again … referring without quoting.

I never defined a black hole … instead I said:

I'd prefer to define an event horizon …

and then I did so.

So you are not interested in thinking about something until it comes to you fully formed?

Even partly formed would do … but speculation about a totally unformed theory is philosophy, not physics …

if I want philosophy , I'll watch The Simpsons! ​

 

[JustinLevy]

But your very definition of a black hole was that it had an event horizon. It seems like you are changing definitions merely to poo-poo the discussion.

This is however the definition accepted by the majority at large, as you can see even on wikipedia. You have requested several times a definition : there you have it.

Oh come on!

What I asked for was:
Say a new particle showed up in the LHC. What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?


If you are seriously considering any point particle as the "definition accepted by the majority at large" regardless of whether they have an event horizon, then we already have seen micro-blackholes according to the standard model. The very fact we are hoping to sift through the results of collisions at the LHC looking for black holes means that this can most assuredly NOT be the "definition accepted by the majority at large".

The wikipedia article on black holes does not help answer my question at all.

There you go again … referring without quoting.

I never defined a black hole … instead I said:

and then I did so.

So you're now trying to claim you gave an answer completely unhelpful for answering my question at all. How clever of you, and how useless. Why did you give it at all then? I assume it is related and then you complain when I assume so. Lovely.

Even partly formed would do … but speculation about a totally unformed theory is philosophy, not physics …

if I want philosophy , I'll watch The Simpsons! ​

This is not philsophy. If you haven't been paying close enough attention to see the physics being asked about and discussed, nor are willing to answer questions to further this, then I fail to see why you are hanging around here just to deride people.

I wish my topic hadn't been moved into this thread. Usually people on this forum are much easier to work with. But this thread seems to be (maybe due to influence from the frequent 'will the Earth be destroyed' comments that pop up) mostly for deriding and little for discussion.

 

[humanino]

What I asked for was:
Say a new particle showed up in the LHC. What properties would it have to have before you'd consider it a black hole?

Yes, but you also repeatedly asked for the definition (other people accept) of a classical black-hole itself. In all the books I checked, a classical black-hole is what has an event horizon. That is the definition I was referring to : the definition of a black hole.

Now maybe we can go on from here, take a look at Micro black hole (wikipedia). It points you for instance to Black Holes at the LHC. MBH (provided some are created) have a clear signature, the problem is to extract it above a huge background.

If you are serious about understanding these things, I strongly suggest as a minimum requirement the level of :
Warped Extra-Dimensional Opportunities and Signatures (Lisa Randall @ CERN Academic Training Lecture Regular Programme)

 

[JustinLevy]

Yes, but you also repeatedly asked for the definition (other people accept) of a classical black-hole itself. In all the books I checked, a classical black-hole is what has an event horizon. That is the definition I was referring to : the definition of a black hole.

I'm sorry, given tiny-tims's response I mistook your response to mean you were arguing black holes didn't need to have an event horizon. I didn't mean to give the impression I was asking for a classical definition, as I agree with you on the definition of that.

I'll check out the resources you suggested.
Thanks!

 

[Orion1]

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)

Photon: (0, 0, 0, 1)
Higgs: (0, 1, 0, 0)

In order for a gravity quantum number to exist as 1, then the mass must have an event horizon.

In order for quantum black holes to obey General Relativity, the logical values of these quantum numbers determines which metric a quantum black hole obeys.

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}}

Schwarzschild metric: (1, 1, 0, 0)
c^2 {d \tau}^{2} = \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) c^2 dt^2 - \frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{r_s}{r}} - r^2 \left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \, d\varphi^2 \right)

Reissner-Nordström metric: (1, 1, 1, 0)
c^2 {d \tau}^{2} = \left( 1 - \frac{r_{s}}{r} + \frac{r_{Q}^{2}}{r^{2}} \right) c^{2} dt^{2} - \frac{dr^{2}}{1 - \frac{r_{s}}{r} + \frac{r_{Q}^{2}}{r^{2}}} - r^{2} d\theta^{2} - r^{2} \sin^{2} \theta \, d\varphi^{2}

Kerr-Newman metric: (1, 1, 1, 1)
c^2 \mathrm d\tau^2 <br /> &amp; = \left[ 1 - \frac{r_s r - r_Q^2}{\rho^2} \right] c^2 \mathrm d t^2<br /> - \frac{\rho^2}{\Lambda^2} \mathrm d r^2 - \rho^2 \mathrm d\theta^2 \\<br /> &amp; - \left[ r^2 + \alpha^2 + \left( r_s r - r_Q^2 \right) \frac{\alpha^2}{\rho^2}\sin^2\theta \right] \sin^2 \theta \ \mathrm d\phi^2 \\<br /> &amp; + \left( r_s r - r_Q^2 \right) \frac{2\alpha\sin^2\theta}{\rho^2}\;c \mathrm d t\;\mathrm d \phi

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.

Higgs quantum particle: (0, 1, 0, 0)
Schwarzschild metric quantum particle: (1, 1, 0, 0)
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsZdgz5oFM"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_black_hole"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_metric"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1871641&postcount=368"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson"
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.

 

[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)[/color]

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.
[/Color]

 

[humanino]

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

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.[/color]

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.
[/Color]
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)[/color]

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 <br /> &amp; = \left[ 1 - \frac{r_s r - r_w^2}{\rho^2} \right] c^2 \mathrm d t^2<br /> - \frac{\rho^2}{\Lambda^2} \mathrm d r^2 - \rho^2 \mathrm d\theta^2 \\<br /> &amp; - \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 \\<br /> &amp; + \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}
[/Color]
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}}}
[/Color]
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.

[/Color]
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.[/color]

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.
[/Color]
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:)