B Quantum Micro-Blackholes: Fact or Fiction?

[atommo]

TL;DR Summary

Strange how CERN has been operating for so long with no new information regarding quantum micro-blackholes

This is more of a general question than technical (but since its still physics-related I feel it still belongs in this section of the forum).

Many of you probably remember back in 2008 the headlines in newspapers threatening CERN would make an 'Earth consuming' black hole - of course that wouldn't be the case. However, quantum micro-blackholes were and are a real possibility- ones with barely any mass but a high enough density from resulting particle collisions to exist for a few nanoseconds before evaporating.

What I find strange is it has been over a decade since then but I still can't find any new information on this matter.

Even CERN's official statement remains the same as it ever was around a decade ago: "The LHC will not generate black holes in the cosmological sense. However, some theories suggest that the formation of tiny 'quantum' black holes may be possible. The observation of such an event would be thrilling in terms of our understanding of the Universe; and would be perfectly safe."
[Source: https://home.cern/resources/faqs/will-cern-generate-black-hole]

I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum who may have links to CERN or any other relevant connections has any more concrete information on this, as its something I'm quite interested in.

 

[anorlunda]

That question has been discussed many times here on PF. Please read these threads first.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/black-holes-squishing-earth.956706/post-6067496

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/your-thoughts-on-black-hole-production-at-cern.233768/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/query-lhc-experiment.208075/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...oppenheimer-volkoff-limit.531093/post-3510600

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/blackhole-formation.281698/post-2015363

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/creating-a-black-hole.56569/post-402620

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/interesting-theroy.85509/post-717728

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cern-lhc-milestone-met-today.158711/post-1260340

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...seen-a-journalist-produce.287999/post-2057435https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/dangers-of-the-lhc.174953/post-1377875

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/artificial-black-holes-again.122375/post-1004651

 

[atommo]

Many thanks @anorlunda for the links- they were interesting reads. However I noticed the most recent of these was from 2011. Is there really no more recent information anywhere on this?

What I'm finding strange isn't a lack of information- its the lack of recent information (anything within the last 8 years). Even if it was just a statement from CERN saying 'We have found no evidence of this phenomenon happening'. I can't seem to find anything recent on it at all.

 

[weirdoguy]

We have found no evidence of this phenomenon happening

Well, I see no point in informing anyone about what they did not find. Unless it's something really anticipated like supersymmetry. They didn't find hundreds of things. I think that micro black holes in LHC were more popular in pop-sci press than in scientific community. And the most important thing is - LHC was not made for searching for black holes, so they don't focus on that.

 

[anorlunda]

Many thanks @anorlunda for the links- they were interesting reads. However I noticed the most recent of these was from 2011.

The first thread in the list was 2018-2019. Did you really read it?

 

[atommo]

The first thread in the list was 2018-2019. Did you really read it?

You're right, somehow I missed that.

Again, an interesting read. However, ultimately it seems there really hasn't been any sort of news of micro-blackholes either way from CERN since it started operation of the LHC.

 

[Vanadium 50]

ultimately it seems there really hasn't been any sort of news of micro-blackholes either way from CERN since it started operation of the LHC.

False, false, false. I originally didn't respond to this thread because when someone - particularly someone with their own physics theories - starts posting incorrect things, it's a waste of time.

First, if you Google "CERN black holes" after September 2008, you get 133 hits. Some have titles like "The Day The World Didn't End" and "For The Last Time: The LHC Will Not Make An Earth-Swallowing Black Hole"

Second, if you look at the LHC experiments page, you will find both ATLAS and CMS have written papers and said "We've looked, but don't see any".

Combined, this took about two minutes. There's simply no excuse for saying this doesn't exist when it so evidently does.

 

[Pratyeka]

The philosophy in this forum, imho, seems to be that "knowledge acquired without effort is soon wasted, knowledge acquired through personal effort (research, study, experiment...) will last and accumulate in your memory. First you have to understand the subject of your inquiry, that necessitate research and study. If the field of your inquiry is not familiar to you then you are basically exposing your ignorance of the subject. Before you can formulate a proper question on any subject, you must have a basic understanding of the subject and any other pertinent knowledge related to same subject. Shooting questions based on faulty knowledge can only be answered properly by directing you to the proper source of knowledge, no by giving you answers that you are not equipped to understand. You climb a ladder by starting at the lowest rung, not by jumping on the topmost one.

 

[mfb]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP01(2018)126
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5553-2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316303719

This is a small collection of publications from ATLAS, there are more, and CMS published similar papers.

Why don't you see this outside of particle physics? Because we didn't find black holes. Non-technical news outlets typically don't report non-discoveries.

 

[atommo]

Many thanks @mfb for the links, that was just what I was after.

@Pratyeka Fair points. Sadly I don't see myself ever getting to the point where every part of this will make sense to me. I was asking about this particular topic because I just wanted to know if they did (or in this case didn't) find micro black holes during their collider experiments. Just searching like I was only turned up regurgitated old news- I didn't know where to look for the science papers relevant to this.

I do massively appreciate your help.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Sadly I don't see myself ever getting to the point where every part of this will make sense to me.

Man, you don't need to feel "sad" about that. It applies to nearly all of us but we don't let it spoil our day. Just enjoy the vaguely approachable bits and feel superior to those fools who rush in and claim that they actually do understand things when they don't.

 

[Pratyeka]

Many thanks @mfb for the links, that was just what I was after.

@Pratyeka Fair points. Sadly I don't see myself ever getting to the point where every part of this will make sense to me. I was asking about this particular topic because I just wanted to know if they did (or in this case didn't) find micro black holes during their collider experiments. Just searching like I was only turned up regurgitated old news- I didn't know where to look for the science papers relevant to this.

I do massively appreciate your help.

You'r welcome! But I'm past 62 and have been reading about every scientific subjects under the sun, and even if my math ability is pitiful, I have good memory and imagination, so I retain most of what I read about. After a time you get to understand enough to differentiate between fact based science and wild speculation. Never take popular news about scientific research for absolute truth, always dig deeper into available information. If there is none, then it is probably just pixie dust. My opinion. Keep learning, even if it is just for fun.