Large Hadron Collider successfully creates mini Big Bangs

[Zoraptor]

I think the big problem is that people simply cannot comprehend that just because something forms a singularity it doesn't actually mean that its gravity increases, just its gravity 'gradient'. A black hole with the mass of the moon has exactly the same mass as the moon and exerts exactly the same force, it's just that its mass is compressed so much that it also has an event horizon at some distance from its 'surface'.

 

According to the great scientific repository that is wikipedia the radius of an event horizon ~ 2.95x Mobject/ Msun, in km

 

So, for two lead atoms: 2.95x2x0.2072x6.02x10^-23 / 2x10^30 = 1.84x10^-50 m (including corrections for km -> m and g/mol to kg, hopefully, built in windows scicalc kept swapping negative exps to positive for some reason so I did them by eye in the end.)

 

By way of comparison, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 2.4 x 10^-10m. The diameter of its nucleus is on the order of 10^-15m. The event horizon of a two lead ion mass black hole is 100000000000000000000000000000000000 times smaller than a hydrogen nucleus (~proton), in other words.

 

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

I shall now eagerly await the inevitable, someone with a physics degree coming in to critique my biologist's maths...

Edited November 16, 2010 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

Lol, thats so far beyond my maths I would have a better chance of understanding it if it were in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Bravo sir, bravo.

[Guest The Architect]

You know, if you concern yourself with every little world ending scenario, you just aren't living. Let go and embrace the black hole.

 

Once you've had black you never go back?

[Calax]

Dagon... let me just put it this way, you have a better chance of being trampled by a cow than you do of being killed by something the LHC does.

 

But was that cow genetically designed by scientists?

Nope, just your average cow.

[Gorth]

Black holes are just misunderstood

[Humodour]

A black hole will eventually explode in a gamma ray burst due to constantly leaking Hawking Radiation. The smaller the black hole, the faster it does this. Black holes the size of a few particles would evaporate rapidly.

Too bad there's no empirical evidence for this. And since you know so much about science, you should know that the derivation of the Hawkins radiation has already been proven to be incorrect. It's probably still true that the micro black holes are unstable, but there is a set of assumptions under which they would in fact be stable, and could grow slowly over time through collisions with other particles, until it reached enough mass to start attracting other particles, at which point it would rapidly grow and consume earth.

 

As far as collisions in upper atmosphere, they don't prove anything, as any black holes formed would move through the earth at near the speed of light, and thus wouldn't have a chance to grow to a dangerous size. The LHC apologia has already moved on to claim that since white dwarves don't get destroyed by cosmic ray collisions, the earth won't either.

 

Would you just sit back and admit you don't have the foggiest idea how maths or science work, just once?

 

No? Didn't think so. Carry on pushing your anti-science agenda, then. *sigh*

 

Edit: There are some completely implausible doomsday scenarios about the LHC which, in their very raw form, actually have some sort of scientific foundation. Black holes consuming the Earth has never been one of these. Read Zoraptor's post (of which the only issue I have is that he references singularities as physical phenomena and not byproducts of our misunderstanding of physics).

Edited November 17, 2010 by Krezack

[Hurlshort]

I think you folks take WoD a bit too seriously.

[Humodour]

I think you folks take WoD a bit too seriously.

 

Yes.

[Humodour]

I'd like to apologise to Wrath. It's as much the scientific comunnity's responsibility to be patient and explain science as it is a layman's responsibility to try and understand it. I've certainly failed at the being patient part.

[mkreku]

There's so much talk about black holes in this thread it makes me want to go out and rent a Belladonna movie.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think the big problem is that people simply cannot comprehend that just because something forms a singularity it doesn't actually mean that its gravity increases, just its gravity 'gradient'. A black hole with the mass of the moon has exactly the same mass as the moon and exerts exactly the same force, it's just that its mass is compressed so much that it also has an event horizon at some distance from its 'surface'.

 

According to the great scientific repository that is wikipedia the radius of an event horizon ~ 2.95x Mobject/ Msun, in km

 

So, for two lead atoms: 2.95x2x0.2072x6.02x10^-23 / 2x10^30 = 1.84x10^-50 m (including corrections for km -> m and g/mol to kg, hopefully, built in windows scicalc kept swapping negative exps to positive for some reason so I did them by eye in the end.)

 

By way of comparison, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 2.4 x 10^-10m. The diameter of its nucleus is on the order of 10^-15m. The event horizon of a two lead ion mass black hole is 100000000000000000000000000000000000 times smaller than a hydrogen nucleus (~proton), in other words.

 

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

I shall now eagerly await the inevitable, someone with a physics degree coming in to critique my biologist's maths...

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles.

 

Btw Krezack, nice job of personal attacks. I notice you never bother to offer an actual counter argument. As far as you being a member of the scientific community, I'm pretty sure only one of us graduated from a university.

[Oblarg]

WoD, are you a physicist?

[Hurlshort]

Btw Krezack, nice job of personal attacks. I notice you never bother to offer an actual counter argument. As far as you being a member of the scientific community, I'm pretty sure only one of us graduated from a university.

 

Hang on there, Krezack offered up an olive branch. It was very big of him to apologize, and offering to patiently try and explain complex concepts should be met with appreciation. I know I have very little knowledge of black holes or the LHC despite my fancy college degree.

 

WoD, unless this is actually your field, it would really do you some good to be a bit more humble. Zoraptor is the only one here who has really established his credentials and presented actual numbers and evidence. Not that I understood any of it, but you are simply posturing.

 

Although I've seen WoD post in enough debates to know that he is the sort of guy who choses a side and sticks with it, no matter how much evidence is presented. Sure, it would be nice to see him take an open-minded approach and weigh the evidence before fully committing, but that would be a major break from his pattern.

[Wrath of Dagon]

WoD, are you a physicist?

No, and I haven't claimed to be.

 

Although I've seen WoD post in enough debates to know that he is the sort of guy who choses a side and sticks with it, no matter how much evidence is presented. Sure, it would be nice to see him take an open-minded approach and weigh the evidence before fully committing, but that would be a major break from his pattern.

Why do you keep making judgments about things you yourself admit you don't understand? Because someone throws down some irrelevant numbers you automatically assume they're right without understanding (or even seemingly reading) any of the arguments. Edited November 17, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

What argument? I was making a judgement of you personally.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, so you're making a judgment of me based on my arguments and those of others that you admit you don't understand. You claim I choose a side and stick with it no matter the evidence, yet it's evidence you apparently don't understand. Has it occurred to you that may be the reason I stick to a side is because I don't make claims unless I'm confident of their correctness, and because the evidence presented against me is either irrelevant or incorrect?

[Calax]

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles.

This is your problem. The micro black holes would dissipate before anything could enter them. Hawking has shown that there are these things appearing and disappearing all over the place, but they're to swift for scientists to try anything with them.

 

If what you're saying is true Dagon, then in theory neutron stars just would keep growing in mass and convert into black holes once they hit the critical point... and yet they don't.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Calax

[Oblarg]

WoD, are you a physicist?

No, and I haven't claimed to be.

 

Well, I've heard directly from a family member with a Ph.D. in physics that the thought that the LHC could end the world is absolutely absurd.

 

So you'll excuse me if I don't take the doomsday prophecies too seriously.

[Hurlshort]

OK, so you're making a judgment of me based on my arguments and those of others that you admit you don't understand. You claim I choose a side and stick with it no matter the evidence, yet it's evidence you apparently don't understand. Has it occurred to you that may be the reason I stick to a side is because I don't make claims unless I'm confident of their correctness, and because the evidence presented against me is either irrelevant or incorrect?

 

As I've said, I am referring to your entire history as a poster here, not just this thread. The problem I see is you are always confident of your claims correctness, to the point of dismissing other evidence from posters as irrelevant or incorrect. You position yourself as an expert on quite a few different topics, and that in itself causes many of us to be skeptical towards you.

 

That is why I mentioned Zoraptor's post, he presented his claim with evidence, and then he was humble enough to point out that a physicist may have a better claim on the subject. He came across as knowledgeable but not arrogant.

 

I think you are a very reasonable guy WoD, you've posted some great links over the years that have been informative for me and even changed my own stances on occasion (a certain writer on Islamic studies comes to mind.) That is why I find it frustrating when you get into these debates and are unwilling to weigh other evidence.

 

As for the topic at hand, I'm currently not anywhere near educated enough on the subject. I'm not even entirely sure what your side is, is it that the LHC may cause a black hole that will eventually consume our planet?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actually I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on any topic, but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions on those topics. You assertion that I'm unwilling to weigh other evidence is unfair, and not backed up by fact. As far as this thread, what I said is that there's a non-negligible possibility that LHC could destroy the earth.

 

Edit: Here's a paper which explains the arguments and provides references, I posted it a while back but it was dismissed with ad-hominem responses: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf

Edited November 17, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Actually I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on any topic, but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions on those topics. You assertion that I'm unwilling to weigh other evidence is unfair, and not backed up by fact. As far as this thread, what I said is that there's a non-negligible possibility that LHC could destroy the earth.

 

Edit: Here's a paper which explains the arguments and provides references, I posted it a while back but it was dismissed with ad-hominem responses: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf

Wait, isn't that the same paper that you posted earlier that uses extremely bias sources that are more opinion pieces or links to news pieces where their claim is "sourced" by an anecdote of somebody writing a letter?

 

You know, the same one I refuted in the other thread about this?

[Oblarg]

You see, the problem with people having "opinions" on issues in physics is that physics is pretty black and white - either you're right, or you're wrong.

 

The best you can possibly do is rely on what the experts in the field say - if you haven't extensively studied physics, you simply cannot speculate on issues like this.

[Zoraptor]

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles.

The event horizon is the critical thing- a black hole isn't really matter in the classical sense and doesn't 'collide' with stuff as it, theoretically at least, is a single point in space which has no volume at all. The thing it collides with is effectively the event horizon and after that it doesn't matter which way it goes 'cos all roads lead to the singularity. That's especially true for something small that ain't going to attract stuff gravitationally.

 

Exactly what would happen if an event horizon of that size hit anything is a bit of a moot point (since it is exceeding unlikely that they are stable, basically it is one of those conundrums where the best evidence that they aren't is that the universe still exists) as it is smaller than even subatomic particles- as much as giving subatomic particles a volume makes any sense in the first place. It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether having a black hole smaller than a fundamental particle means that energy/matter would escape from it in a non-Hawking sense, but purely theoretical.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You see, the problem with people having "opinions" on issues in physics is that physics is pretty black and white - either you're right, or you're wrong.

 

The best you can possibly do is rely on what the experts in the field say - if you haven't extensively studied physics, you simply cannot speculate on issues like this.

Not in particle physics, it's mostly based on mathematical theories with very little in the way of empirical observation. Anyway, that paper is sourced, feel free to argue with what you don't agree with.

 

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles.

The event horizon is the critical thing- a black hole isn't really matter in the classical sense and doesn't 'collide' with stuff as it, theoretically at least, is a single point in space which has no volume at all. The thing it collides with is effectively the event horizon and after that it doesn't matter which way it goes 'cos all roads lead to the singularity. That's especially true for something small that ain't going to attract stuff gravitationally.

 

Exactly what would happen if an event horizon of that size hit anything is a bit of a moot point (since it is exceeding unlikely that they are stable, basically it is one of those conundrums where the best evidence that they aren't is that the universe still exists) as it is smaller than even subatomic particles- as much as giving subatomic particles a volume makes any sense in the first place. It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether having a black hole smaller than a fundamental particle means that energy/matter would escape from it in a non-Hawking sense, but purely theoretical.

So your point is what, collision with a black hole wouldn't increase its mass? Or collisions are impossible? As far as being unstable, the LHC people themselves have already admitted the black holes might be stable.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Humodour]

You see, the problem with people having "opinions" on issues in physics is that physics is pretty black and white - either you're right, or you're wrong.

 

The best you can possibly do is rely on what the experts in the field say - if you haven't extensively studied physics, you simply cannot speculate on issues like this.

 

Amen. Anyway, I'm going to move onto something far more interesting...

 

ANTIMATTER! During the night my time, it was announced that the LHC has also contained antiatoms (specifically a few dozen antihydrogen atoms, maybe 38 or so) for the first time in human history. Now we all know how bad antimatter is, right? Dan Brown teaches us that it is violently powerful like a nuclear bomb and thus will surely wipe out half of Europe (or perhaps Earth itself!) if the LHC's electromagnetic containment field ever fails!

 

Oh wait, what's that? The scientists deliberately released the containment field so the antimatter would hit the LHC's tunnel walls and annihilate matter? What rogues! And only a few specks of light were produced? Well don't I feel silly now! Sorry WoD, we'll have to stick to the black hole doomsday scenario until it is disproven in 2013 or so, 'cause the antimatter and big bang scenarios have proven quite anticlimactic (haha)!

 

Then again, there's always the possibility we're in a false vacuum state so maybe the "risk" of a potential vacuum metastability event will inject some new life into the doomsday soothsaying (assuming you subscribe to Copenhagen rather than Everett and are able to pretend cosmic rays don't exist).

 

For the first time, antimatter has been captured.

 

In an experiment at CERN in Switzerland – the European Organization for Nuclear Research - scientists have trapped 38 antihydrogen atoms for a fraction of a second.

 

The achievement - by an international team of 42 scientists, which included 15 Canadians – is a major step forward in the study of fundamental physics and the origins of the universe.

 

The desire to trap antimatter

Physicists theorize that there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter created at the Big Bang. It is considered a great mystery of physics why the universe as it exists is composed of matter but not also antimatter.

 

“It’s one of the really big fundamental questions in science,” said Michael Hayden, a physics professor at Simon Fraser University and one of 42 scientists involved in the experiment.

 

A paper describing the experiment entitled “Trapped antihydrogen” was published Wednesday online by the science journal Nature. Mr. Hayden, in an interview Wednesday from Geneva, said the team was “reasonably confident” about a year ago that the experiment was successful. It was this past summer that the results described in the Nature paper occurred.

 

While the experiment itself is not a Nobel Prize calibre achievement, it could serve as the foundation for future experiments and discoveries of that scale.

 

Now having trapped antihydrogen, physicists can study it in detail and compare and contrast it with hydrogen, one of the most physically understood building blocks of the universe.

 

The goal of the trapping experiment was advancing fundamental physics, rather than pursuing a practical application. However, antimatter is used in real-life work. The antiparticle of an electron is called a positron. It’s used in nuclear medicine imaging, a technology called positron emission tomography. The technique - increasingly popular - produces 3D pictures and in cancer medicine it can reveal dangerous tumours.

 

Matter and antimatter do not get on well with each other. In the words of CERN: “They annihilate when they meet.”

 

CERN – also home of the new Large Hadron Collider - has produced antihydrogen since 1995 and in 2002 experiments showed it was possible to create enough antihydrogen that observation experiments were in theory possible. The idea to create a “magnetic bottle” to trap antihydrogren emerged at that time and is the method by which the new achievement was accomplished.

 

Future experiments will test the CPT theorem – the charge conjugation/parity/time reversal theorem - which is a “crucial part of the foundation of the standard model of elementary particles and interactions,” the precis of the Nature paper states.

 

After the release of the Nature paper, scientists uncorked bottles of Champagne and then had a celebratory dinner in Geneva.

 

Round-the-clock experiments have continued since the 38 antihydrogen atoms were officially trapped in the summer. The scientists are tinkering and perfecting the process and already trying to measure “what colour antimatter atoms shine,” according to Makoto Fujiwara, a research scientist not directly involved in the experiment and a spokesman for ALPHA-Canada, the Canadian arm of the group working at CERN.

 

Antimatter was first confirmed in an experiment in 1955 at the University of California at Berkeley, which led to Emilio Segr

Edited November 17, 2010 by Krezack