PDA

View Full Version : Hadron collider set to run on Sept 10



Crazy_Goanna
09-02-2008, 08:18 PM
The CERN 'Hadron collider' is set to operate on Sept 10 and is trying to replicate conditions just prior to the BIG Bang. By all accounts there is a very very small chance that a minute Black hole could be created. Now black holes only get larger, from all astronomical reasoning so if by minute chance one is created will it gobble up all the matter on our planet, meaning the end of life (and flight sims) as we know it?
I know it sounds alarmist but its worth thinking about--- makes hurricanes/cyclones seem small in comparison and we can't do much about them except be vigilant.
See this article--
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/265066...oying-the-world.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html)

Surely a very minute possibility but one to ponder!

Crazy_Goanna
09-02-2008, 08:34 PM
In the article it is stated that
"Professor Otto Rssler, a German chemist at the Eberhard Karls University of Tbingen who is one of the most vocal opponents of the LHC and was one of the scientists who submitted the complaint to the court, said: "CERN itself has admitted that mini black holes could be created when the particles collide, but they don't consider this a risk.

"My own calculations have shown that it is quite plausible that these little black holes survive and will grow exponentially and eat the planet from the inside. I have been calling for CERN to hold a safety conference to prove my conclusions wrong but they have not been willing.

"We submitted this application to the European Court of Human Rights as we do not believe the scientists at CERN are taking all the precautions they should be in order to protect human life."

Professor Rssler claims that, in the worst case scenario, the earth could be sucked inside out within four years of a mini black hole forming.

Could this explain why the Maya calendar finishes on December 12 2012?

Cajun76
09-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Every time a collider is switched on there's the same argument.

http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

Tis far better to console yourself with this.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/08/cern-rap-video-about...r-creates-a-black-h/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/08/cern-rap-video-about-the-large-hadron-collider-creates-a-black-h/)

VW-IceFire
09-02-2008, 10:09 PM
If you're really worried about it...maybe a good idea is to research it a bit more and read some of the various papers available. Seems like Wikipedia has plenty of related reading material...

Just read this paragraph:


Concerns have been raised about the safety of the LHC on the grounds that high-energy particle collisions performed in the collider might cause disastrous events, including the production of stable micro black holes (mBHs) and strangelets.[9][10] Several CERN-commissioned reports[11][12][13][14][15] and subsequently published research papers[16][17] have corroborated the safety of the LHC particle collisions. One research paper reaches the opposite conclusion, stating that "at the present stage of knowledge there is a definite risk from mBHs production at colliders."[18] The validity of this safety assessment has been disputed.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

All of the references to those articles are on the page.

Seems like there is one versus a number. But people like to sensationalize and believe the one least likely theory and ignore the rest. I'd definitely be airing on the side of caution here and I'll admit to holding my breath and crossing my fingers just a little bit on this one. But it seems like the necessary precautions have been taken.

Too bad we don't yet have the ability to test for these things someplace else. Of course a small black hole would be a bad thing everywhere.

Von_Rat
09-02-2008, 10:46 PM
lets see,,, iirc gravity decreases to the square of the distance so,,,,somewhere beyond the oort cloud would probaly be safe.

Cajun76
09-02-2008, 11:02 PM
Well, if your using the Earth's mass to feed this black hole, then it would have no more "gravity" than the Earth, right?

Von_Rat
09-02-2008, 11:04 PM
yeah but the earths mass would be compressed to microscopic size.

that'll be sure to leave a mark.

best not to feed it at all, thus my "beyond the oort cloud" quip.

Cajun76
09-03-2008, 01:00 AM
Rgrt, I've just emailed this to CERN. Crisis averted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Blackhole01.jpg

Von_Rat
09-03-2008, 01:18 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

foxyboy1964
09-03-2008, 04:58 AM
"40% of Black Holes will be obese by 2012. Government responsible."

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/708/blackholeee2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"Black Hole said to be loving it."

raaaid
09-03-2008, 07:30 AM
no way the are setting it in turning the universe ito strangelets

evil forces always try to end humanity but i bet mib will save us again

Whirlin_merlin
09-04-2008, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Crazy_Goanna:
. Now black holes only get larger, from all astronomical reasoning so if by minute chance one is created will it gobble up all the matter on our planet,

Fortunatly that is false. We are talking about very small black holes (in terms of mass) any produced will only have a fleeting existance before 'evaporating' (not as in a liquid turning to a gas but that is the term the physics bods use.).

arthursmedley
09-04-2008, 10:47 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rn5rcQxWG4I

Aaron_GT
09-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Whirlin Merlin is correct. Evaporation of black holes was first investigated by Hawking several decades ago. The smaller the black hole the more quickly it evaporates. Some suggest that there are numerous short-lived micro-holes created in the solar system daily and that they regularly pass through the earth, evaporating on the way, with noone much noticing. (Not all subscribe to this, but it has some currency).

Cajun76
09-04-2008, 11:18 AM
If anyone reads the first link I posted, it explains all that and more.

It would evaporate in a burst of Hawking radiation in a fraction of a second.

Soap bubbles have far longer lives.

Aaron_GT
09-04-2008, 01:09 PM
There were some slightly outlandish suggestions that Tunguska could have been created by the evaporation of a larger micro-hole in the atmosphere. Most theories now are that it was a meteorite, with a possible impact crater now found.

Friendly_flyer
09-04-2008, 01:23 PM
I was under the impression that the Tunguska incident was caused by a comet (more ice than actual stone), accounting for no (or a very small) crater and copious amounts of glass spherulites all over the place?

As for Earth feeding a black hole: If Earth was pressed into the size of a ping-pong ball, matter would collapse enough to create an event horizon. The question is if a black hole that small would be able to excert enough gravitational pressure to keep other forces from expanding the matter beyond the black-hole state.

Deedsundone
09-04-2008, 01:29 PM
Is that what I get for my garbage recycling,an earth eating black hole! Pfff,I gonna rev my car and toss some cans in the woods while I can.

Aaron_GT
09-04-2008, 01:38 PM
I was under the impression that the Tunguska incident was caused by a comet (more ice than actual stone), accounting for no (or a very small) crater and copious amounts of glass spherulites all over the place?

That certainly was the orthodoxy for a long while, but some are saying meteorite again based on the possibility of a lake being a crater. If they probed the lake it might answer the question but probing under a lake in the middle of nowhere will be challenging!

Aaron_GT
09-04-2008, 01:39 PM
ping-pong

Boris says it should now be called a wiff-waff ball http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TinyTim
09-04-2008, 04:02 PM
In LHC they'll collide protons with energies of 7TeV, so max. possible mass of a micro black hole will be 14MeV. This means such a black hole would evaporate in much much shorter period than Planck time - time needed for light to travel the Planck distance (=~10^-44s - that's so short that if Planck time lasted for one sedond, then our real second would last for 10^27 times age of universe, that's more than a billion times more than there were seconds in our universe up to now)

According to what we believe today this means even it's creation is questionable, since due to quantum fluctuations time space gets so distorted at such scale that you can't really tell future from the past.

turnipkiller
09-04-2008, 04:19 PM
This is an odd question but I am quite serious (I find this sort of stuff fascinating although hard to understand!), but if there are black holes going through the Earth (in theory) what would happen if one were to touch a person?

TinyTim
09-04-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by turnipkiller:
This is an odd question but I am quite serious (I find this sort of stuff fascinating although hard to understand!), but if there are black holes going through the Earth (in theory) what would happen if one were to touch a person?

Depends how big it would be (how large its Schwarzschild radius Rs would be). Firstly, the term "touch" can be misleading. Black hole would simply run through everything, like there is no obstacle. If one with Rs less than a few molecules (1nm) would run through a human body, person would not even feel or detect it, and a black hole would only suck in some atoms/molecules from the body (for comparison, in average human body every second 2000 - 4000 atoms decay through spontaneous nuclear fission). Such black hole would still have a mass of ~10^18kg (!).

With a larger and larger black holes, a contact would soon become fatal, since black hole would tear more "material" from the body.

raaaid
09-05-2008, 02:58 AM
i think lhc danger is not a balck hole but to turn earth into strangelets

Crazy_Goanna
09-05-2008, 05:54 AM
Hello al see this article and ponder its questions and outcomes

arXiv:0808.1415v1 [hep-ph] 10 Aug 2008
On the potential catastrophic risk from
metastable quantum-black holes produced at
particle colliders
R. Plaga a
aFranzstr. 40, D-53111 Bonn, Germany
Abstract
The question of whether the collider production of subnuclear black holes might
constitute a catastrophic risk is explored in a model of Casadio & Harms (2002)
that treats them as quantum mechanical objects. A plausible scenario in which
these black holes accrete ambient matter at the Eddington limit shortly after their
production, thereby emitting Hawking radiation that would be harmful to Earth
and/or CERN and its surroundings, is described.
Such black holes are shown to remain undetectable in astrophysical observations
and thus evade a recent exclusion of risks from subnuclear black holes by Giddings
& Mangano (2008). I further question that their risk analysis is complete for the
reason that it excludes plausible parameter ranges from safety consideration without
giving a sufficient reason. The reasons why Giddings & Mangano drew very different
general conclusions are found to be of a methodological rather than scientific nature.
Some feasible operational measures at colliders that would allow the lowering of
any remaining risk probability are proposed.
1 Introduction
Theories with "extra dimensions"[27], are one of the most popular extensions
of the standard model of particle physics and a central plank of string
theory[13]. If extra dimensions exist the Planck scale could occur at a much
lower energy than usually supposed[2,31]. Subnuclear "micro" black holes
(mBHs) can then be copiously produced at future high-energy particle colliders[10,27],
such as the "Large Hadron Collider" (LHC) at CERN. A production rate
of up to about one BH per second could then occur at the nominal LHC
Email address: rainer.plaga@gmx.de (R. Plaga).
Preprint submitted to Elsevier 10 August 2008
luminosity[10], i.e. the LHC would be a "black-hole factory"[14]. The phenomenology
of this possibility at colliders has received detailed attention, see
e.g. Cavaglia et al.[4].
The possibility that a collider-produced black hole (BH) - or another exotic object
- might catastrophically grow by accretion and thus injure or kill humans
deserves careful attention[36,24,6,32]. A recent scientific comparative study of
global risks[28] has put a risk very similar to the one considered here (from
collider-produced "strangelets") at the top "response priority" of all current
"untreated risks" (such as, for example, super volcano eruptions and asteroid
impacts). Clearly this potential risk is based on speculative theories. But
these theories were constructed to explore real possibilities. The probability
that they are correct is not negligible.
Recently this risk has been studied in great detail in a seminal paper by
Giddings & Mangano (G & M)[18] 1 . They consider two frameworks for the
description of mBHs. In a standard "first scenario" collider produced mBHs
are treated with a semiclassical thermodynamical description (i.e. assuming
a canonical ensemble). The mBH is described as a heat bath and any back
reaction of the emitted particles on the mBH is neglected. mBHs are then expected
to decay, via the emission of "Hawking radiation", on extremely small
timescales after their production, thus cannot grow and pose no danger.
In a second scenario G & M assume that mBHs "do not undergo Hawking
decay" in a purely ad hoc manner, in order to "conduct an independent check
of their benign nature". They rightly point out that this second scenario, while
not being completely unphysical 2 , is not preferred "on very general grounds".
G & M study the behaviour of mBHs after their production at the LHC in
this scenario and find that for certain possible choices of parameters a collider
produced mBH might accrete Earth on time scales, quote, "that are too
short to provide comfortable constraints". The existence of mBHs within the
"dangerous" parameter range is then excluded by demonstrating that cosmicray
produced mBHs would accrete white dwarfs with small magnetic fields on
smaller time scales than their age. Similar arguments applied to planets and
ordinary stars are shown to fail to provide general safety limits, because all
neutral cosmic-ray produced mBHs are shown to escape these bodies. Such
arguments remain not completely definite for neutron stars because it remains
unclear if cosmic rays with sufficient energy reach their surface.
It is the aim of the present paper to explore a third scenario, in addition
to the two presented by G & M. Alternatively mBHs may be described by
the "microcanonical ensemble" (i.e. one in which the total energy remains
1 The conclusions of a report[12] by the "lsag group" at CERN on the safety of
microscopic black holes are mainly based on this paper. A very recent preprint of
Koch et al.[25] uses a similar argument than G & M to exclude their safety-critical
case "D4". My conclusions therefore apply to their work, too.
2 G & M quote Unruh & Sch¨utzhold[35] who constructed a speculative model with
this property.
2
fixed)[20,8,33,19]. It is thought to be more fundamental than the standard
canonical ensemble. The mBH are typically described as extended stringy objects,
like e.g. "p-branes". They are then a new type of elementary particle
a "quantum black hole"[21,26]. In a sense this framework is more plausible
than both frameworks studied by G & M, because it can avoid a violation of
unitary evolution and energy conservation[9,5], serious problems that are well
known to beset the first scenario used by G & M[30,18]. G & M endorse a
quantum mechanical treatment of mBHs at the end of their section 2.1, but
they do not develop this possibility further in their report.
A treatment of collider produced mBHs within scenario 3 and including extra
dimensions, has been provided by Casadio & Harms (C & H)[7]. In the following
I will exclusively study the behaviour of mBHs in the famous "Randall-
Sundrum 2 (RS 2) model"[31], presented in one of the most frequently quoted
papers in the recent history of high energy physics, within C & H's framework.
In trying to understand if mBHs could be dangerous I will repeatedly resort
to a use of G & M's excellent theoretical tools. I try to assume reasonably
mild worst case assumptions, similar to the strategy of G & M3 . However, I
strived to introduce no "ad hoc" or finely tuned assumption, that would deem
highly implausible to specialists in the field.
2 Properties of RS 2 quantum microscopic black holes in the Casadio
& Harms model
Quantum black holes are in principle unstable, i.e. they evaporate because
no conserved quantum number forbids them to do so[18]. However, it is well
known that their Hawking luminosity is strongly suppressed with respect to
semiclassical expectations for black-hole masses below the Planck mass[9] in
4 space-time dimensions. If the additional curved spatial dimension of the RS
2 model exists, C & H predict a Hawking luminosity of the mBH of[7]:
P5 =
MBH~c6
15360G2M3
N
(1)
This formula is expected to be valid for black holes with sizes for which their
metric can be well described by a 5-dimensional Schwarzschild solution. MBH
is the mass of the black hole and MN is the smallest mass for which the usual
4 dimensional expression for the Hawking luminosity:
P4 =
~c6
15360G2M2
BH
(2)
3 G& M wrote: "...at each point where we encountered an uncertainty, we have
replaced it by a conservative "worst case" assumption".
3
is a good approximation. For given curvature scale "L" (associated with the
warping in the RS 2 model) C & H assume that MN is equal to black hole
mass at which the 5 dimensional Schwarzschild radius reaches is equal L. This
gives:
MN =
3L2c2M3
5
8~2 (3)
Here M5 is the "new" Planck scale (set to 1 TeV in all numerical estimates
below). This normalisation ensures that eq.(1) surely applies. Because usually
MN ≫ M5 the Hawking luminosity P5 of mBHs with a radius < L is strongly
suppressed with respect to the standard 4-dimensional expression P4.
The geometry of mBHs with Schwarzschild radii between L and ≈ 6 × L 4 is
not known, and it remains presently unclear if eq.(2) can be applied in this
"transitional region". Only for black holes with masses above "MC", the mass
of a mBH with a Schwarzschild radius of 6L, above which a 4-dimensional description
of the mBH is a good approximation, does this appear to be certain.
MC is given as:
MC ≈
3Lc2
G
(4)
One might equally well normalize the luminosity equally MC setting:
MN = MC (5)
The decision between normalisation in eq.(3) and eq.(5) comes down to the
question of whether the luminosity of a mBH is described by the 5-dimensional
(eq.(1)) or 4-dimensional (eq.(2)) expression in the transitional region between
L and ≈ 6 L. All one can presently say with reasonable certainty is that the
correct normalisation lies at some intermediate value between (and including)
the two extremes.
C & H discuss that with their normalisation metastable mBHs with lifetimes
of many years exist, but only for very large values of L approaching the experimentally
excluded range L>10−4 m[23]. It can be easily shown that with
normalisation eq.(5) mBHs are quasistable for all possible values of L 5 .
Summarising, mBHs may very well be generally "quasistable" (in the sense
of lifetimes exceeding years), without introducing any implausible "ad hoc"
assumptions. These mBHs do emit Hawking radiation, but with a reduced
4 This range was derived from eq.(3.26) of G & M for the scales of L of interest
in this manuscript: 10−9 m < L < 10−4 m. If L was smaller, mBHs in the third
scenario would pose no catastrophic risk.
5 i.e. the range from 1/M5 to 10−4 m
4
luminosity with respect to the standard 4-dimensional Hawking radiation luminosity
by the very large dimensionless factor ( ~
cLM5
)6 (this expression is
valid for the first normalisation (eq.(3))). In scenario 3 and 1 (i.e. the scenarii
without an artificial "switch off" of Hawking radiation) Schwinger radiation
is expected to neutralize mBHs on a very short time scale due to Schwinger
radiation[17,16], i.e. mBHs can be assumed to be neutral. Because G & M
concluded that 5-dimensional sufficiently stable mBHs might accrete matter
at an extremely fast rate (growth rate much below a second, see below section
3) quasistable mBHs are potentially dangerous. In the light of the scenario 3,
without an "a priori safety guarantee", an astrophysical (or other) exclusion
of the existence of such mBHs is a "critical safety guarantee" rather than an
"additional check of their benign nature" as it was characterised by G & M
for scenario 2.
3 A potential threat from microscopic black holes that Hawkingradiate
at the Eddington limit?
The mBHs in scenario 3 emit Hawking radiation, and according to eq.(1) the
emitted power rises linearly with the their mass. Might this radiation be more
dangerous than the mechanical action of the accretion? Unfortunately this
might be the case for certain parameter choices. For purely illustrative purposes
I set L=10−7 m below. Let us further assume that MN = 1.9 × 105 kg,
a value intermediate between the first and second normalisation (section 2).
According to eq.(1) mBHs would then have a lifetime of about 2 seconds. A
collider-produced mBH that has been captured and slowed down to thermal
velocities, accretes and quickly grows by the "subatomic accretion mechanism"
characterised in section 4.2 of G & M. According to their eq.(4.22) it will take
about 0.15 msec until the so called "electromagnetic radius" reaches atomic
sizes 6 . Thereafter the accretion is well described as Bondi accretion and according
to eq.(4.40) in G& M it will take about 2.2 msec until the mBH's
Schwarzschild radius reaches L at a mass of 0.54 kg. The further evolution
of the mBH's shape and size in the "transitional region" between 5 and 4-
dimensional behaviour (see section 2) is not well understood. For simplicity I
will assume that the radius remains constant at L (a radius increase logarithmic
with the mBH's mass[15] would not change the results appreciably.). For
the exemplary numbers chosen, eq.(4.31) of G & M predicts an increase of the
mBHs mass at a rate of 1.9 × 104 kg/sec. It will take about 20 μsec until its
mass reaches about 1 kg. At this mass the luminosity of the mBH is predicted
by eq.(1) to be 5.1 × 1016 W or an mass equivalent of dm/dt = 0.57 kg/sec
6 A conservative thermal velocity of 1500 m/sec was used to convert the units in
eq.(4.22) to a time.
5
being emitted as UV radiation. It is easy to verify that the five-dimensional
Eddington limit (eq.(B.25) of G & M)
dM/dt =
2.44 × 8mpRBc2
s
c
(6)
has the same magnitude for an efficiency =1. Here mp is the mass of the
proton, RB the Bondi radius (4.1 mm for our parameters), cs the velocity of
sound in the interior of Earth (5200 m/sec) and  the Thomson cross section.
Therefore the radiation pressure of this Hawking radiation is intense enough to
limit the amount of accreted matter to the same amount: dm/dt = dM/dt i.e.
the mBHs accretes at the 5-dimensional Eddington limit. All accreted mass is
then reradiated as light and the mBH's mass remains constant. G & M discussed
the possibility of an radiation limited accretion in detail and excluded
it because in scenario 2 the Hawking radiation is completely switched off.
For the next 3 × 1017 years, a time span vastly exceeding the life time of our
sun as a normal star, the mBH will radiate at the quoted, constant luminosity.
The power of 5.2 × 1016 W is 1300 times larger than the total geothermal
power emitted by Earth[1], and only 3 times less than the total power Earth
receives from the sun. The radiated power exceeds the total seismic power if
the Earth by an estimated factor of many millions[11]. 17000 metric tons of
ambient matter would be converted to radiation each year. While the exact
phenomenology provoked by such a mBH accreting at the Eddington limit
remains to be worked out, eventually catasrophic consequences due to global
heating on an unprecedented scale and global Earth quakes would seem certain.
Disturbingly the effects of such a mBH on a white dwarf or neutron star would
be negligible. Assuming the same mBH parameters as above and the theory
of section 7 in G & M, the luminosity of the mBH accreting at the centre of a
white dwarf is predicted to be 5.9 × 1019 W or a fraction of 1.5 × 10−7 of the
solar luminosity. This is about 104 times smaller than the cooling rate of white
dwarfs in G & M's sample[18,22] and thus cannot be detected 7 . The accretion
time of a white dwarf would exceed their present age by a large factor of >
1010. Therefore no conclusions about mBHs can be drawn from the observed
existence of such objects. The conditions for a neutron star would be similarly
unspectacular. Completely independent of the doubt raised in section 5, the
argument of G & M fails to exclude the existence of mBHs that are dangerous
because of their intense Hawking radiation.
The numbers given in this section were chosen for an illustrative but not fine
tuned parameter choice. There is a wide range of values for L and MN that
7 G & M find that many mBHs are produced in white dwarfs in the course of time.
However, these mBHs will also tend to merge over time, so that the total number of
black holes in a given white dwarf might remain small. This question needs further
study.
6
lead to dangerous mBHs accreting at the Eddington limit with various luminosities.
In general the example developed above demonstrates that the intuitions that
mBHs accretion must be slow, and that events which are catastrophic for
Earth must also be for compact objects, can be wrong.
4 A catastrophe at CERN?
The luminosity of a mBH accreting at the Eddington limit with the parameters
assumed above corresponds to 12 Mt TNT equivalent/sec[11], or the energy
released in a major thermonuclear explosion per second. If such a mBH would
accrete near the surface of Earth the damage they create would be much larger
than deep in its interior. With the very small accretion timescale (≪ 1 second)
that was found with the parameters in section 3, a mBH created with
very small (thermal or subthermal) velocities in a collider would appear like
a major nuclear explosion in the immediate vicinity of the collider.
5 Does the observed existence of old white dwarfs with a low magnetic
field rule out "dangerous" quasistable black holes?
The doubt raised into the generality of one argument if G & M in this section
applies to all scenarios discussed in the introduction.
In the text following their eq. (E.2) G & M formulate the following assumption:
Mmin > 3 M5 (7)
Thereby G & M introduce the assumption that mBHs in general have a minimal
mass Mmin that exceeds the new Planck scale by at least a factor 3. This
constraint is motivated by the fact that the thermodynamical, semiclassical
treatment of mBHs in their "scenario 1" is expected to be reliable within this
mass range. This is certainly a most reasonable argument for all purposes of
pure research, e.g. when predicting collider signatures etc.. However, it does
not mean that mBHs below Mmin cannot be produced. It rather means that
we are presently unable to reliably predict the behaviour of such mBHs 8 .
This fact raises a fundamental doubt about G & M's exclusion of "dangerous
8 In a previous paper[17] Giddings wrote: "For masses of order the fundamental
Planck scale [i.e. M5] there is no control over quantum gravity effects which are
likely to invalidate the semiclassical ... picture."
7
mBHs" by way of observing a certain class of white dwarfs. The exclusion depends
on their careful and detailed demonstration in their section 5 that "dangerous"
mBHs are stopped in white dwarfs after their production in collisions
of cosmic rays. However, this demonstration is based on an assumed validity of
the semiclassical approximation. mBHs deep in the "quantum gravity" regime
(violating eq.(7)) might behave differently and escape white dwarfs, just as
they could escape ordinary stars in the semiclassical approximation.
Concluding, G & M have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray
produced mBHs in general. Their exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains
not definite.
6 Conclusion
Treating mBHs as quantum objects in one possible consistent way, leads to
the possibility that a mBH produced at a collider is captured by Earth and accretes
at the Eddington limit, thereby emitting Hawking radiation that might
be dangerous to as a whole and/or the inhabitants of CERN and its surroundings.
The astrophysical arguments by G & M do not apply in this scenario,
because the lifetime of white dwarfs with Eddington accreting mBHs turns
out to be extremely long (section 3).
Moreover, for another independent reason, the exclusion of mBHs that threaten
to accrete Earth by G & M cannot be considered definite in general (section
5).
At the present stage of knowledge there is a definite risk from mBHs production
at colliders. This final conclusion differs completely from the one drawn
by G & M. This is not because of any disagreement over the purely scientific
content of their excellent paper. Rather the difference is the sole result
of employing an alternative plausible scenario for the physics of mBHs and
including parameter regions in which mBHs are not expected to be well described
by the semiclassical scenario in the safety analysis.
It is not the aim of the present paper to recommend or discuss consequences
for the future operation of colliders, beyond proposing to introduce (not yet
implemented) safety regulations. I put up for further dicussion three feasable
measures for risk mitigation, at least in the start up phase of LHC:
1. Increase of collision energy by reasonably small factors (say, 2) in one step.
Currently it is planned to perform the first runs at LHC at an energy more
than 5 times higher than previously reached[29]. This might result in the copious
production of completely novel states, which production was exponentially
suppressed at the previous energies. "Proceeding in small steps" mitigates this
risk.
2. No operation in which no or only a very tiny fraction of events are analysed.
Currently it is planned to eventually record and analyse only a fraction of 10−7
8
of all events[34]. This is the equivalent of entering new territory and to be on
the lookout only for the interesting but not the potentially dangerous.
3. Safety considerations influence the trigger and operational procedures. Meta
stable black holes might not yield very spectacular events, but it seems desirable
to ensure that their presence is immediately and reliably detected. An
immediate interruption of operation and detailed offline study of the event
might be a possible risk mitigating measure.
To take such safety measures would not exclude but reduce any remaining
risk. Methodologically similar measures have been taken in other areas of fundamental
research under analogous circumstances, e.g. in biotechnology[3].
7 Acknowledgements
I thank G.t'Hooft, M.Jarnot, M.Leggett and S.Pezzoni for critical comments
on a previous version of the present manuscript. I thank R.Casadio for his
patient and helpful explanations of his theory.
References
[1] T.Araki et al., Nature 436, 499-503 (2005).
[2] N.Arkani-Hamed, S.Dimopoulos, G.Dvali, Phys.Lett. B429, 263-272 (1998)
[hep-ph/9803315].
[3] Berg, P. et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 72, 1981-1984 (1975);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA,
accessed July 23, 2008.
[4] M.Cavaglia, R.Godang, L.M.Cremaldi, D.J.Summers, JHEP06, 055 (2007).
[5] C.G.Callan, J.M. Maldacena, Nucl. Phys. B472, 591 (1996).
[6] F.Calogero, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 25,191-202 (2000).
[7] R.Casadio, B.Harms, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A17, 4635-4646 (2002) [hep-th/0110255].
[8] R.Casadio, B.Harms, Phys.Rev. D 64, 024016 (2001).
[9] R.Casadio, B.Harms, Y.Leblanc, Phys. Rev. D 58, 044014 (1998).
[10] S.Dimopoulos,G.Landsberg, Phys.Rev.Lett. 87,161602 (2001).
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter magnitude scale, accessed July, 17, 2008.
[12] J.Ellis et al., cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf (2008).
[13] S.Forste, Fortsch.Phys. 50, 221-403 (2002).
9
[14] S.B.Giddings, Gen.Rel.Grav. 34, 1775-1779 (2002) [hep-ph/0205205v1].
[15] S.B.Giddings, Phys.Rev. D67, 126001 (2003).
[16] S.B.Giddings, [hep-ph/0709.1107v3].
[17] S.B.Giddings, S.Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 056010 (2002).
[18] S.B.Giddings, M.Mangano, CERN-PH-TH/2008-025,[hep-ph/0806.3381],
Phys.Rev. D in the press (2008).
[19] D.M.Gingrich, K.Martell, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 035001 (2008).
[20] B.C.Harms, Y.Leblanc, Phys.Rev. D46, 2334-2340 (1992).
[21] B.C.Harms, Y.Leblanc, Phys. Rev. D47, 2438 - 2445 (1993).
[22] J.Isern et al., [astro-ph/0806.2807v1], ApJL in the press (2008).
[23] D.J.Kapner et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 98, 021101 (2007).
[24] A.Kent, Risk Anal. 24,157-168 (2004).
[25] B.Koch, M.Bleicher, H.St¨ocker, [hep-ph/0807.3349v1] (2008).
[26] E.Keski-Vakkuri, P.Kraus, Nucl.Phys. B491, 249 (1997).
[27] G.Landsberg, J.Phys. G32, R337-R365 (2006).
[28] L.M.W.Leggett, Futures 38, 778 - 809 (2006).
[29] LHC commissioning home,
http://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/lhc-commissioning/, accessed May 27,
2008.
[30] T.Banks, M.E.Peskin, L.Susskind, Nucl.Phys. 244,125 (1984); M.K.Parikh,
hep-th/0402166v2.
[31] L.Randall,R.Sundrum, Phys.Rev.Lett. 83,4690 (1999).
[32] M.Rees, Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and
Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century On
Earth and Beyond, Basic books (2003).
[33] T.G. Rizzo, Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 4263-4280 (2006).
[34] S.Stapnes, Nature 448, 290-296 (2007).
[35] W.G.Unruh, R.Sch¨utzhold, Phys.Rev D71, 024028 (2005) [gr-qc/0408009].
[36] W.L.Wagner, F.Wilczek, Letters to the editor, Scientific American, July 1999.
10

raaaid
09-06-2008, 01:38 PM
i think they should ask a child

should we recreate the EXPLOSION that started this universe?

DuxCorvan
09-06-2008, 02:28 PM
Well, that's a point. What's the benefit of all this? I mean, what are the benefits for human kind, apart from confirming or rejecting some bizarre and arcane nuclear Physics theories which no common person gives a cr*p about? Is it worth the risk of destroying ourselves -even if it is so negligible?

I'm with Brillat-Savarin in this:
"The discovery of a new dish confers more happiness on humanity, than the discovery of a new star."

HotelBushranger
09-07-2008, 02:47 AM
I would hardly call this bizarre and arcane nuclear physics, and it doesn't matter if the common person doesn't care about it, most common people couldn't care less about the processes which give them TV and junk food and tabloid magazines, as long as they keep getting them. The benefit of this is the possibility of discovering the foundations of, basically, everything, and redefining the laws of physics. Some people might be content with the first answer that's given to them, but others feel the need to continue the search for the truer answer.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2008, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The benefit of this is the possibility of discovering the foundations of, basically, everything, and redefining the laws of physics.

And? What's the use of this? I mean, in my lifetime. I don't give a cr*p about the 4th millenium.

Will I be able to teletransport myself next year? Is cancer going to be defeated? Wars are made impossible? Hunger and anger are ending? Will I travel to Alpha Centauri next decade? Immortality is at hand? Will I marry a custom-made AI sweetheart? Hamburgers and hotdogs will be healthy and cholesterol-free from now on? Is SoW development going to be faster?

Right now, this is only a nerd's caprice. Totally OK, but not worth the lives of your neighbors. Playing gods is fun, until you have real god powers. Then, being "destroyers of worlds" becomes no fun at all. Ask Oppenheimer.

WTE_Googly
09-07-2008, 04:02 AM
http://iforce.co.nz/i/d75c9ee82488023310ef196c0d5ede13.jpg

HotelBushranger
09-07-2008, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The benefit of this is the possibility of discovering the foundations of, basically, everything, and redefining the laws of physics.

And? What's the use of this? I mean, in my lifetime.

Will I travel to Alpha Centauri next decade? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's what it boils down to, isn't it? You think things have to revolve around you. No, maybe not next decade, but these are the stepping stones. People didn't exactly decide they wanted to travel to the moon in the 1800's and then do so, they had to learn how to fly first. The same principle applies here.

Blood_Splat
09-07-2008, 05:39 AM
Well maybe they will discover a more powerful energy. Who knows we might have a quark weapon with a trillion times more the energy of say our current nuclear weapons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif .

If anything I hope we get a faster internet out of this lol.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2008, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
You think things have to revolve around you.

No, they don't have to. But I could care less about things to come in a far future. I'm not living forever, and I'm having no descendants.

But this LHC could make things ugly NOW, and you know, I'd rather miss that one.

My family, my friends, my health, my wealth. Egotistic as it sounds, that's what universe is to me. And if you think twice, that's what universe means to you, too, 95% of your time.

I don't think you wanna lose that, so Kirk can meet Spock in the 23rd century.

Cajun76
09-07-2008, 09:15 AM
CERN is the basis for a faster internet,not for what it discovers, but to deal with the reams of data.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/11/29/21322...ntinental-10-gig.htm (http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/11/29/213220/cern-lays-foundations-for-next-generation-internet-with-intercontinental-10-gig.htm)

Some more numbers about just how much info is being generated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAIL...09/07/scicern107.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/07/scicern107.xml)

Physics impacts our lives in many ways. Semi-conductor technology in your computer, medical instruments like CT machines, high speed trains, potential new sources of energy, satellite data mated with tractors to improve crop production...

There's very few things not touched be physics or it's spin offs in the world today.

Aaron_GT
09-07-2008, 09:20 AM
More than that CERN is at the forefront of techniques to handle large amounts of data even on existing links, e.g. data replication. The have been in detailed preparation for five years now and they were doing their large scale data handling testing a couple of years back.

TinyTim
09-07-2008, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
You think things have to revolve around you.

No, they don't have to. But I could care less about things to come in a far future. I'm not living forever, and I'm having no descendants.

But this LHC could make things ugly NOW, and you know, I'd rather miss that one.

My family, my friends, my health, my wealth. Egotistic as it sounds, that's what universe is to me. And if you think twice, that's what universe means to you, too, 95% of your time.

I don't think you wanna lose that, so Kirk can meet Spock in the 23rd century. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. I'm pretty sure there were people saying similar sentences when mankind firstly experimented with taming the fire.

That's ineteresting even more due to the danger that fire poses comared to the imaginary one that grew in the mind of some very loud people with absolutely no clue about modern physics. Would you personally even think about the "danger of black hole" in connection with LHC if you haven't heard it from someone who's trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about?

There is a certain percentage of people who will always feel unconfortable about anything new, especially when it has little to do with things from our everyday life. The hysteria about how harmul long wavelength radio waves are is still very much around, despite the fact that mankind uses technologies connected with it for over 100 years. Ironically, people usually hear this on a radio or on TV (or read about it on the computer connected to the internet through wireless router).

stathem
09-10-2008, 02:30 AM
It occured to me this morning, as I watched the LHC being lead item on the BBC breakfast news, (and a live switch on, I believe, although I had to leave for work beforehand) that this business of creating earth swallowing black holes is as like as not, a publicity stunt.

Think about it. If no-one had said there was a risk, there would be a lot less news about it; it would just be another bunch of scientists with a very large and expensive instrument.

Add it a bit of fear and it becomes a lot more news worthy to the general public; you can get people interested and talking about it. More people now know about the search for the Higgs boson than would otherwise be the case.

joeap
09-10-2008, 02:59 AM
Oh I don't know about that stathem. Apparently some scientists recieved death threats from ignorant gullible people. So I really doubt it was a publicity stunt.

Anyway I am still here in Geneva no probl.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Black_hole_lensing_web.gif

Badsight-
09-10-2008, 03:19 AM
if it wasnt for Spam & VoIP , we all would have the internet speed of our dreams

huggy87
09-10-2008, 05:06 AM
Googly, my thoughts exactly. Any other half-life fans out here. I was getting ready to grab my biohazard suit and my mp-5.

Bremspropeller
09-10-2008, 06:35 AM
ZOMG!!!1

We're all gonna die!!!

Anarchy!



I'm off, running naked through the town - see ya in "teh hole" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Bearcat99
09-10-2008, 07:03 AM
It would take a car 15 minutes to drive around the collider at 50 mph.. these particles go zipping around there 11,000 times a second... Amazing. Just think 400 years ago most thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

TinyTim
09-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It would take a car 15 minutes to drive around the collider at 50 mph.. these particles go zipping around there 11,000 times a second... Amazing. Just think 400 years ago most thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Amazing indeed. Even more so because today we know not only that Earth isn't the centre of universe, but that the universe does not even have one, although it probably has finite volume.

joeap
09-10-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It would take a car 15 minutes to drive around the collider at 50 mph.. these particles go zipping around there 11,000 times a second... Amazing. Just think 400 years ago most thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Amazing indeed. Even more so because today we know not only that Earth isn't the centre of universe, but that the universe does not even have one, although it probably has finite volume. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 Jokes aside modern physics blows my mind!!

HotelBushranger
09-10-2008, 08:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TinyTim
09-10-2008, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, it really doesn't have one. Do never ever apply "common sense" into a world of modern physics.

Bremspropeller
09-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I gotta admit, for a second I wondered what a "****** collider" was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

But then again, I don't wanna know anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

HotelBushranger
09-10-2008, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, it really doesn't have one. Do never ever apply "common sense" into a world of modern physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ey? I was laughing at joeap's pun.

TinyTim
09-10-2008, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, it really doesn't have one. Do never ever apply "common sense" into a world of modern physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ey? I was laughing at joeap's pun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah rgr, didn't see it as pun myself so I thought it's directed at my statement about the centre of universe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I gotta admit, for a second I wondered what a "****** collider" was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

But then again, I don't wanna know anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-10-2008, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:



Will I be able to teletransport myself next year? Immortality is at hand?


Teleportation is possible and has actually been going on for ten years now. There's a lab (in france I think) that has a working teleportation machine, it's limited right now to photons but they have teleported photons instantaneously over 60 meters.


As for immortality, with the nanotech revolution just starting to ramp up if you live long enough you may very well not die. In fact many of the worlds best minds have a bet going on whether or not the first modern man to live over 500 years is alive right now.

polak5
09-10-2008, 01:05 PM
Test went fine. No black holes and Raiid's head didint explode from exitement.

joeap
09-10-2008, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, it really doesn't have one. Do never ever apply "common sense" into a world of modern physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ey? I was laughing at joeap's pun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah rgr, didn't see it as pun myself so I thought it's directed at my statement about the centre of universe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I gotta admit, for a second I wondered what a "****** collider" was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

But then again, I don't wanna know anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I didn't think of the pun til I saw Hotelbushranger's post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

As to Brem's remark, I'd have said to the young lady (former roomate at Uni) taking me on a tour of CERN several years back (she didn't work there but as a physical chemist knew some people there) "I've got another accelerator to show you" except I was there with her fiance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

crucislancer
09-10-2008, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by polak5:
Test went fine. No black holes and Raiid's head didint explode from exitement.

I think Raaid's head may have already exploded, he just doesn't know it yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

raaaid
09-10-2008, 03:40 PM
oh im quite calm through this

i think whats to come is not a catastrophe but a giant leap on evolution of mankind

i mean 2012 no cern

btw google ad is quite ironic

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-10-2008, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Googly:
http://iforce.co.nz/i/d75c9ee82488023310ef196c0d5ede13.jpg



http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m327/puckbandit35/256fu4g.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c45/limegreendude891/large-hadron-collider.jpg
We're screwed! Lol!

Crazy_Goanna
09-10-2008, 04:36 PM
The test for an actual proton collision will be tried in 6 weeks. The test yesterday was to see if they could get the particles to go around the loop, one way. Next test is to get another stream of particles going in the opposite direction then they will try the collision test. not 2 weeks but 6 weeks stay tuned.

DuxCorvan
09-11-2008, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
the first modern man to live over 500 years is alive right now.

I know him. He's surely f***ng my ex-gf right now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

DKoor
09-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Are we still alive?

Cajun76
09-11-2008, 03:21 PM
Yesh, bu am twoubl tiping wth tentacles.

Friendly_flyer
09-11-2008, 03:30 PM
While I am of the same opinion as most about the chances that the collision of two protons will produce anything to worry about, I'm still a bit sceptical about the experiment. Common risk analysis indicate we should perhaps rethink going ahead.

When assessing a risk you weigh up two factors: The chances that something can go wrong and the consequence of something going wrong. The consequences can be given a ranking number, lets say someone sprain a foot is 10 and someone getting killed is 100. This number is multiplied with the estimated chance of it happening during whatever activity you are analysing. This chance is given as a number between 0 and 1, where 0,5 denotes a 50% chance. You multiply these two numbers, and if the result is below a certain value, you accept the risk.

Whenever you go for a walk in the forest there is a chance of stumbling over a root and spraining a foot. Since the chance is rather small (in the order of 0,001 or thereabout), and the consequence isn't that bad, we'll happily accept the risk. If we use "10" as the consequence number, the risk would be 0,01, well within our comfort zone.

The chance of a stable mini black hole forming at CERN is extremely remote. First off, we don't even know if creating mini black holes is at all physically possible. It looks like it may be on paper, but that doesn't mean it is. Then, there's the very real chance that the experiment do not produce the desired result, despite it being possible. Added to that is the physicists assertion that such small holes will evaporate even as they are formed. The physics behind it seems sound enough to me, but we don't really know. Let's say the chance of a stable black hole is in the region of 0,0000000000000000000000000001. In any other situation I'd happily accept the risk. The problem here is what number you put on the consequences.

The only consequence number that seem appropriate for a stable black hole here on Earth is ∞. A stable black hole will mean the end of the world. Not as we know it, but in the absolute sense. The end result will be the Moon orbiting a very small singularity.

No matter how low the chance of actually creating one is, when multiplied with the consequence number, the risk number is still ∞.

I am very sure nothing will happen, but I'm still not convinced going ahead is a good idea.

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-11-2008, 03:55 PM
Actually, your principle is fine but but the consequence side of the equation is wrong. Even if they produce the mini black hole, and even if it's stable (and the odd of that in the first place are about the same as everyone in the USA being struck by lightning all at the same instant) a black hole that small will do NO damage. It's estimated that these micro black holes pass through the earth almost every day.

huggy87
09-11-2008, 10:55 PM
It reminds me a lot of the exploding of a nuclear weapon in the 40's. They weren't entirely sure what would happen, and some had soundly hypothesized a chain reaction that it could destroy the Earth if not the universe. I hope this experiment echoes the 40's.

Friendly_flyer
09-11-2008, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
a black hole that small will do NO damage. It's estimated that these micro black holes pass through the earth almost every day.

Indeed. The interesting part here is "past through, going at near the speed of light. A hole with a mass if two protons will be so small it's almost not a part of the physical universe. It may at worst hit a single particle (proton or electron) on it's way through, and the chance of that is insanely remote.

Black holes answer to the same Newtonian laws as any other mass. One created at CERN will have the same relative direction and speed as the Earth. It will simply orbit the sun in the same place as the Earth does. Sooner or later it will start picking up mass.

Cajun76
09-12-2008, 12:39 AM
http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

Badsight-
09-12-2008, 02:52 PM
Even a black hole with the mass of Mount Everest would have a radius of only about 10-15 metres, roughly the size of an atomic nucleus. Current thinking is that it would be hard for such a black hole to swallow anything at all--even consuming a proton or neutron would be difficult.

TinyTim
09-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
Even a black hole with the mass of Mount Everest would have a radius of only about 10-15 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">femto</span>metres, roughly the size of an atomic nucleus. Current thinking is that it would be hard for such a black hole to swallow anything at all--even consuming a proton or neutron would be difficult.

Fixed.

JG53_Valantine
09-13-2008, 03:38 AM
Well - so far - Earth is still here.........

I guess they arn't colliding those ******s fast enough to tear the black hole.....

M2morris
09-14-2008, 12:02 AM
Maybe this black hole has already occured?
?derucco ydaerla sah eloh kcalb siht ebyaM

Blood_Splat
09-14-2008, 05:15 AM
They still haven't collided protons yet. Nothing to worry about though.

Deedsundone
09-14-2008, 05:52 AM
And now the Russians scientists want to build an own and even bigger LHC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Crazy_Goanna
09-14-2008, 09:18 PM
That's possibly a worry if quality control is not perfect!

Cajun76
09-15-2008, 02:15 AM
This Hadron thing is truly a place where the world can come and work together, whether you've been invited or not....

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/hackers-infiltr.html

I feel the need to install a large, shiny red button on my keyboard, FER ATOM SMASHIN'!!

Cajun76
09-20-2008, 12:01 PM
Frustration. LHC is down for at least 2 months for repairs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_on_re_eu/eu_swit..._particle_collider_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_particle_collider_2)

arthursmedley
09-21-2008, 06:39 AM
Someone dropped the Iron fillings! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 09:48 AM
They only used a 1,000,000 Amp fuse. 2,000,000 Amp fuse needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif