The Large Hadron Collider is perfectly safe

[Hypercube]

These people who think that the LHC is gonna destroy the Earth are clearly not using any sort of common sense whatsoever. Every day, the Earth is impacted with countless cosmic rays which are thousands of times more powerful than anything we are going to create in the LHC, and even if they think that any black holes or strangelets which are created by cosmic rays have enough velocity to escape the Earth's gravity, so what?

 

Let's for argument's sake assume that Stephen Hawking is wrong about black holes evaporating, and that any micro-black holes formed by cosmic rays are perfectly stable. If that were the case then the universe should be teeming with hundreds of trillions of black holes (or strangelets) zooming around growing in mass due to colliding cosmic rays, that is clearly not the case. Based on this fact, either Stephen Hawking is correct and black holes do indeed evaporate, or cosmic rays (and therefore the Large Hadron Collider) are not capable of producing anything dangerous. The Large Hadron Collider is perfectly safe folks.

 

This next point I'm not so sure about, but let's say that a stable micro-black hole was produced. Based on its mass, I would think that its gravity would be so small that it would not be able to compete with the strengths of electromagnetism and the strong force, which it would have to do if it was going to suck in any matter. Is this assumption correct?

[Klaynos]

This has been discussed at length here, in:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32068

 

In short any physicist versed in the physics involved is well aware that it's safe.

[Pangloss]

Been a while since I've heard anything about that court case in New Mexico. I wonder if it got tossed out.

[JTankers]

Let's for argument's sake assume that Stephen Hawking is wrong about black holes evaporating, and that any micro-black holes formed by cosmic rays are perfectly stable.

 

I think that is quite a leap of faith to believe that an rare more powerful cosmic ray consisting of a single proton colliding with a relatively stationary particle on Earth would create the same results as tight groups of thousands of protons (or protons to anti-protons) colliding head-on at 99.9999991% of the speed of light at temperatures lower than space with powerful magnets designed to compress and focus the particles together as they collide head-on creating results potentially thousands of times larger than might be capable of being created by a single stray cosmic ray. I don't see the safety argument. This is not comparing apples to apples.

 

... stable micro-black hole has produced... gravity would be so small that it would not be able to compete...

 

I have heard conflicting estimates, but the math was done by Germany's Dr. Otto Rossler, father of Chaos Theory, and his calculations indicate possible accretion of the entire Earth by a single micro black hole in as little as just years or decades."

wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

[ydoaPs]

Argument from incredulity is what is known as a logical fallacy.

 

Argument from incredulity is what is known as a logical fallacy.

[Hypercube]

Tankers, it doesn't matter how many protons are used, it's the amount of energy the particles have when they collide that matters. Most cosmic rays have about a thousand times more energy than the LHC's proton beams have, some even millions of times more energy. And the Earth is not what I was referring to when I talked about cosmic ray collisions, I was referring to cosmic rays colliding with each other, which no doubt happens quite frequently. If two particles slam into each other head on with energies of roughly 1000 000 000 TeV (10^20 eV) it will create conditions much more likely to produce things like strangelets than two beams of protons each with energies of only about 14 TeV each won't it? Using beams of particles only makes it much easier to detect the new particles produced, the same particles would be produced if they only accelerated one proton around the accelerator, it would just be virtually impossible to detect it.

[Klaynos]

I think that is quite a leap of faith to believe that an rare more powerful cosmic ray consisting of a single proton colliding with a relatively stationary particle on Earth would create the same results as tight groups of thousands of protons (or protons to anti-protons) colliding head-on at 99.9999991% of the speed of light at temperatures lower than space with powerful magnets designed to compress and focus the particles together as they collide head-on creating results potentially thousands of times larger than might be capable of being created by a single stray cosmic ray. I don't see the safety argument. This is not comparing apples to apples.

 

 

 

I have heard conflicting estimates, but the math was done by Germany's Dr. Otto Rossler, father of Chaos Theory, and his calculations indicate possible accretion of the entire Earth by a single micro black hole in as little as just years or decades."

wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

 

Not only is this a logical fallacy, but the physics is just wrong. Cosmic rays are not single photons and the LHC does not collied thousands of protons or anti-protons. It will normally collied one into another one. With a total relativistic energy considerably (many orders of magnitude) less than particle collisions from cosmic rays (which can be massive particles).

[YT2095]

but the math was done by Germany's Dr. Otto Rossler, father of Chaos Theory, and his calculations indicate possible accretion of the entire Earth by a single micro black hole in as little as just years or decades."

wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

 

no guts, no Glory!

[Fanghur]

Originally posted by Hypercube

Let's for argument's sake assume that Stephen Hawking is wrong about black holes evaporating, and that any micro-black holes formed by cosmic rays are perfectly stable. If that were the case then the universe should be teeming with hundreds of trillions of black holes (or strangelets) zooming around growing in mass due to colliding cosmic rays, that is clearly not the case.

 

 

Hypercube is right, if we assume that Hawking is wrong, then there should be literally moles of black holes (or strangelets) zooming around the universe growing in mass or converting other matter into strangelets, as Hypercube said, clearly this is not the case, otherwise the Earth would have been sucked into oblivion long ago.

 

Originally posted by Hypercube

let's say that a stable micro-black hole was produced. Based on its mass, I would think that its gravity would be so small that it would not be able to compete with the strengths of electromagnetism and the strong force, which it would have to do if it was going to suck in any matter.

 

This is a good observation Hypercube. Since we don't really know how gravity works at the quantum level, who knows, maybe you're right and even if a stable micro black hole was created it would be unable to get by the strong and electromagnetic forces holding matter together.

[Hypercube]

Exactly, I just don't understand why the courts even accepted this case, because as I said, there are only four possible scenarios.

 

1) The LHC does have the energy to produce micro black holes, but they evaporate before they can suck any matter in.

 

2) The LHC does not have the energy to produce micro black holes.

 

3) Hawking is wrong about black holes evaporating, and the universe is teeming with black holes due to cosmic ray collisions

 

4) Even cosmic rays do not have the energy needed to produce micro black holes.

 

Since the Earth is still here, clearly scenario three is not correct, and the other three all prove that the LHC is perfectly safe.

[Graviphoton]

Actually, in my opinion, we are messing with levels of energy that existed very early on in the universe.. messing with forces like that should indeed have a level of worry.

 

Suppose my arguement:

 

There is a theory stating that black holes are created in pair-production with white holes. One of Hawking's arguements is that the micro black hole will indeed electroradiate away its energy, in well under a second, giving it no chance of reach the earth's core.

 

But if the black hole is created in a pair-production, then it is logical that there be the chance the black hole could feed off the white hole long enough to reach the earth's mass... hence, the black hole would begin to consume earth.

 

Remember, Hawking was the idiot who thought that you could enter a gravitationally-warped body, survive the tidal forces, and enter other universes, totally disobaying quantum rules... He has now retracted the statement, after years of debate.

 

Now... think. One cannot say there is no danger.

 

Why do micro black hole eectroradiate energy so quickly?

 

Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger

than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;

 

[math]g=(GM)/d^{2}[/math]

 

Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. In other words, with free falling objects, we can make gravity disappear totally.

 

We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole you can work out its mass against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;

 

[math]M=gd^{2}G[/math]

 

We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant [math](6.7×10^{-11} m^{3}/(kg sec^{2})[/math]. We find the Earth's mass [math]= 9.8 × (6.4)(10^{6})^{2} / (6.7)(10^{-11})[/math] kilograms [math]= (6.0)( 10^{24})[/math] kilograms.

 

A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size [math](2)10^{-8kg}[/math]. The Compton Wavelength given as h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small

black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of [math]10^{16}[/math] K, which is 200 GeV, or about 25 million times hotter than the sun. Black holes this small, being so hot, are forced to give up there mass through radiation very very quicly, and evaporate completely, that is, unless the black hole is feeding from another source, in my empiracle arguement.

 

We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).

[Klaynos]

I got as far as:

 

There is a theory stating that black holes are created in pair-production with white holes. .

 

No one has demonstrated that white holes will not validate thermodynamics to there is NOT a theory that states that.

[Graviphoton]

No the theory has been stated by John G. Cramer. Black holes are also a theory. They may not even exist.

 

And if black holes do exist, then there needs to be a time-reversed property, which would make white holes invariant with the theory.

[Fanghur]

Graviphoton, did you even bother to read Hypercube's original post? Yes, the LHC will produce levels of energy that only existed a few trillionths of a second after the big bang, but cosmic rays have millions of times more energy than the Large Hadron Collider (the LHC produces energies of roughly 14 TeV but cosmic rays can have energies up to 100 000 000 TeV) and they are constantly bombarding the Earth and every other object in the universe - not to mention each other - and they aren't producing killer black holes or strangelets, or do you think that we've just been lucky all these billions of years?

[Graviphoton]

No. The cosmic ray arguement has been overthrown, and accepted by the LHC scientists, but despite this idionsycrosity, my post was tackling the statement

 

''These people who think that the LHC is gonna destroy the Earth are clearly not using any sort of common sense whatsoever. ''

 

And it also seems apparent, you don't understand the level of my arguement, becasue you resort to strange matter... and killer black holes... my arguement is that these killer black holes can have an external source of mass, even when produced, because of pair-production theory.

 

For reference to these cosmic rays collisions being overthrown, i advise you to get in touch with Dr. Walter Wagner... and if you can't, i will speak to him for you, or if you give me your e-mail address, i will forward it to him.

[Klaynos]

No the theory has been stated by John G. Cramer. Black holes are also a theory. They may not even exist.

 

I think you need to research what a scientific theory is.

 

Black holes are not invalidated by any currently known and tested physics, and we also have significant scientific evidence for their existence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#In_physics

 

Also, black holes arn't really particles... just really dense bits of mass...

[Graviphoton]

A scientific theory by terminology, a theory which is presented by those who work in the area of science, if not by defect as well. Why is this so hard to understand? You do realize theories like the Big Bang are in fact speculation...

 

... just because a theory like that is well-established, you will find in contrary consideration that it is still speculation, and you will also find it is't actually well-considered as proof. Many scientists will insideously result that big bang must be wrong, if not in theory, but conceptuality.

 

Also wrong. Electrons, by definition are point particles which can be classified as point black holes... there is no difference between the two.

[Klaynos]

A scientific theory by terminology, a theory which is presented by those who work in the area of science, if not by defect as well. Why is this so hard to understand? You do realize theories like the Big Bang are in fact speculation...

 

... just because a theory like that is well-established, you will find in contrary consideration that it is still speculation, and you will also find it is't actually well-considered as proof. Many scientists will insideously result that big bang must be wrong, if not in theory, but conceptuality.

 

Also wrong. Electrons, by definition are point particles which can be classified as point black holes... there is no difference between the two.

 

OK this is NOT the place to discuss what a theory is. But you're wrong.

 

Electrons are NOT point particles!

 

Oh I also want to take this opertunity to scream STRAWMAN!

[Hypercube]

Look Graviphoton, I don't care what Wagner says. The fact of the matter is that if the LHC can produce micro black holes, then cosmic rays, whose energy makes the LHC look like nothing more than a hand held flashlight, certainly can make them as well. Saying that this is not true would be like saying that a flashlight battery has enough power to turn a light on, but a nuclear fusion reactor doesn't.

 

World-renowned physicists such as Michio Kaku all say that these "killer black hole" scenarios are science fiction at best. But physics aside, do you honestly think that if the scientists working on the LHC thought that there was even a small possibility of destroying the Earth that they would turn the machine on? Of course they wouldn't, who cares about wasted money when the alternative is the death of everyone on Earth.

 

Someone please back me up on this.

[Klaynos]

Look Graviphoton, I don't care what Wagner says. The fact of the matter is that if the LHC can produce micro black holes, then cosmic rays, whose energy makes the LHC look like nothin more than a hand held flashlight, certainly can make them as well. Saying that this is not true would be like saying that a flashlight battery has enough power to turn a light on, but a nuclear fusion reactor doesn't.

 

World-renowned physicists such as Michio Kaku all say that these "killer black hole" scenarios are science fiction at best. But physics aside, do you honestly think that if the scientists working on the LHC thought that there was even a small possibility of destroying the Earth that they would turn the machine on? Of course they wouldn't, who cares about wasted money when the alternative is the death of everyone on Earth.

 

Someone please back me up on this.

 

Seconded on all aspects.

[Fanghur]

Sorry Graviphoton, but I have to agree with Hypercube on this one. There is no way that a particle accelerator would be able to do something that two cosmic rays colliding head on wouldn't also be able to do.

 

Were you aware that this Wagner fellow also filed lawsuits against the Tevatron and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider? The guy just wants attention.

[Hypercube]

Thank you Klaynos and Fanghur. Sorry Graviphoton, you can't win them all. Then again, I guess quantum theory says there is a measurable probability that any event will occur, so who knows, and in the case of this probability, who cares?

[Graviphoton]

Ok...

 

Then why are point like particles then consiered by Brian Greene as being actual micro black holes... explain that, and we might get somewhere.

 

I have had a recent warning considering my post... here's a new warning; without evidence that he is talking sh*t, then give me some explanation why electrons beave like extremal black holes?

 

Can you answer this?

 

If not, my original arguement holds

 

Plus, if white hole pair production with black hole configurational process is invalid, then explain why its a considered theory? Or explain, why it isn't? Don't use thermodynamical errors here, for our calculations have accepted to be possibly wrong.

[insane_alien]

okay, heres some reasons why we know the electron isn't a black hole.

 

for any object with mass less than the planck mass (which is that of a small housefly) the event horizon will be smaller than a planck length and will not make any sort of physical sense.

 

as i recall, the electron is considerably less massive than a housefly.

[Klaynos]

Any mass smaller than about 10^-16kg has a Schwarzschild radius less than 1 planck length, an electrons mass is 10^-31kg.

 

us, if white hole pair production with black hole configurational process is invalid, then explain why its a considered theory? Or explain, why it isn't? Don't use thermodynamical errors here, for our calculations have accepted to be possibly wrong.

 

It's not that I've ever seen, and any reference I've ever seen about white holes has called them rubbish. And you can't just ignore some physics that suggests strongly that something is wrong by just saying it might be wrong.