LHC Dangerous?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Should it be fired?

No
29
8%
Yes
326
92%
 
Total votes: 355

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:50 pm UTC

To be clear: no, they don't know what will happen, with reasonably large error bars.

The events that occur in the LHC aren't anything science has managed to look at really closely before.

They are not, however, unprecedented: we have seen evidence of higher energy collisions (google the "oh my god particle"), and know that they happen pretty damn often. We can see events and evidence of events of the same magnitude as the LHC going on pretty damn frequently. We just don't have a huge massive sensing apparatus arranged right next to the repeated event, so we can watch it and tear apart what happens.

Using the relative commonness of the higher energy collisions, we know that this experiment could not swallow up the earth, destroy the universe, etc. Through whatever mechanism that isn't ridiculous that is: in a sense, it makes about as much sense that "if you write a particular 10 letter word out, the universe ends" as this collision would cause a similar catastrophe. And if that is the scale of "unlikely" you want to deal with, the LHC really shouldn't be your concern -- getting help from a psychologist should be your concern.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby BlackSails » Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:36 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:The events that occur in the LHC aren't anything science has managed to look at really closely before.


This deserves more emphasis. We have observed events of identical and higher energies, just not very closely. Its like the difference between seeing the Mona Lisa across the room (you can tell people you saw it, and it exists, and it probably uses the following colors) and studying it up close (you can tell people about the contours and shading, and exactly what colors, and lots of small details, etc)

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby YoungStudent » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Yakk wrote:The events that occur in the LHC aren't anything science has managed to look at really closely before.


This deserves more emphasis. We have observed events of identical and higher energies, just not very closely. Its like the difference between seeing the Mona Lisa across the room (you can tell people you saw it, and it exists, and it probably uses the following colors) and studying it up close (you can tell people about the contours and shading, and exactly what colors, and lots of small details, etc)


Your explaining skills are perfect!
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.

User avatar
jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby jmorgan3 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:06 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:it makes about as much sense that "if you write a particular 10 letter word out, the universe ends" as this collision would cause a similar catastrophe.

How about "if you write every 9 letter word out, the universe ends"?
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2243
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby thoughtfully » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:07 pm UTC

In case anyone wants a specific example, I present this. Favorite quote:
the link wrote:If God's radar gun is slightly out of calibration, this puppy's gonna be doin' hard time for speeding.

As a bonus, there's an SSC reference :)

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high ... cosmic_ray
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
Poochy
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Poochy » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:35 pm UTC

Chfan wrote:What I don't know is who said that the LHC was dangerous in the first place? Do they have any scientists on their side or is it all people who haven't been fully educated in this type of situation?
Well, for one thing, people have a tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize stuff to get others' attention, as evidenced by the myriad "I caught a fish *this* big!" stories. It doesn't take that many generations of mutations to go from "This may make a short-lived micro black hole" to "AAAH! The LHC will make a black hole that'll devour the Earth and kill us all!" Add in sensationalistic yellow journalism, and confirmation-biased crackpots who saw it as an opportunity to become famous via "saving" the world from a black hole (or were genuinely scared by another such fear-mongering crackpot), and you have an explanation.

There's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek story I've heard before (roughly translated from Chinese, and possibly slightly mutated in my memory) which tells of a shop owner on the east side of the town square who saw a mouse (Chinese: lao su) in his stall, and hit it with a broomstick to kill it on his first swing. A bystander sees him and tells another guy, "Wow, did you see that guy? He just killed a mouse in one shot!" The second guy exaggerates it a little when telling a third guy: "Have you heard about the guy who killed a rabid mouse in one shot? It must've been the size of a cat!" After that, the third guy exaggerates it a little more and tells a fourth guy, "Did you hear about the guy who killed a rabid cat in one shot?" To summarize the rest of the story, this goes on all day and eventually the rumor reaches the west side of the town square, where someone is talking about a shop owner who single-handedly beat up a tiger (Chinese: lao hu; one phoneme away from "mouse").
(A more humorous variation I've heard starts with the first guy complaining that he's not feeling well and that he coughed up some phlegm with a little blood in it earlier that morning. A couple iterations of slight exaggerations later, this becomes "he coughed up a bloody phlegm the size of a goose feather", and later "he coughed up a bloody goose feather"; a bit after that, it becomes "he coughed up a goose".)
clintonius wrote:"You like that, RIAA? Yeah, the law burns, doesn't it?"
GENERATION 63,728,127: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and divide the generation number by 2 if it's even, or multiply it by 3 then add 1 if it's odd. Social experiment.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Tass » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:32 am UTC

Poochy wrote:
Chfan wrote:What I don't know is who said that the LHC was dangerous in the first place? Do they have any scientists on their side or is it all people who haven't been fully educated in this type of situation?
Well, for one thing, people have a tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize stuff to get others' attention, as evidenced by the myriad "I caught a fish *this* big!" stories. It doesn't take that many generations of mutations to go from "This may make a short-lived micro black hole" to "AAAH! The LHC will make a black hole that'll devour the Earth and kill us all!" Add in sensationalistic yellow journalism, and confirmation-biased crackpots who saw it as an opportunity to become famous via "saving" the world from a black hole (or were genuinely scared by another such fear-mongering crackpot), and you have an explanation.

There's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek story I've heard before (roughly translated from Chinese, and possibly slightly mutated in my memory) which tells of a shop owner on the east side of the town square who saw a mouse (Chinese: lao su) in his stall, and hit it with a broomstick to kill it on his first swing. A bystander sees him and tells another guy, "Wow, did you see that guy? He just killed a mouse in one shot!" The second guy exaggerates it a little when telling a third guy: "Have you heard about the guy who killed a rabid mouse in one shot? It must've been the size of a cat!" After that, the third guy exaggerates it a little more and tells a fourth guy, "Did you hear about the guy who killed a rabid cat in one shot?" To summarize the rest of the story, this goes on all day and eventually the rumor reaches the west side of the town square, where someone is talking about a shop owner who single-handedly beat up a tiger (Chinese: lao hu; one phoneme away from "mouse").
(A more humorous variation I've heard starts with the first guy complaining that he's not feeling well and that he coughed up some phlegm with a little blood in it earlier that morning. A couple iterations of slight exaggerations later, this becomes "he coughed up a bloody phlegm the size of a goose feather", and later "he coughed up a bloody goose feather"; a bit after that, it becomes "he coughed up a goose".)


Theres also the H. C. Andersen fairy tale "It's perfectly true" about the hen who plucked a tiny anoying feather to smoothen its "hairstyle" shorthly after the story goes that five hens where so vain that they plucked out all their feathers and died because they thougth it looked good. In Denmark it has become the standard phrase for this kind of exagerations: "One feather becomes five hens"

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:26 am UTC

i heard that Otto Rossler insist in his calculations of the micro black hole, and im not going to lie, the rapid black hole acrettion sound a little more sensical and more plausible, since the micro black hole will be inside on earth can eat particles from any angle and direction.

and how did you know the velocity of a micro black hole

and i know that here is the DEAL

maybe the cosmic ray model was prove to be fail after all, since any hypotetical particle, if stable, can travel the earth at the speed of light, and the earth is not as dense, that the micro black hole will not only not beign trapped, but dint suck anything becuase its travels too fast.

and i think that the scientific community always belive the cosmic ray model until someone think about this factor that maybe demolished the argument, and yes, we got the neutron stars and white dwarfs argument, BUT, i think is not convincing at all, and it seems a little rush over, since they are white dwarfs and neutron stars with greater magnetic fields, or that despite their density, any hypotetical particle can still scape them without doing anything

Even Giddings and Mangano consider this as what i understand in their PDF papers.

Also thei say that the theory in wich Rossler based his calculations is disproved by experimental evidence, what evidence they are talking about, and if is possible that the evidence is obsolete?
------------------------------------

this is my honest opinion, and i be glad to beign wrong :cry:

dic_penderyn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC
Location: Merthyr Tydfil, Wales

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby dic_penderyn » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:45 am UTC

I just dont get it, maybe I am missing something very obvious here but perhaps someone can point it out.

How can the LHC be dangerous?
The LHC will be colliding particles at 14TeV.
That's: 2.24304705 × 10-6 joules.

Cosmic rays have been found to have Energies of 50 Joules!!!!!

That's a few orders of magnitude higher.

The LHC is not doing anything that does not happen millions of times every second naturally.
Why should the outcome be any different if we build detectors around the collision so we can see whats going on?

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:01 pm UTC

dic_penderyn wrote:The LHC is not doing anything that does not happen millions of times every second naturally.
Why should the outcome be any different if we build detectors around the collision so we can see whats going on?

Because woowoo and FUD, that's why. :evil:
People see/hear/get told about by a friend of a friend's cousin's uncle's other brother who works for a guy, that something is going to do X, but they have no idea what X actually means, nor do they bother actually fact-checking their source and instead immediately jump to the conclusion that the world is going to end tomorrow because that's how it always happens in the movies.

Please remember that these are the same people who believe NASA is not only a monolithic organisation but that it also faked the moon landing (singular, there was only one, right? :roll: ) without anyone either noticing or confessing at any time in the last 40 years.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:50 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:Please remember that these are the same people who believe NASA is not only a monolithic organisation but that it also faked the moon landing (singular, there was only one, right? :roll: ) without anyone either noticing or confessing at any time in the last 40 years.

In the interests of pedantry, a goodly contingent of the fake-moon-landing believers are quite willing to believe we landed on the moon *later*, they just think that the *first* landing was faked because we didn't have the ability to do it quite yet but had to beat the Russians.

Not that it makes them less of crackpots, but I just felt I had to defend their honor at least slightly.

There are, of course, many who believe we *never* landed on the moon and all the landings were faked. And likely just as many who don't even realize there *were* multiple landings, but just hate the gubmint.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2243
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby thoughtfully » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

dic_penderyn wrote:Why should the outcome be any different if we build detectors around the collision so we can see whats going on?

Probably nothing. But another difference is the luminosity. Cosmic rays of the energies we're talking about aren't concentrated by the tens of thousands into a small space. Hmmmm.

As long as I'm playing devil's advocate: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0304042v1
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby YoungStudent » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:18 pm UTC

Abstract. The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum
effects is often considered one of the most secure in quantum field
theory in curved space–time. Yet this prediction rests on two
dubious assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum
fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound;
and that quantum–gravitational effects may be neglected. Various
suggestions have been put forward to address these issues: that they
might be explained away by lessons from sonic black hole models; that
the prediction is indeed successfully reproduced by quantum gravity;
that the success of the link provided by the prediction between black
holes and thermodynamics justifies the prediction.
This paper explains the nature of the difficulties, and reviews the
proposals that have been put forward to deal with them. None of the
proposals put forward can so far be considered to be really successful,
and simple dimensional arguments show that quantum–gravitational
effects might well alter the evaporation process outlined by Hawking.
Thus a definitive theoretical treatment will require an understanding of
quantum gravity in at least some regimes. Until then, no compelling
theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be
made.


Sorry but this scared the shit out of me.
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:27 pm UTC

YoungStudent wrote:[snip]
Sorry but this scared the shit out of me.

Please explain why?
What is it that you think this abstract (which, I feel the need to remind you, is neither the paper nor the conclusion) is saying?
Why does what you think this abstract is attempting to convey terrify you so?

P.S. Did you read it all the way through?
Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.
Emphasis mine.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

but whats up with the questions i made earlier, (see post back please)

and more so, they sey i was unlikely to the LHC to have the quench, but it do, and people think that this was a bad sign :(

and maybe cosmic rays do not create vacuum bubbles, but if we made several collisions in one small place.....oh well :roll:

User avatar
danpilon54
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:10 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby danpilon54 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:55 pm UTC

Here's a question. Why would a black hole the mass of a few protons be dangerous? Afterall, black holes' only power is their gravity. Also, a point of my own confusion. What is the definition of a black hole when protons are considered point masses anyway? Is it just a bunch of protons held together at a single point? Would not a single proton really be as dangerous as a few protons in a black hole?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Well, I killed a homeless man. We can't all be good people.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:11 pm UTC

If black holes don't evaporate, then a minuscule black hole could eventually accumulate more mass. A proton isn't dangerous because EM forces repel other protons and nuclear forces keep even neutrons at some (tiny) distance. But I'm pretty sure nuclear forces don't operate out of black holes, and so uncharged particles (or negatively charged ones) could be sucked into a proton-massed black hole if they happened to "bump" into it.

While this would certainly be a very slow process at first, the fearmongers who deny Hawking radiation point out that it's also a completely irreversible process. So it doesn't need to be very fast to eventually be very dangerous nonetheless.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Aelfyre
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:22 pm UTC
Location: 3 decades west of the teenage wasteland
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Aelfyre » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:20 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If black holes don't evaporate, then a minuscule black hole could eventually accumulate more mass. A proton isn't dangerous because EM forces repel other protons and nuclear forces keep even neutrons at some (tiny) distance. But I'm pretty sure nuclear forces don't operate out of black holes, and so uncharged particles (or negatively charged ones) could be sucked into a proton-massed black hole if they happened to "bump" into it.

While this would certainly be a very slow process at first, the fearmongers who deny Hawking radiation point out that it's also a completely irreversible process. So it doesn't need to be very fast to eventually be very dangerous nonetheless.



OOC does one have to be classified as a "fearmonger" to deny Hawking radiation? Has it been unequivocally proven to exist? I'm not saying I deny Hawking radiation, I dont know enough to say one way or the other, but is it something that we are 100% sure of right up there with, well nothing else in the universe or is it "as far our math seems to indicate" thing? I think you're right.. if it does prove to be a falsehood then yes even a very small black hole would prove to be catastrophically dangerous *eventually* since I am sure it would simply fall into the center of the most dominant gravity well Earth and begin accumulating mass. The process might take eons or it take seconds who knows..

basically is denying Hawking Radiation's existance the equivalent of being a Flat Earth believer?
Xanthir wrote:To be fair, even perfectly friendly antimatter wildebeests are pretty deadly.

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby YoungStudent » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:34 pm UTC

If bhole wont evaporate...then process to our death would take just seconds? If im going to die, i would like to see something...cool before it happens.
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

YoungStudent wrote:If bhole wont evaporate...then process to our death would take just seconds? If im going to die, i would like to see something...cool before it happens.

No.
Assuming a micro black hole is ever even made by the LHC (already unlikely), its event horizon will probably have a diameter significantly less than that of your average proton. At that scale, the Earth will appear to this mBH to be essentially empty, with almost nothing to interact with. If the mBH retains significant velocity from its creation (quite possible) it will also quite likely simply depart Earth and head for deep space without ever interacting with anything on or within the planet.

If some other theories are correct, said hypothetical hole my be created with a residual charge and be captured by an atom somewhere, possibly displacing an equivalently charged subatomic particle, such as an electron or proton. In which case, no-one would even notice until the collision analysis is done and someone discovers that the mass-energy doesn't quite add up. Other than that, there is nothing preventing you, sitting there right now, from having a left-over charged mBH, created in a cosmic ray event, orbiting one of the nuclei of one of the atoms in one of the molecules that make up one of the molecular mechanisms of one of your cells. In this case, you'd better hope Hawking radiation doesn't exist, or you'd be getting an even bigger radiation dose than you already do.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

SU3SU2U1
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:15 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby SU3SU2U1 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:05 pm UTC

Its also worth noting that CPT symmetry guarantees that IF the LHC can create a black hole, the black hole has a decay channel. You don't even need Hawking radiation in its specifics, just CPT symmetry.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2243
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby thoughtfully » Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:20 pm UTC

Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

well, it makes sense, just that im thinkin (if somebody desire topay attention), Otto Rossler once replie to the correction on his calculations and APARENTLY he came out with some "fixed" calculations, but that was months ago, and nobody know about it

maybe, just mayne the Abraham tehory could apply this time? :|

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:23 pm UTC

danpilon54 wrote:Here's a question. Why would a black hole the mass of a few protons be dangerous? Afterall, black holes' only power is their gravity. Also, a point of my own confusion. What is the definition of a black hole when protons are considered point masses anyway? Is it just a bunch of protons held together at a single point? Would not a single proton really be as dangerous as a few protons in a black hole?

Just to hit some random misconceptions:
No, protons are not point masses. They are made of quarks. Quarks are probably point masses.

A black hole is simply an area within which space is sufficiently curved such that even things with a velocity of c (that is, light) cannot escape. This usually happens because something is immensely dense, but it can actually occur with very diffuse matter, if it's large enough. I think it was calculated that a sphere the size of the solar system filled with air at normal earth atmospheric pressure would form a black hole?

Any black hole *can* be dangerous, even if small, simply because it can grow. However, people in this thread have already gone over why the black holes that might even theoretically be created by the LHC won't be an issue.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

baragon-kun wrote:but whats up with the questions i made earlier, (see post back please)

and more so, they sey i was unlikely to the LHC to have the quench, but it do, and people think that this was a bad sign :(

and maybe cosmic rays do not create vacuum bubbles, but if we made several collisions in one small place.....oh well :roll:



did someone can answer this to me if you please? :oops:

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7542
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby phlip » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:05 am UTC

baragon: I can't put it any better than Mr_Rose did...
Mr_Rose wrote:Is there a debatable position in there somewhere? Or are you just randomly spewing massively refuted arguments for fun in the hopes that the appallingly bad grammar will obscure the fact that you haven't presented anything new? :?


And to put it explicitly: Yes, there is a reasonable possibility that the LHC will create a micro black hole. It is also a reasonable (though unlikely) possibility that Hawking radiation doesn't exist, and black holes do not decay. However, as SU3SU2U1 pointed out already, it is not a reasonable possibility that both of these are true, which is what you'd need for the LHC to create a long-lived black hole (and you need even more for that long-lived black hole to be in any way dangerous). Science is, of course, never certain of anything, but scientists are pretty sure that the LHC won't create a micro black hole to destroy the world, in the same way they're pretty sure that it won't create a horde of rampaging antimatter wildebeest.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

thank you Mr Phlip, is just that sometimes i got nightmares, and i cant stop it :cry:

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Tass » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:02 am UTC

Now I get nigthmares about rampaging antimatter wildebeests :(

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:44 pm UTC

Tass wrote:Now I get nigthmares about rampaging antimatter wildebeests :(

To be fair, even perfectly friendly antimatter wildebeests are pretty deadly.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Viva El Shrooms
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:11 am UTC
Location: Liverpool

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Viva El Shrooms » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

I have personally researched into this subject by conversing with ascociates at CERN and other scientific institutions around the globe and ,unless you are a moron and believe the BBC (or worse a string "theorist") there is no reason that you would think that there is a possibility in a black hole being created. The reason behind this idea is that string "theory" says that black holes are portals to other parts of the universe and that they can be created by high energy particle collisions involvong protons.
ηβπ
GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:31 pm UTC

You, uh, don't actually know what string theory is.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:50 pm UTC

Viva El Shrooms wrote:I have personally researched into this subject by conversing with ascociates at CERN and other scientific institutions around the globe and ,unless you are a moron and believe the BBC (or worse a string "theorist") there is no reason that you would think that there is a possibility in a black hole being created. The reason behind this idea is that string "theory" says that black holes are portals to other parts of the universe and that they can be created by high energy particle collisions involvong protons.

If you're going to make such a claim (or three) you're going to have to cite something, I'm afraid.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:16 pm UTC

seeing one of the previous post about how many time the micro black hole can suck out 50 000 protons, since it take more than 8 days to suck a single proton, 400,000 days may it take at least one thousand years to wallow the earth, but.....


micro black holes can became slowly bigger and suck more, and my question is, is there going to be side effects on planet earth, i mean, the earth is going to start reducing his volume or something, it will be some effects for at least the first 4 years??

also, how many protons the earth has inside it???? :roll:

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:40 pm UTC

baragon-kun wrote:seeing one of the previous post about how many time the micro black hole can suck out 50 000 protons, since it take more than 8 days to suck a single proton, 400,000 days may it take at least one thousand years to wallow the earth, but.....


micro black holes can became slowly bigger and suck more, and my question is, is there going to be side effects on planet earth, i mean, the earth is going to start reducing his volume or something, it will be some effects for at least the first 4 years??

also, how many protons the earth has inside it???? :roll:

An average human body has roughly 2.3 x 1028 protons. Extrapolate accordingly.

Keep in mind that the human body is mostly hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen (about 99% of it is those three). The earth, on the other hand, is mostly iron, with a bunch of other elements thrown in. So you get a lot more protons per atom.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:seeing one of the previous post about how many time the micro black hole can suck out 50 000 protons, since it take more than 8 days to suck a single proton, 400,000 days may it take at least one thousand years to wallow the earth, but.....


micro black holes can became slowly bigger and suck more, and my question is, is there going to be side effects on planet earth, i mean, the earth is going to start reducing his volume or something, it will be some effects for at least the first 4 years??

also, how many protons the earth has inside it???? :roll:

An average human body has roughly 2.3 x 1028 protons. Extrapolate accordingly.

Keep in mind that the human body is mostly hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen (about 99% of it is those three). The earth, on the other hand, is mostly iron, with a bunch of other elements thrown in. So you get a lot more protons per atom.

On the assumption of 8 days/proton and 2.3 x 1028 protons/human:

8 x 2.3 x 1028 = 1.84 x 1029 days/human.

That's ~5.04 x 1026 years. IIRC, the universe is currently estimated to be around 1.3 x 1010 years old. That is, to consume one person's protons, at the rate mentioned, would take 3.8 x 1016 ages of the universe.

I'm not even going to attempt the calculations for the entire Earth because the numbers would get stupid. Although I would be interested to know where that figure for the protons/human value came from.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:34 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:Although I would be interested to know where that figure for the protons/human value came from.

First google result for "atoms in a human body".
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:32 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:On the assumption of 8 days/proton and 2.3 x 1028 protons/human

To be fair, that's not a good assumption once the black hole gets bigger. Eventually it'll start sucking things in more and more quickly.

Would it be reasonable to suppose that the time per proton is inversely proportional to the volume of the black hole? So that while a one-proton hole takes 8 days for the second, a two-amu hole takes four, and at 3 amu only 8/3, and so on?

If this is the case, it takes about 60 days to get 1000amu, instead of 8000 days. And then it takes only another 55 or so to get to a million, and so on.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Mr_Rose wrote:On the assumption of 8 days/proton and 2.3 x 1028 protons/human

To be fair, that's not a good assumption once the black hole gets bigger. Eventually it'll start sucking things in more and more quickly.

Would it be reasonable to suppose that the time per proton is inversely proportional to the volume of the black hole? So that while a one-proton hole takes 8 days for the second, a two-amu hole takes four, and at 3 amu only 8/3, and so on?


Initially, the black hole is going to be moving very fast. So fast that it will only suck up protons that it "collides" with -- so its rate of sucking up protons will grow with the cross section of the black hole.

As it sucks up protons, it will gain mass, which increases cross section, but lose velocity. Initially, a slower velocity means that is covers less territory, so the rate of proton eating should go down I think. (velocity decreases linearly with mass increase (as protons soaked up are effectively stationary), and cross section goes up with the 2/3 power of mass increase. Which results in "eat volume per second" of a black hole going down by the cube root of the mass increase).

Eventually the black hole will be slowed down to the speed where proton speeds are not ignorable. The gravitational field of the black hole will still be teeny tiny and not enough to suck things in much further than the event horizon. However, further eaten protons don't decrease the change that protons are eaten by the black hole nearly as much -- thus at that point, the ability for the black hole to eat protons starts growing.

(assuming a black hole that doesn't emit, yet is produced by a collision in the LHC).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:02 pm UTC

Yeah, initial increase proportional to cross-section makes sense. But I'd forgotten in my post that the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to mass, so volume goes up as the cube and area goes up as the square, so the area does grow faster than the mass (and thus presumably faster than the velocity is likely to decrease)...

Edit: of course, now that I think about it, I remember that a black hole needs to be a few millionths of a gram before its size (as predicted by GR) reaches the Planck length, so I suppose I'm unclear what it would even mean for its area to double when it's smaller than that. We'd pretty much need a quantum theory of gravitation before even speculating about black holes that small, wouldn't we?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:16 pm UTC

So what y'all are saying is that, instead of the five hundred quadrillion years I calculated above, it might take a µbH an amount of time less than the current age of the universe to consume a human?
Troubling. :!:
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests