World's most powerful atom smasher restarts: CERN

Large Hadron Collider in multi-magnet quench hiccup

http://www.thereg...p_delay/

These people know it might be dangerous, yet they continue anyway.

From Wikipedia: Mad Scientist:
...Mad scientists also, whilst definitely being intelligent, if not necessarily brilliant, usually fail to think things through to their conclusion...

Some excerpts from the LSAG summary report:

"Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays. Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.

If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth."

... So just what do they think stable, neutral black holes, which remain on Earth, might do next?

If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak

This is rather theoretical example, because most of black holes observed so far are charged, fast rotating blasars. If black hole would have charge, we evaporate faster - please note, that CERN "security analysis" just bypasses this option quietly. BTW By existing theories, all strangelets should be of negative charge, too.

http://public.web...-en.html

This is rather theoretical example, because most of black holes observed so far are charged, fast rotating blasars.

It's not so "theoretical" as you sugggest. Cosmic black holes are not themselves charged (or expected to be charged).

Blazar magnetic fields are generated by infalling mass. Our galactic black hole, for instance, is not a blazar as it's in a quiet period (no detecable infalling mass).

But at the moment, when some matter falls into BH, the resulting magnetic field could drag additional matter into it. And neutron stars are magnetic even without falling matter.

http://www.scienc...3033.htm
http://www.univer...-matter/

http://www.ur.umi...14.shtml

http://www.jhu.ed...les.html

Yes Yes .. black holes.. even the scientists working there have admitted its a possibility -- so they went ahead and decided to figure out just how big a black hole produced by the LHC would be ...

WHAT they found out about Black Holes ...

A) they would be microscopic
B) If .. IF they lasted more that a sec and were stable -- they would accelerate through the earth and out the other side... At most they might grab one -- thats right ONE atom of iron in the core as they travel through the densest part of the planet, other than the extremist's head --

C) they have a chance of interacting with matter along the lines of a nuetrino -- which last I heard after ten years of trying to set up perfect conditions to find a nuetrino we still can't say for sure that we have seen one.

GW - yeah its probably happening
Black holes - yeah, but its easier to get struck by lightning
Aliens - thousands of people have seen these, there are millions of pages of documented reports

I think the one clear truth to be gathered, is "We Don't Know".
The way politics are going in the world I think it is fair to say we stand a better chance of dieing in a Nuclear Holocaust.
I don't know about you but I would like to know how the Universe began. I also would rather Die being speggitified and sucked into a black hole, then incinerated in a nuke or being one of the sorry bastards left to die of radiation.
Chances are better that absolutely nothing happens then a black hole.
I did get a chuckle out of "Before the LHC experiment, no particle accelerator had exceeded 0.98 TeV. One TeV is the equivalent to the energy of motion achieved by a flying mosquito."
Something counter intuitive about the energy of 7-14 flying mosquito's ending the world.

Something counter intuitive about the energy of 7-14 flying mosquito's ending the world.

LHC jets contain ~3000 bunches of 10E+11 "mosquitos" each with peak luminosity of 10E+34 "mosquitos"/cm2sec. Does it make more sense for you?

IF they lasted more that a sec and were stable -- they would accelerate through the earth and out the other side...

How would they do that? Have you invented a propulsionless form of acceleration?

hey have a chance of interacting with matter along the lines of a nuetrino -- which last I heard after ten years of trying to set up perfect conditions to find a nuetrino we still can't say for sure that we have seen one.

Suggestion: Perhaps you should read more about physics before commenting.

yeah its probably happening
Black holes - yeah, but its easier to get struck by lightning
Aliens - thousands of people have seen these, there are millions of pages of documented reports

Ah, all is clear to me now.

I think the one clear truth to be gathered, is "We Don't Know".
The way politics are going in the world I think it is fair to say we stand a better chance of dieing in a Nuclear Holocaust.
I don't know about you but I would like to know how the Universe began. I also would rather Die being speggitified and sucked into a black hole, then incinerated in a nuke or being one of the sorry bastards left to die of radiation.

Personally, I'd rather live.

Something counter intuitive about the energy of 7-14 flying mosquito's ending the world.

LHC jets contain ~3000 bunches of 10E+11 "mosquitos" each with peak luminosity of 10E+34 "mosquitos"/cm2sec. Does it make more sense for you?

Seneca,

LOL, I about fell out of my chair!

But at the moment, when some matter falls into BH, the resulting magnetic field could drag additional matter into it. And neutron stars are magnetic even without falling matter.

What has any of this to do with LHC black hole production?

Wow all the people cracking their knuckles and growing pimples over the LHC like this is the first time science dabbles in potentially dangerous stuff.

It's the way progress is made. Not new, and not going to be the last time. Some risks have to be undertaken. If we were to play 100% safety, we would still be in caves right now.

On the bright side, at least dying "by black hole" would be a quick painless way to go. As addidis also said there ARE worse alternatives.

What has any of this to do with LHC black hole production?

Nothing - but it could have something to do with the speed, in which such black hole could swallow material of Earth, once it appears in it.

If we were to play 100% safety, we would still be in caves right now.

If we were to play 0% safety, everyone has nuclear reactor from graphite bricks built in his garage already, as E. Fermi has proved already in 1941, this arrangement works and it doesn't explode...

..like this is the first time science dabbles in potentially dangerous stuff...

The question is, why nobody is allowed to experiment with viruses on public, after then? IMO it's all just about question of acceptable ratio of contribution and risk for publicity. What we know, the benefit of LHC research for publicity is zero - so far no particle created in accelerators has some practical usage. It's all just about salaries of small group of scientists involved.

the benefit of LHC research for publicity is zero

That's ok. Maybe you're striving for publicity - scientists better care for results which help to further our knowledge.

Nothing you commenton has anything to do with your control over what will take place, if this happens or that. All that really nmatters is what you do have control over - yourself and your immediate present. Live in the moment, cherish what you have and laern to harness your own time with timescapes. Only then will you have any control over what is said or done in this world.
talk, talk, talk. It's a waste of 'time' - our most valuable commodity and with variable 'comments', our most wasted byproduct

...maybe you're striving for publicity - scientists better care for results which help to further our knowledge...

I'm completely anonymous and I'm not even the single person, which is objecting LHC research. Whereas scientists are taking money for LHC experiment. But I've no problem with usually well deserved salary of scientists - my problem is the lack of balanced approach to LHC safety on side of CERN community.

My problem simply is, these scientists are openly trying to prove theories, which are predicting stable black holes and strangelets just by attempting to create stable black holes and strangelets at LHC. If they wouldn't succeede with this at LHC, they would ask for money for better accelerator, until they create some. This community simply has no risk limit built in.

Am I the only person, who is concerned with such approach?

Am I the only person, who is concerned with such approach?

Yes, you are.

Coincidence? I have the strange feeling that the LHC is going to start colliding at top energy very close to 12/21/2012, right after a shutdown. hmmm, nahh.

@broglia

What we know, the benefit of LHC research for publicity is zero - so far no particle created in accelerators has some practical usage.

The blind approach of scientists is just one of manifestations of supersymmetry in human society. The usefulness of apish inquisitiveness for human civilization has its apparent limits here - at the certain point it could become dangerous for people.

It took almost 125 years from the documentation of electricity to its wide spread use from a utility company.

It took 150 years from the discovery of radioactive decay to the Atomic bomb, and nuclear reactor

The steam engine was experimented on in 1 AD -- redesigned in 1600's and the started the industrial revolution in 1700's.

It takes time to adapt pure science real world problems. We will not know what the knowledge is useful for, for probably another 50 years.

We will not know what the knowledge is useful for, for probably another 50 years.

Yes, I can agree with it, too. If it's so, why not to simply invest into another, more repayable research during this time? All contemporary theories could be confirmed after fifty years in much more easier, cheaper and safer way with future state of technology expected.

It's a simple decision strategy known from Civilization game: you can invest into expensive research of various tools while your culture is still in stone-axe age - but such research would be just a useless waste or your resources, after then.

The problem of relative advantage in collider research is, it's a product of arm race from the last century, being separated from actual needs of civilization in the same way, like managed flights to Moon, for example.

The world is full of interesting, unknown-yet things anyway - why not to spend all available resources in research of reverse side of Pluto planet, for example? Or we could organize journey into Earth core, instead. Why just some strangelets are so interesting for civilization right now? I really cannot understand the fascination of society by these things - especially when it's apparent, we can expect only problems from such research by now.

Broglia,

The most pressing problem our societies face are resources and living space. If we do not have a steady, stable supply of resources, wars and atrocities will result as the rich nations demand the bounties to which they are accustomed. This has been the unaltered rule of civilization from the beginning.

Not only is space technology vital for the future of mankind, it is important for the near term stability of human civilization as our global commodity system reaches its maxima and can no longer support growing GDPs.

Mars, Mercury, and the asteroids probably contain more precious raw materials than have ever been mined on the Earth. Not only are there no environmental considerations to worry about, but they are virgin deposits completely untouched by anyone.

Only by reaching those untapped resources will we avoid a global resource war in the mid 21st century.

I don't understand, how LHC research could save our resources, the resources of niobium or helium in particular...

Try to imagine, what would happen, if scientists would be more successful at the case of nuclear research, for example. The Nazis could get nuclear weapon even during WWW II! In this way, modern people are balancing above abyss of their own knowledge, being limited by their moral and social ability to handle such knowledge.

There is a natural "balancing mechanism" which slows down scientific advance, basicaly limiting our scientific knowledge relatively to our wisdom.

The effects of this particular mechanism can be observed at all times in the history of mankind.

For example: In ancient times, you would get stoned to death just for saying that the Earth is not flat.

In medieval times, you would be burned just for mentioning that Earth could be older than ~1500 years.

Nowadays, you get spit on and no one takes you serriously when not going with "the stream". Or you meet with alot of "resistance", when trying to do something revolutionary.

The doomsayers are part of it too.

... you meet with alot of "resistance", when trying to do something revolutionary...The doomsayers are part of it to..

Interesting thing is, doomsayers (like me) doesn't dispute with mainstream theories. Instead of it, they're taking them quite seriously. There is a huge list of peer-reviewed publications, which predict formation of strangelets or micro-black holes, stabilized by supersymmetry or extradimensions or dijet suppression, etc...

On the contrary, it's just the mainstream scientists, who are trying to ignore their own publications. This leads to quite crazy situations, like the above mentioned with Lisa Randall, who believes to prove existence of stable micro-black holes at LHC, although she says in the same sentence, she doesn't believe, LHC will produce them.

Has someone explanation for such stance, other then quite pathological desire for success?

There is a natural "balancing mechanism" which slows down scientific advance, basically limiting our scientific knowledge relatively to our wisdom.

It's well known, primates would destroy their life environment fast, if they would become too smart. The high intelligence of people is strange mutation, which can become quite dangerous, if it enables to exploit life environment faster, then it could be regenerated. This is the reason, why most of species remain quite silly for millions of years, albeit they live in highly social environment.

..not only is space technology vital for the future of mankind, it is important for the near term stability of human civilization..

In fact it could be vital for safe arrangement of collider experiments, too. The Earth is simply too small for such experiments. Why do you think, experiments like pure fusion are banned by international treaties like the CTBT? Why do you think, project of SSC was stopped in the USA? It the few billion cost of such project really crucial for country, which spends forty billions in Middle East wars every year? What do you think it could happen, if such technology would escape into extortionate regime like Iran or North Korea?

http://en.wikiped...n_weapon
http://en.wikiped...Collider
http://costofwar.com/

All of these accelerated fears of black holes swallowing up the earth as a result of the LHC's experiments are mired in ignorance. When we describe the black holes created at LHC, we're talking about BH's so tiny that they might only take on a single proton for mass. In fact I'm willing to donate some hydrogen I'm sure is somewhere inside my body, free of charge, so that people will stop trying to hinder science based on their "feelings"

"intelligence of people is strange mutation... most species remain quite silly for millions of years, albeit they live in highly social environment"

The nature of intelligence isn't as well understood as you so enthusiastically purport. We aren't even in the decade that will see a comprehensive model of the human brain, let alone understanding the phenomenon of intelligence as it arises in the universe.

Intelligence is a product of an evolutionary process which builds upon itself and accelerates. To imply that we have any sort of grasp on that process is quite naive, especially while upon the precipice of the dawn of artificial intelligence and the reverse engineering of the human brain. When computers are several orders of magnitude smarter (smarter being a word compressed from many words that describe malleable intelligence), we'll encounter the same obstacles we do now; except the voices of the emotionally charged and fearful, I think, will be more readily ignored.

This leads to quite crazy situations, like the above mentioned with Lisa Randall, who believes to prove existence of stable micro-black holes at LHC, although she says in the same sentence, she doesn't believe, LHC will produce them.

You know, ST is like an equation which has near to infinite solutions. But only ONE solution (at most) coresponds with reality.

You can "tweak" the equation to get a specific result, and then check with reality wether you were right or wrong.

That is basicaly what's happening in the case of various string theorists. They each have their own "tweakings" and all they are looking for is to compare their calculations with reality (experiment/LHC), which could tell them wether they are right or wrong.

The point here being, that there is ALOT of room for speculation on the ST playground, but only 1 real solution - if any at all.

... computers are several orders of magnitude smarter..., we'll encounter the same obstacles we do now; except the voices of the emotionally charged and fearful, I think, will be more readily ignored.

Such computers would stop LHC experiments already, despite the various emotionally charged fearful calls referencing to "natural" human inquisitiveness, which are affraiding of "lost of progress" in science.

http://news.scien...-01.html

.. there is ALOT of room for speculation on the ST playground, but only 1 real solution - if any at all.

This is not just an isolated prediction of string theory. The phenomena like Yukawa coupling, extradimensions, Higgs boson, virtual quark coat, jet suppression, supersymmetry, strangelets, WIMPs or micro-black holes are all expected at LHC and they all have the very simple common denominator from phenomenological perspective.

Do you know, which one is it?

A Critical Review of Safety Papers Concerning Black Holes at the LHC

http://www.risk-e...fety.pdf

All of these accelerated fears of black holes swallowing up the earth as a result of the LHC's experiments are mired in ignorance. When we describe the black holes created at LHC, we're talking about BH's so tiny that they might only take on a single proton for mass. In fact I'm willing to donate some hydrogen I'm sure is somewhere inside my body, free of charge, so that people will stop trying to hinder science based on their "feelings"

Yoda: "Size matters not."

It's all about the energy density within the earth, driving the black hole's growth rate. "Exponential" ...comes to mind.

Bswitz,

It seems you think all LHC opponents are "emotionally charged and fearful," whereas LHC proponents are reasoned and courageous. Perhaps there's plenty to go around from both camps?

Do you have any idea how hard it was to convince the LSAG committee that cosmic ray collisions and LHC collisions are not the same relative to the earth? It took years!

LHC proponents still regularly use the, "Cosmic rays happen all the time so it's safe." argument, even though it's been thrown into serious doubt by the LSAG committee themselves (I'd say, it's falsified).

To use an invalid hypothesis to support a personal belief is the epitome of dogma.

Today nobody would allow you to organize nuclear experiments or to build nuclear reactors at stadions in the same way, like L. Slotin or E. Fermi did in 1941. The physical laws didn't change during this time - what changed was the level of our knowledge about risks of these experiments.

In 1999, physicists said no particle accelerator for the foreseeable future would have the power to create a black hole. But theoretical work published in 2001 showed that if hidden extra dimensions in space-time did exist, the LHC might create black holes after all. Thereafter, the argument for safety was changed. In 2003, it said that any black holes created would instantly evaporate. But when subsequent theoretical work suggested otherwise, the argument changed again. In 2008, CERN issued a report arguing a safety case based, ultimately, on astrophysical arguments and observations of eight white dwarf stars. These flip-flops on safety might cause to find current assurances less persuasive.

These flip-flops on safety might cause to find current assurances less persuasive.

Your flip-flopping on different theories ad libitum certainly causes your claim not at all persuasive.

But I'm just demonstrating, the results of various theories are consistent regarding the elevated risk of black holes.

If two or more theories are supporting the same hypothesis, should it be considered as a confirmation of such hypothesis?

Or the fact, we are using a different theories during such reasoning should decrease a trustfullness of such hypothesis?

We are apparently dealing with duality of insintric and exsintric perspectives, which are predicting exactly the opposite results.

Now you can decide freely, which logic is correct by your opinion...

But I'm just demonstrating, the results of various theories are consistent regarding the elevated risk of black holes.

If two or more theories are supporting the same hypothesis, should it be considered as a confirmation of such hypothesis?

What you're demonstrating is a selection effect because you are citing only theoretical considerations which suit your preconceived assumptions while neglecting all other considerations.

.. you are citing only theoretical considerations which suit your preconceived assumptions while neglecting all other considerations..

But such argumentation is completely symmetrical to approach of LHC proponents - I'm just demonstrating the risk of LHC experiments. It's not my business to prove opposite here.

In addition, I'm demonstrating, as the understanding of physics deepens, the risk of black hole formation becomes more and more pronounced. There is apparent trend in development of physical models. Now we have explicit computer simulation of stable black hole formation during LHC collisions.

In addition, I'm demonstrating, most of phenomena, which CERN physicists are trying to demonstrate by LHC collisions are connected with formation of dense stable particle clusters (despite physicists are calling them tetraquark, quark-gluon condensate, WIMPs or micro-black holes).

Such arguments have no anti-symmetrical analogy in reasoning of CERN proponents.

If two or more theories are supporting the same hypothesis, should it be considered as a confirmation of such hypothesis?

But the point here being, that those "two or more" theories are mutually INCOMPATIBLE in many aspects. Which means, that if ONE of them is correct, the others probably ARE NOT - at least in most cases.

You are welcome to pull your own conclusions out of it.. :)

.."two or more" theories are mutually INCOMPATIBLE in many aspects. Which means, that if ONE of them is correct, the others probably ARE NOT...

Actually, if two or more theories would lead to same results in all aspects, we could replace them by single theory.

For example, relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics regarding cosmological constant or vacuum (energy) density in many orders of magnitude. Are you implying, if relativity is correct, then the quantum mechanics is probably not, at least in most cases...?

..You are welcome to pull your own conclusions out of it...

When logic is correct, but the assumptions not, then the result still may not remain correct at all...

When logic is correct, but the assumptions not, then the result still may not remain correct at all...

No. The conclusion "IF a THEN b" always has the value TRUE for value(a) = FALSE.

...that if ONE of them is correct, the others probably ARE NOT...

The assumption quoted is incorrect. Observational perspective of quantum mechanics is different (in fact nearly dual) then the observational perspective of relativity. In such way both theories can be still correct, albeit they give different results, because you're switching observational perspective (given by postulate set) during this.

For example, if one of observers observes the some house from inside, whereas the other one just from outside, then the predictions of both observers could differ, although both predictions will be correct in context of their individual theories. Occasionally both observers could predict the same result, when they're describing a window, for example.

Therefore the correct condition should be:

"if ONE of theories is correct and observation perspective of it will be equivalent to the perspective of other theories, then the others theories definitelly ARE NOT correct".

The world is full of interesting, unknown-yet things anyway - why not to spend all available resources in research of reverse side of Pluto planet, for example? Or we could organize journey into Earth core, instead. Why just some strangelets are so interesting for civilization right now? I really cannot understand the fascination of society by these things - especially when it's apparent, we can expect only problems from such research by now.

Pluto is not a planet, it is a giant ball of ice.

Haiti one month ago, 5 days ago Chile, 48 hours ago Taiwan it has been registered earthquakes in ARGENTINA , ECUADOR AND PERU , COINCIDENCE OR NON LHC RESTART THEIR COLLSION ACTIVITY IN JANUARY, ARE THESE UNUSUAL ACTIVITY RELATED WITH LHC..? World Academic Authorities, Governors citizens of the world, the relatives of more than 200 thousand earthquakes victims Should be Interrogate LHC STAFF researchers about the real related possibility between these facts . I AM SURE that Themselves Could NOT Discard This Possibility. we are allowing THAT crazy scientists destroy OUR planet . WHAT are WE DOING TO avoid it . NOTHING

registered earthquakes in ARGENTINA , ECUADOR AND PERU , COINCIDENCE OR NON LHC RESTART THEIR COLLSION ACTIVITY IN JANUARY, ARE THESE UNUSUAL ACTIVITY RELATED WITH LHC..?

If black holes from the LHC were causing earthquakes, it would be far too late to worry about interrogating LHC staff (why waste the little time you would have left doing that?).

How would a black hole resulting from the collision of two protons act differently than a single particle with the charge of two protons and the mass of less than 15000 of them? (the event horizon would be about the same size as the radius of a proton, I think)

How would a black hole resulting from the collision of two protons act differently than a single particle with the charge of two protons and the mass of less than 15000 of them? (the event horizon would be about the same size as the radius of a proton, I think)

Black holes may not exhibit charge. Besides, your argument ignores particle/wave duality.

black holes may not exhibit charge.

Most of black hole exhibit strong magnetic field. Even strangelets are expected to be negatively charged.

Most of black hole exhibit strong magnetic field. Even strangelets are expected to be negatively charged.

What are you talking about? No known black hole exhibits charge. You're probably thinking about the ionization of the infalling matter and the subsequent, externally created magnetic field.

Black holes may not exhibit charge. Besides, your argument ignores particle/wave duality.

If a black hole is produced via the collision of two protons, and it absorbs all the collision products, the black hole must be charged since charge is conserved.

The wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its momentum. Since to about 0.1% the beam energies, and thus the momentum of each proton, are equal, the momentum of a black hole of the type given above would be relatively low, of order a few hundred MeV. So, while the wavelength associated with the black hole would be at least 1/15000th that of a proton moving at the same velocity, it would be about the same or larger than that of (either of) the incoming protons.

the black hole must be charged

A definition of black hole. No known effect can transmit from inside a black hole event horizon to affect material outside the event horizon. Ergo, charge count (interacts by electromagnetic force) inside the black hole can have no effect on materieal outside it.

lomed : you say "If black holes from the LHC were causing earthquakes, it would be far too late to worry about interrogating LHC staff (why waste the little time you would have left doing that?). Did you read the morning paper headline news ?
Earthquake shakes eastern Turkey; 17 dead - Sunday, March 7, 2010 . physicists will have to revise their theories , it is obvious that the local magnetic field that produces LHC collisIons REBOUNDS IN THE WHOLE earth magnetic field generating expansion contraction strong forces , please its elementary physics, HAITI , CHILE , TAIWAN, ECUADOR ARGENTINA TODAY TURQUEY . tomorrow MR lomed Be probably the geographic area where you live, but dont worried , be happy.

Earthquake shakes eastern Turkey; 17 dead - Sunday, March 7, 2010

"Magnetic field" of collisions cannot affect the Earth core stability at all, nevertheless such collisions could release strangelets, i.e. metastable invisible particles, which could react with Earth matter in explosive way at large distance from place of collision.

http://www.telegr...rth.html
http://www.bwana....kes-hit/

thanks a lot for your information , I am a pathologyst engaged in cancer research , physics is universal was happen at microscopic level in terms of collision event could have macroscopic representation , we document how millions of molecular collisions at molecular level in chaotic system like is cancer generated geometric tringular chiral complexes , please read our two articles published in plosone" geometric tringular chiral like crystals complexes in pathological tissues . biological collison order" WE CAN PREDICT THAT LHC COLLSIONS WILL GENERATE PROYECTIVE GEOMETRY , IT IS WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED IN CANCER TISSUES , this proyective geometry will be the template to matrix plasma transformation , in this process contraction and expasion forces will be generate . read our article

No known effect can transmit from inside a black hole event horizon to affect material outside the event horizon.

If by transmit you mean radiate (gravitational or electromagnetic radiation), then you are correct. However, all the usual conservation laws remain in effect for black holes: charge, angular momentum, and energy are all conserved. Therefore, black holes can have an electric charge, angular momentum (if they have both of these things, they will have a magnetic field). Since static fields and (pseudo)scalar quantities do not propagate, black holes can produce electric and magnetic fields (as well as effects due spin).

If by transmit you mean radiate (gravitational or electromagnetic radiation), then you are correct. However, all the usual conservation laws remain in effect for black holes: charge, angular momentum, and energy are all conserved. Therefore, black holes can have an electric charge, angular momentum (if they have both of these things, they will have a magnetic field). Since static fields and (pseudo)scalar quantities do not propagate, black holes can produce electric and magnetic fields (as well as effects due spin).

Put simply: Angular momentum and gravity are classical (GR) concepts which are conserved in classical black holes. Electromagnetic properties are quantum effects and therefore are not necessarily conserved in classical black holes. Quantum gravity, and therefore quantum mechanical black holes, are merely conjectured. So far, every test of gravity confirms the classical theory and not the various quantum theories.

Angular momentum and gravity are classical (GR) concepts which are conserved in classical black holes. Electromagnetic properties are quantum effects and therefore are not necessarily conserved in classical black holes.

Angular momentum is also a quantum concept (there is just the addition of spin). Conservation of charge applies in both classical (non-special relativity based) quantum theory and general relativity. However, I admit there is some violation conservation of charge at some level, otherwise we wouldn't be here (and CP symmetry has been observed to be broken in some particle interactions).

Angular momentum is also a quantum concept (there is just the addition of spin). Conservation of charge applies in both classical (non-special relativity based) quantum theory and general relativity. However, I admit there is some violation conservation of charge at some level, otherwise we wouldn't be here (and CP symmetry has been observed to be broken in some particle interactions).

Sure, if you want to be all technical about it. But essentially, you're just reiterating what I said.