Einstein equations indicate possibility of black hole formation at the LHC

..but no one had done the calculation before...

"Einstein equations indicate possibility of black hole formation at the LHC"

There is NO new evidence that significant BH formation can occur

Another misleading physorg title!!!

Another misleading physorg title!!!

agreed. Same old news, only good for getting particle physicists (you must be based on your comments:) like seneca riled up.

Especially at the moment, when CERN scientists are waiting for their salary. What all these poor people would do?

They're probably posters on blogs about Aether.

..but anyone in pure science knows they will never be rich..

..There will not be any blackholes, there is no danger. enough already..

Talking about the formation of miniature blackholes, well we already knew what was coming.

.Can anyone explain what is it with the formation of blackholes due to existence of other dimensions..

If you place a ten billions dollars at a single place of human civilization, Schwarzschild criterion will be reached and a strange things would happen - the people would behave like black hole, separated from neighboring reality.

.. you are just trying to get a rise out of us.

.. That was funny..

Why tiny black hole doesn't evaporate coud be understood in many ways. For example free neutrons are unstable and they "evaporate" into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. But inside of atom nuclei, the same neutrons are surprisingly stable. The same mechanism could apply at the sub-nuclear scale - it's a result of strong space-time curvature around black hole, which is behaving like tiny mercury droplet. Inside of such droplet a surface-tension pressure exist, not just hydrostatic pressure. The high surface-tension pressure stabilizes unstable particles there in similar way, like hydrostatic pressure at the core of much larger neutron stars.

I doubt anybody who works at the LHC would take my comments seriously from apparent reasons.

My point is that you think these experiments will DESTROY the WORLD!

.It seems you lack conviction of your beliefs...

If they didn't make a black hole in the last collision, they might in the next one, right?

..why the heck do you care that a bunch of foreign countries and the US got together a bunch of money...

..So you don't think black holes or strangelets or monopoles will be created? ..

Oh, so now you're retreating?

..do you genuinely feel you are qualified you question the LHC's safety..

Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference http://tinyurl.com/ya4zmm6

Duh, we know they are going to occur. Do the fuc#$ing math!!

Those 2 claims have nothing to do with our discussion

But does it mean really something relevant about subject

If you are right, I promise, I will buy you a beer in Hell when the earth is devoured by a black hole.

..do you genuinely feel you are qualified you question the LHC's safety..

Of course.

Every little child can see, every publicly available security analysis of CERN simply ignores the extradimensions in stability calculations of black holes. It simply ignores the interaction of resulting black holes with neighboring matter by electromagnetic field. So far all CERN security analysis consider, black hole simply evaporate fast (although virtually every theory tested at LHC considers the opposite!), or they would react so slowly with matter of Earth, we can ignore them "safely"...

While real security analysis should consider the worst possible combination of factors, predicted by various theories - or not?

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.

Look, I presented my set of criterions, under which we could continue in LHC experiments. If you're not determined fanatic, you should demonstrate your conditions, which would convince you to interrupt these experiments.

..the vast majority of people who've spent their lives in this field agree that the risk is vanishingly small, and are very excited at the new observations these experiments permit...

..The list goes on and on. Experimenting with new things has always been fraught with huge risks. But the rewards are almost always as great...

..we would still be in caves eating dead raw carcasses and wild vegs..

Suck it up. If we create a stable black hole, I'm walking up to the sucker and jumping in head first reveling in the fact that my species created a singularity with a couple of generators and some over complicated sewer pipe. This forum is filled with a bunch of liberal life extensionist freaks that think they are going to live forever. Personally, If I'm going down, I'd prefer it be by black hole then quivering under the sheets at 80 melting away from malignant tumors.

Be a respectable part of society and at least have the NUTS to do what it is humans do. EXPLORE, CONQUER, and ruthlessly DOMINATE our domains. Now get out of the way of people much smarter then you'll ever be, and let them do their freaking job you bunch of google.com degree holders.

It is exactly for the extension and improvement of mankind. We do not know the fundamental structure of the universe, and for the same reasons we went forward with the Manhatten project, for the same reasons we experimented with X-rays that killed hundreds, and for the same reasons our great explorers sat out across seas and continents for new discovery we must as well be bold and discover our "undiscovered country." There is always danger, but no great thing was ever accomplished without sweat, pain, and hardwork.

Further more, if you even had a 200 level physics class you would know that these blackholes are unsustainable. Thats the bottom line. You can't squeeze 15,000,000*K into a space 10^10 or greater smaller then a plank length and expect it to magically stay there. That is absolutely ludicris.

On Hawking Radiation: It doesn't matter what sort of asinine theory you come up with that permits the LHC to create micro-black holes. (And I know some physicists who would put string theory in that category.) Hawking Radiation is one of those weird properties of QM. "Empty" space is full of a foam of pairs of particles that come into existence and cancel each other out before they can be observed. But when one particle of a pair falls into a black hole, it appears as if the anti-particle radiates away from the black hole.

The universe's grand bookkeeper sends the bill for the energy represented by the Hawking Radiation to the black hole, and it quickly runs out of mass/energy.

So it doesn't matter how the micro-black hole is created, or what it looks like inside. If you put the entire LHC, and all the land surrounded by it into a micro-black hole, Hawking Radiation would still destroy it instantly.

There was a first person who dared to play with fire and learned how to create and control it, who dared to tame wild animals, who dared to brave the vast unknown of the ocean in the first built ships, who dared to take to the air, who dared to open the hidden laws of nature to give us the power of the sun, for good or evil....more ways to die, make war, but brought discoveries that open up and changed the world forever.

I am with thetruechaos!

Seriously, I bet many of us in physorg will rather prefer to go poof with a black hole than having to bear with one more comment from Seneca (and a few others)!

..but anyone in pure science knows they will never be rich..

There are many factors, for which CERN physicists are lowing their detectors like members of family. It isn't just about money. Anyway, their behavior is out of public control already. These people lack self-preservation instincts in similar way, like many sectarians. No evidence or theory would convince them about LHC disaster, until it really happens.

http://www.nature...482a.pdf

..There will not be any blackholes, there is no danger. enough already..

As we can see, no theory, no calculation could convince these people, their work is dangerous - they're all just waiting for their big crush. A version of Stockholm syndrome, maybe. These people are all psychos.

So many people are so afraid of advancing our scientific knowledge. It is really a shame.

Experts back in the day said the Titanic was unsinkable. My god, is this proof experts can be wrong?

We wasted twenty years in cold fusion research, fifteen years in antigravity research and ten years in room Tc superconductivity research.

We do not know the fundamental structure of the universe, . . .

Further more, if you even had a 200 level physics class you would "know" that these blackholes are unsustainable. Thats the bottom line. You can't squeeze 15,000,000*K into a space 10^10 or greater smaller then a plank length and expect it to magically stay there. That is absolutely ludicris.

..We are smashing particles to confirm these theories.

..a neutral black hole formed by the LHC would have the rest mass of 2 protons at most..

The people generally believe, the more scientific research, the better. We can never get enough of science. Uhm, well...

The first casualty will be mathematics. It was fun though - while it lasted.

...a neutral black hole formed by the LHC would have the rest mass of 2 protons at most...

The first casualty will be mathematics.

If you wont seriously consider all possibilities then you aren't sufficiently scientifically minded either. Science become's stale due to Ignorance of this type.

The mindset promoted by the faithful in this thread.
Superiority complex is considered an illness/imbalance to many (me).

..who insult thousands of international scientists as "criminals"...

You don't see the faith of the doomsayers in their obscure thinking.

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

OK, what will happen, for example, if some speckle of dust or rust falls into...

these things simply have too small of a cross-section to effectively even interact with regular matter on anything other than huge timescales

My conviction is, if we would behave in completely open and responsible way (i.e. without any apparent lies toward publicity), then the Nature cannot harm us in any way.

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass.

We can expect, when some black hole would be created at LHC, the further process will be pretty fast

..you are basically taking an unrelated result.. and apply it to something different..

it may last a billionth of a second instead of 30 billionths of a second.

Next you presume it will immediately somehow interact with something that could 'charge' it as well. Problem is, it would start off neutral.

..From where does this energy and additional mass come from? ..

There's a running trend with you LHC opponents, lots of big words, no math, no scientific reasoning or logical proofs for your stances

The running trend of LHC proponents goes as follows: Nope, no black hole can be formed in LHC. Even if such black holes will be formed by pure accident, they would evaporate fast. Even if such black holes wouldn't evaporate fast, they would interact so slowly with Earth, they're effectively harmless(?!?). Even if they would interact fast...

They wouldn't interact fast. Being neutral they would be more elusive than a neutrino..

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

Woops right, a brain fart there. But this doesn't really diminish my point. Even if you imagine a total of 14 TeV going into making this black hole that isn't a lot of energy. It'd be smaller than the planck length so I guess you could be generous and say somehow it will be that big or even slightly bigger. It is still a far far far cry away from being the 'size' of even a proton.

Even if you follow this highly unlikely scenario, we're talking a few grams likely (and certainly no more than a kg). Even if you suppose the entire kg got converted to energy somehow and turned into a black hole, it'd be smaller than a proton still by many orders of magnitude. Simply put, these things simply have too small of a cross-section to effectively even interact with regular matter on anything other than huge timescales!

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass.

From where does this energy and additional mass come from? You do understand the conservation principles don't you?

What, you didn't know? It's simple E=m/c^2. The mass/energy is from the kinetic energy of the collision, plus the rest mass/energy of the protons.

Physics - where Mathematics takes on new meaning. :)

That won't stop them from acting like they know it

Whereas from article above it's evident, no one computed the collisions simulation until now.

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

Woops right, a brain fart there. But this doesn't really diminish my point. Even if you imagine a total of 14 TeV going into making this black hole that isn't a lot of energy. It'd be smaller than the planck length so I guess you could be generous and say somehow it will be that big or even slightly bigger. It is still a far far far cry away from being the 'size' of even a proton.

This isn't necessarily true either. As thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, we're all of a sudden talking about multiples of your 14TeV!

What, you didn't know? It's simple E=m/c^2. The mass/energy is from the kinetic energy of the collision, plus the rest mass/energy of the protons.

7 TeV plus the mass of two protons is not anywhere remotely close to ten times more mass let alone tens of thousands of times the mass.

I'd suggest it is you who does not understand relativity as you seamlessly switch back and forth between special and general while confusing terms from both.

To address the thing about charged black holes, that is easy enough to rule out by the fact the solar system is still here. If charged mini-black holes were likely at all to be produced they would interact very strongly with a body. Since cosmic rays routinely trump our highest energy experiments and have been for billions of years, if one were to be formed it would experience a strong braking force from magnetic fields and other interactions with charged particles and ultimately interact with whatever body it happened to be on. It's the same reason why any other charged particle loses so much energy by the time it reaches ground level compared to at the top of the atmosphere. That only leaves the neutral ones and once again, being neutral and very vanishingly small their cross-section will make neutrinos look easy.

Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?

Plus, you do know that thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, right?

Oh, you mean like Stephen Hawking did?

Supposing you're representative of the scientists working on this project, is there any remaining doubt as to why we shouldn't trust you?

.No, the models and calculations have been run again and again since before we commisioned the RHIC as that was the first collider that we had any form of uncertainty in regards to odd particle and BH production.

Couple with that the fact that vaccuum energy would prevent collective charge on an unltradense body, that's if a blackhole can even have an imbalanced charge. The physics do not support charged blackholes, merely axial charges which are only manifest with accretion due to ultradensity.

it's your turn - if you believe, Mr. Choptuik is lying and someone else has done the computer simulations of black hole formation at LHC before

So, you're essentially saying that any mass accrual sets up a magnetic field that strongly attracts more mass, that increases the magnetic field that even more strongly attracts more mass...

a detrator... took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC

..GO READ THE PAPERS YOU THINK SUPPORT YOUR ERRONEOUS STANCE..

Do you know what mass a particle containing 7 TeV would have? Here's the math since you're too simple to do it. 7 TeV / c^2. Go ahead and calculate that in atomic units and tell me how massive it is.

You do realize that the vast majority of collisions in all colliders are single nucleus collisions right?

And you don't understand what Hawking was calculating.

If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.

No, I'm saying that the only time magnetic charge is manifest is by detecting the magnetic field stripping of accreting matter. The BH remains neutral at all times due to vaccuum flux.

What are your credentials, this is introductory education.

This is a complete BS, no RHIC datasets were used in these simulations. The Choptuik's article even doesn't contain "RHIC" word, you naive liar... :-)

Ah, but this is the first time we've been talking about mutually attractive, condensed matter. It's a whole 'nuther thing.

Ah, but isn't this magnetic field surrounding the "neutral" micro black hole attracted to say, iron? Isn't the earth's core largely comprised of iron?

If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.

Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.

Says the twit who couldn't recognize fibrous rock and couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!

One poster, 2 accounts, same viewpoint, same inability to read.

Which completely invalidates your zero inertial reference frame foolishness that is the basic underlying statement of why LHC collisions are special according to your argument.

Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the field is generated by said core?

..And you're done.

Says the twit who couldn't recognize fibrous rock and couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!

Comming from the twit who assumed that the same "fiberouos" piece of sandstone on Mars was a petrified tree.

You've been called out and established as a troll and looking at the general lack of comments from other posters, I can only assume that they've given up attempting to redress your foolishness, Alizee/Slotin/ubavontuba/Alexa.

So let's go back to your initial assertion and see if you can exemplify your point.

Where does the above researcher state that Black Hole formation will be catastrophic? As his initial assertion is that we'll never see black holes at the LHC even if they can be formed, where is he stating that they'll interact with ANYTHING? This is especially damning to your train of contrary references as in order for us to be unable to detect it it would have to interact with NOTHING.

As you two gents are entirely unable to comprehend a simple statement, like "Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the [Earth's] field is generated by said core?" I don't expect much in response.

The only one who ever suggested micro black holes have an iron core is, you!

As such, I'm entirely done debating established physics with two (one) laymen who have nothing better to do than attempt to halt the scientific progress of the species with doom and gloom predictions akin to the "Mayan Apocalypse".

If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.

Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.

Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?

It's simple E=m/c^2.

That's not what he says, he says it would be difficult to detect. Of significance, it wouldn't have much time in the detector.

@Thrasymachus: no he can't, he isn't smart enough and he has to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

Since the mass of our black hole is so exceedingly small, it would also have to have an exceedingly small charge

Even small charge will accelerate the interaction of black hole with neighboring matter in many orders of magnitude, because electromagnetic force is 10E+41 stronger, then the gravity. The accretion of matter is the source of additional magnetic field, which is independent to actual charge of black hole and it acts to distance.

..10^41 multiplied by virtually nothing is still virtually nothing..

..10^41 multiplied by virtually nothing is still virtually nothing..

Even (charge of) single proton or electron can act to surprisingly large distance - remember the famous Millikan's experiment with oil droplets. The actual size of electron or proton plays no role in such experiments - it's all about scope of electrostatic force.

and the fact that the BH wouldn't last long enough to interact with anything even if it had a charge

I really like this kind of rhetorics where one is shooting his own foot:

If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.

Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.

And this one, teaching us a new definition of "order of magnitude":

Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?

And this one which I'd assume to be simply a typo if it came from a different user:

It's simple E=m/c^2.

That's not what he says, he says it would be difficult to detect. Of significance, it wouldn't have much time in the detector.

You remember your basic physics rules, right? An object at inertial rest will remain at inertial rest unless acted upon by a force.

If it is "hard to detect" and we can only detect it via force or energy interaction, what's going to remove it from the detector, Timmy?

7,000,000,000,000 eV / 89875517873681764 m/s^2

7.7 * 10^-5 ev/c^2

1 amu equals 931.494028 x10^6 eV/c^2

So now that I've done ALL the math for you. How much will that BH weigh at creation assuming zero energy loss? 2.00000000000000000000000000000000032 amu.

I hope you learned something, Moron. Just because it "sounds" like a lot doesn't mean it is a lot.

Uba, there's this thing called the conservation of mass/energy. We wind these protons up until they reach a collision energy of 14 TeV. This energy includes the relativistic masses of the protons because collision energy is calculated from momentum, which is velocity times Lorentz-corrected mass. 14 TeV of energy is equal to 24.957 x 10^-24 kg, which would create a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of about 3.7 x 10^-56 meters. A proton has a radius of about 0.8 x 10^-15 meters. Somehow, I doubt something that big will get sucked down a hole that small.

You did notice that Skeptic_Heretic didn't catch any of that, didn't you?

This is becoming mass hysteria.

It is the year 1912, April 14th. We are discussing about mans greatest feat - the Titanic.

You are comparing the common lying of the advertising business to the scientific quest for cognition. I'm a bit astonished you don't see how inadequate this comparison is.

Perhaps you've never heard of the particle/wave duality concept? You do know it's possible to remove mass/energy from an ocean wave with a Dixie cup, don't you? Now imagine that Dixie cup doubling in size with every dip. Now consider: How many dips until it empties the whole ocean?

This just proves that math, without understanding, is less than useless.

Now imagine that Dixie cup doubling in size with every dip. Now consider: How many dips until it empties the whole ocean?

Uh, ever hear of this new-fangled force exerted by the earth, called gravity?

Then when the Earth and the rest of the Universe at large hasn't vanished up it's own bottom and life continues as normal - Maybe then - all the crack pots, looney bins, rabble rousers, rioters and panic insighters and ignoramouses can come back and write a public globally accessible appology.

If there was a real fear and absolute proof of black holes being a problem, do you really think the scientists would be anywhere near this machine or advocating its importance?.

It's in a vacuum. No growth. End of discussion.

any black hole created by the LHC will be too small to capture any subatomic particle, including photons.

Further, the maximum charge on a black hole with an event horizon is constrained by the mass and angular momentum of that black hole. Basically, the charge squared plus the square of the angular momentum divided by the mass of the black hole must be less than the square of the mass of the black hole. Since the mass of our black hole is so exceedingly small, it would also have to have an exceedingly small charge. There's virtually no danger of interacting with other matter.
Btw, you can do all these calculations yourself, with readily available information.

.There is literally no danger from a black hole that small, even if it didn't evaporate into nothing due to Hawking radiation, which it assuredly would...

. That's to say, I don't think a black hole can be charged.

and no, they don't know exactly what they'll get. That's why it's an experiment

Yeah, you're an expert alright.

..Cast dispersions on your opponent's age..

You can't swallow part of a proton, because even the quarks which make it up are bigger than the event horizon of this hypothetical black hole. Wave/particle duality doesn't make it easier for the black hole to swallow particles, it makes it harder, because the Compton wavelengths of the elementary particles is far larger than the event horizon of the particles. Further, energy/mass can only be extracted from a wave/particle in quanta whose minimum level is determined by Planck length/time. Even the smallest possible quantum of energy/matter is far too large to be absorbed by such a small event horizon.

To take your Dixie cup analogy, the cup is floating on the same surface the wave travels upon. In order for it to take any mass/energy from the wave, the wave has to have a high enough amplitude with a short enough wavelength to "crest" the cup, it's speed always being a constant "c." No such wave is possible because there's a limit to how much you can shorten the wavelength, and at that limit there is no amplitude high enough to cause such a cresting.

And regarding further forces the black hole might generate beyond the gravitational and electric force, one must remember that all black holes have only three properties, mass, electric charge and angular momentum. Magnetism, as a force, is caused by angular or accelerated motion of electric charges. But both its charge and its angular momentum are limited by its mass, and since its mass is so tiny, any magnetic field it emits will likewise be tiny. Charged black holes created by cosmic ray collisions would have vastly stronger magnetic fields due to their vastly higher kinetic energy, so once again, as we're all still here, it's not a problem

If there was a real fear and absolute proof of black holes being a problem, do you really think the scientists would be anywhere near this machine or advocating its importance? A lot of homework was done prior to building the LHC, and more to follow. Why are some of you so afraid of a hypothetical, microscopic black hole that hasn't the power to sustain itself let alone destroy the planet?

If they'd come across any valid evidence that their machine had a high risk of spitting out our apocalypse, it would be switched off right away. However much you think these people are, as seneca would say, "criminals" there is no way any one of them would inflict doomsday just to see a few nifty collisions. This is becoming mass hysteria.

You did notice that Skeptic_Heretic didn't catch any of that, didn't you?

It's not his job to educate you. But it's your job to publish an erratum as soon as you notice an error of yours.
Your writing simply is not consistent. It is confused instead. And sometimes I've the impression you try to confuse people. Which, of course, is of no avail on PhysOrg.

Uh, ever hear of this new-fangled force exerted by the earth, called gravity?

Ah yes, your greatest display of lack of understanding. Since you're using the above article as your new guide, since your prior guides don't support your hypothesis when you actually read them, we'll go directly by that.

Since you're talking gravity that means the BH should be quite observable, but your reference above says they won't be observable. So which is it?

As a secondary, that BH can't travel fast enough under the influence of gravity to cause problems for the Earth, especially when the electromagnetic forces of matter will repel any "charged" BH and inertia still exists. Back to basics kid.

Are you too dense to read, seneca? Any black hole created by the LHC will be too small to capture any subatomic particle, including photons. Its size also limits the electric charge it can carry, and its angular momentum, thereby limiting the magnetic field it can project, making any interaction with surrounding matter extraordinarily weak. There is literally no danger from a black hole that small, even if it didn't evaporate into nothing due to Hawking radiation, which it assuredly would.

..This is becoming mass hysteria...

Neutral charge is a kind of charge.

Every black hole that's been (indirectly) astronomically observed has a powerful magnetic field because they are all several times more massive than our own sun. Their mass allows them to have a big charge and a lot of angular momentum, which generates the magnetic field.

Their magnetic fields are externally generated by infalling mass/plasma.

Oh, and ubu, you can think those metrics are a conceptual error all you like. That just makes you unscientific and more than a little loony. They are the valid solutions to Einstein's field equations for singularities with event horizons. Black holes must have the ability to have some sort of charge because they can consume charged matter, and the law of conservation of charges requires it.

Yeah, you're an expert alright. Let me know when you've actually got some of your own work in this area published, rather than relying on hacks or blatantly misinterpreting real scientific speculation. You don't even know the basic field equations for black holes. Oh, and close the door on your way out, the last guy left it open and a couple of trolls found their way in.

Actually, uba, it is the event horizon that matters, even though it's not physical, because that's the boundary beyond which light cannot return. At these small masses, it doesn't matter whether the dixie cup floats or is an embedded drain. It's "hole" or event horizon is smaller than the particles of fluid that's doing the waving, or smallest possible unit of length.

You said it yourself, available energy. Energy is only available in packets called quanta. The smallest possible quanta of energy that could potentially be absorbed is far to large to be absorbed by an event horizon that small.

And the magnetic fields they generate are not entirely due to infalling mass/plasma. Magnetic fields are generated by spinning charges. Charged black holes that spin have magnetic fields. You really ought to read up on black hole physics before you start worrying about the properties of hypothetical man-made ones.

Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature.

The smallest possible quanta of energy that could potentially be absorbed is far to large to be absorbed by an event horizon that small.

Does this quanta of energy have a spatial size? How does it fail to fit within the event horizon? Explain this to me.

[/blockquote]

If you wouldn't too dense to read previous discussion together with sources linked, you would know about it already, because I'm just repeating by now. You apparently have no idea, what happens during LHC collisions, if you even cannot distinguish photon from proton.

Why the biggest liars are often most loud in accusation of other people from lying? Answer is easy, psychopaths have no control over their vision of reality - they're living in their virtual world. Such people kill the other people from fear, they will be killed too.

You're psychopath & compulsive liar, face it. I recognized it immediately, when I read this sentence. It's virtually impossible to discuss with such people, because they've have absolutely no problem in fabrication of reality, which suits their need.

Anyway, what I did was, I searched the preprint for "RHIC" word and I found none. I'm perfectly sure about it.

Try to imagine, what would convince you about LHC risk, which is indeed speculative. You would rather accept a bullet in your head then to admit the opposite stance.Psychopathic religious people like you are completely useless for Socratic discussion - they have no backup plan for acceptation of new reality, when arguments will change it.

the LHC experiments will be finished, Earth will still be there - unharmed

The scientists will build another, larger collider and whole situation will just repeat, until Earth will not be really destroyed.

So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)

That is really so nice of you.. But unfortunately, the stone age (where this kind of a stance belongs) is long long due. No offence to the stone people, of course.. ;-)

Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!

It is all about the convenience to wash away any questions on safety concerns about producing black holes

My prediction: No world-destroying black hole. If I'm wrong, you can gloat.

So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)

No. We're saying: Move research that could conceivably destroy the earth, off world.

Too bad we'll need the information from the LHC to gain that sort of technological insight.

the LHC should be kept to low levels

all black holes are the remnants of Earth like planets which had evolved to the point of building machines which created small black holes

Since I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels

I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels

So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)

No. We're saying: Move research that could conceivably destroy the earth, off world.

After the LHC that's the next reasonable step, however if the experiemnts are as catastrophic as you suggest creating a blackhole in our upper orbit would only serve to delay the death of the planet by maybe a few minutes. Again, that's only if you're correct. Even doing this out by pluto or the oort cloud would have the same result. There's no safety to be had by doing this anywhere else unless we're capable of leaving the solar system.

Too bad we'll need the information from the LHC to gain that sort of technological insight.

My understanding is that Einstein's theory only supports LHC black hole formation if string theory's extra dimensions actually exist. Since I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels.

The arguments regarding cosmic rays is actually quite a convincing reason to believe this won't actually be a problem. While it is true that there are differences between the collisions in this experiment and those of cosmic rays, over billions of years there would be enough collisions to replicate the conditions necessary to create these mini black holes.

Is this not an experiment to directly detect a black hole? !

Frankly, guys, I needn't to read all your BS, as I'm expert in this area and I've dozen of publications about it collected already. I've counterargument to every claim of yours. For every claim about LHC safety I can demonstrate the number of CERN experiments planned, which are trying to prove exactly the opposite.
You apparently missed whole scientific program of this research. It's purpose isn't really to prove, black hole cannot be formed during LHC collisions. It's purpose isn't really to prove, such objects should evaporate ASAP

A lot of science has a "Best Use By" date. Perhaps some of you should be more aware of that.

Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.
Hope this comment is immune to staff administration "off topic" interpretation as well.

Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.

No wonder the admins reject most of your posts, you obviously have no clue what you're doing.

Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.
Hope this comment is immune to staff administration "off topic" interpretation as well.

I'd assert that Mathmematics is not a science in its form but rather a tool of science and a logical framework, ie: a yard stick by which to judge observation.

All you aether theorists getting your panties in a bunch because all of science looks at you as though you're the Christian dark ages of physics.

..Gauss who declared mathematics to be the queen of science (and number theory to be the queen of mathematics).

You're just trying to fuel this hysteria - but for what purpose?

No mysterious forces or phenomena would stop LHC collider - only the predictions of theories and precautionary principle can do that.

You cannot compete with LHC-deniers

"Move LHC off Earth" is not accepted as an answer to this question.

All you aether theorists getting your panties in a bunch because all of science looks at you as though you're the Christian dark ages of physics.

Come up with anything of merit that is experimentally observable and perhaps we'll start listening.

Says the "scientist" who couldn't do more than add 1+1 in collider physics.

Supposing you're an example of a "real" scientist, is there any wonder we don't trust scientists?

They're almost continuously running collisions at CERN, I think we'd know by now if a black hole would eat the earth.

They're almost continuously running collisions at CERN, I think we'd know by now if a black hole would eat the earth.

...I just want to see the light at the end of LHC tunnel. Is my stance so absurd and illogical?

...I just want to see the light at the end of LHC tunnel. Is my stance so absurd and illogical?

Yes, absurd, AND illogical. The LHC tunnel is round, and therefore has no end.

Typical sign of physical trolls is the claiming something, which has no support in mathematical models and/or even contradicts them - the formation of stable black hole during collisions is the example of physical trollism of CERN proponents.

CERN proponents are claiming instead, LHC is safe, because tiny black holes should evaporate by Hawking radiation. Of course, the absence of Hawking radiation makes whole model a lottery about destiny of Earth.

We shouldn't experiment with it, until we don't know, how these black hole will interact with material of Earth. I presume, Choptuik's simulation could be easily adopted to such purpose, but we need another, more detailed simulations and more advanced models for comparison.

If one is going to throw in unproven theories

"Unproven theories" is a misconception as it implies "proven theories".

Whereas by Popper's methodology no theory can be proven definitely, so that "unproven theory" is fundamental concept there...

No. There is no symmetrie of certainty.
"Unproven" is not a fundamental scientific term as it is deduced from "proven" which is not a scientific term.

And of course the sun does not shine at night. The "shining sun" is not a statement about the sun but a statement about one's visual perception.

..I just thought it was the earth, turning away!

..I just thought it was the earth, turning away!

This is just an unproven theory of yours - you never were on the opposite side of Earth to verify it. But if you would, you would have nothing to test there - in this way, whole our reality is deeply tautological. We are believing in things, which we can be never sure and we can't even test it reliably, being individual. The behavior of sun could be tested only if we consider whole civilization covering Earth as a single observer - in this way the behavior of sun remains just an intersubjectivelly accepted truth.

Well, it could be a sort of fluorescence, or something similar...

And it really does, as it's visible as a Moon's daylight. As you can see, my "theory" is working properly.

http://farm4.stat...4d74.jpg

In fact, just a quite rare event, like Moon eclipse could falsify my naive interpretation.

I can watch live daylight broadcasts from Japan when situated in the US

and no, they don't know exactly what they'll get. That's why it's an experiment

There are dozens of theories, predicting formation of stable black holes in LHC, which are supported by previous experiments at RHIC & Tevatron. CERN physicist know wery well, what they should expect, because black hole formation was observed already.

http://adsabs.har......6193B

Frankly, guys, I needn't to read all your BS, as I'm expert in this area and I've dozen of publications about it collected already. I've counterargument to every claim of yours. For every claim about LHC safety I can demonstrate the number of CERN experiments planned, which are trying to prove exactly the opposite.
You apparently missed whole scientific program of this research. It's purpose isn't really to prove, black hole cannot be formed during LHC collisions. It's purpose isn't really to prove, such objects should evaporate ASAP

The usage of remote observation could become a claptrap for every theory because of violation of locality - expanding Universe will change during this. For example, physicists are believing, the gravitational lensing is a relativistic effect. But they never visited center of gravity lens with clock to make sure, space-time is curved there and lensing really occurs there at the same moment.

If they would, they would probably see, no lensing can be observed from inside of gravity lens, so it has nothing with relativity.

The situation of cosmic rays, which are moving toward Earth in high speed is really different from situation of protons, which are colliding in head-to-head arrangement. In such speed and energy density the non locality of cosmic rays may play a quite significant role as a factor of LHC safety

And that's all folks.
Seneca just owned you:)

seneca is a serial plagiarizer

And that's all folks.

just owned you:)

..it also would have been advantageous for you at least to say that you weren't the author of the information, you were just copy and pasting it..

.. most of the time you just talk to yourself on your blog

Are you really comparing AWH to the heliocentric model?

If you would read the rules of forum policy, you would read there, the posting of links to nonreferenced sources of information like private webs and blogs is prohibited.

It depends, how to define the pseudoscience.

Strong quake hits northwest China - something strange happens there..

But LHC still probably isn't the source of these problems. What is more interesting is, the Solar minimum caused the cooling of atmosphere, but the temperature of ocean is still raising. It looks like something is heating it from bottom up.

http://www.skepti...tent.gif

Some people are saying, frequency of earthquakes increases, some others not. But it seems, quakes are now more randomly widespread over Earth surface, i.e. in areas, which were occupied by dense populations of people for many years without deeper problems. Like if they would be triggered by some random process in all directions.

http://www.washin...570.html

If math doesn't explain the system, then we don't know enough about the system.

If math doesn't explain the system, then we don't know enough about the system.
This is just the positivist view.

your insertion that a computer somehow makes the math funny and not real is wholly stupid

The formal math faces analogous problem in geometry, for example during proof of so-called Kepler's conjecture. It's the problem of most compact arrangement of few spheres, again.

http://en.wikiped...njecture

Whereas everybody could see, such requirement leads to hexagonal arrangement of face-centered cubic lattice, the formal proof of such simple geometry is suprisingly complex and it has a computer assisted solution only. The even more surprising is, such complexity manifests just in 3D space in analogous way, like the famous Poincare conjecture. Certain miraculous complexity in interaction of just 3D spheres exist here.

Formal math cannot solve even most of trivial problems of hydrodynamics, which are solved by using of computers routinely.

You're confusing formal and numeric models. Formal model provides system of equations, which may be solved numerically. Numeric models are merely a simulation. For example, you can solve three-body or fluid motion problem with using of computer without having any formal representation of it. In most cases, such formal representation even doesn't exist. You needn't to know, how to derive or integrate, how to solve systems of equations, because these equations doesn't exist at all.

..if you think you can model a liquid without a formula you're engaging in pseudoscience ..

How do f'ing computers work?

Could you solve it by using of formal math?

LOL. You apparently don't know, what the formal math is - which explains all the previous nonsensical discussions of yours.

FORMAL math finds a FORMAL solution in form of general formula, i.e. the equation or function with parameters, so it can be written on paper. It doesn't adds anything, zero and ones the less.

Do you understand the difference between formal and numeric solution? If you're claiming, it's the same, then I'm expert in formal math without problem, because I can just a write a computer programs.

I'm pretty sure, most of programmers have no idea, what the derivation or integration of real functions means (not saying about higher algebra like tensors), while still performing various particle collision simulations in their games routinely.