Why the LHC (Still) won’t destroy the Earth
August 29, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
Concerns about a 'big science machine' destroying the Earth have been around since the steam engine. The LHC is the latest target for such conspiracy theories. Credit: CERN.
Surprisingly, rumors still persist in some corners of the Internet that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is going to destroy the Earth even though nearly three years have passed since it was first turned on. This may be because it is yet to be ramped up to full power in 2014 although it seems more likely that this is just a case of moving the goal posts, since the same doomsayers were initially adamant that the Earth would be destroyed the moment the LHC was switched on, in September 2008.
The story goes that the very high energy collisions engineered by the LHC could jam colliding particles together with such force that their mass would be compressed into a volume less than the Schwarzschild radius required for that mass. In other words, a microscopic black hole would form and then grow in size as it sucked in more matter, until it eventually consumed the Earth.
Heres a brief run-through of why this cant happen.
1. Microscopic black holes are implausible.
While a teaspoon of neutron star material might weigh several million tons, if you extract a teaspoon of neutron star material from a neutron star it will immediately blow out into the volume you might expect several million tons of mass to usually occupy.
Notwithstanding you cant physically extract a teaspoon of black hole material from a black hole if you could, it is reasonable to expect that it would also instantly expand. You cant maintain these extreme matter densities outside of a region of extreme gravitational compression that is created by the proper mass of a stellar-scale object.
The hypothetical physics that might allow for the creation of microscopic black holes (large extra dimensions) proposes that gravity gains more force in sub-Planck scale dimensions. There is no hard evidence to support this theory indeed there is a growing level of disconfirming evidence arising from various sources, including the LHC.
High energy particle collisions involve converting momentum energy into heat energy, as well as overcoming the electromagnetic repulsion that normally prevents charged particles from colliding. But the heat energy produced quickly dissipates and the collided particles fragment into sub-atomic shrapnel, rather than fusing together. Particle colliders attempt to mimic conditions similar to the Big Bang, not the insides of massive stars.
2. A hypothetical microscopic black hole couldnt devour the Earth anyway.
Although whatever goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole is a bit mysterious and unknowable physics still operates in a conventional fashion outside. The gravitational influence exerted by the mass of a black hole falls away by the inverse square of the distance from it, just like it does for any other celestial body.
The gravitational influence exerted by a microscopic black hole composed of, lets say 1000 hyper-compressed protons, would be laughably small from a distance of more than its Schwarzschild radius (maybe 10-18 metres). And it would be unable to consume more matter unless it could overcome the forces that hold other matter together remembering that in quantum physics, gravity is the weakest force.
Its been calculated that if the Earth had the density of solid iron, a hypothetical microscopic black hole in linear motion would be unlikely to encounter an atomic nucleus more than once every 200 kilometres and if it did, it would encounter a nucleus that would be at least 1,000 times larger in diameter.
So the black hole couldnt hope to swallow the whole nucleus in one go and, at best, it might chomp a bit off the nucleus in passing somehow overcoming the strong nuclear force in so doing. The microscopic black hole might have 100 such encounters before its momentum carried it all the way through the Earth and out the other side, at which point it would probably still be a good order of magnitude smaller in size than an uncompressed proton.
And that still leaves the key issue of charge out of the picture. If you could jam multiple positively-charged protons together into such a tiny volume, the resultant object should explode, since the electromagnetic force far outweighs the gravitational force at this scale. You might get around this if an exactly equivalent number of electrons were also added in, but this requires appealing to an implausible level of fine-tuning.
3. What the doomsayers say
When challenged with the standard argument that higher-than-LHC energy collisions occur naturally and frequently as cosmic ray particles collide with Earths upper atmosphere, LHC conspiracy theorists refer to the high school physics lesson that two cars colliding head-on is a more energetic event than one car colliding with a brick wall. This is true, to the extent that the two car collision has twice the kinetic energy as the one car collision. However, cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere have been measured as having 50 times the energy that will ever be generated by LHC collisions.
In response to the argument that a microscopic black hole would pass through the Earth before it could achieve any appreciable mass gain, LHC conspiracy theorists propose that an LHC collision would bring the combined particles to a dead stop and they would then fall passively towards the centre of the Earth with insufficient momentum to carry them out the other side.
This is also implausible. The transverse momentum imparted to LHC collision fragments after a head-on collision of two particles travelling at around 300,000 kilometres a second should easily give them an escape velocity from the Earth (being just 11.2 kilometres a second, at sea-level).
More information: CERN The safety of the LHC.
Source: Universe Today
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Water flow question
2 hours ago
-
[Drift velocity] Factors affecting velocity
5 hours ago
-
does cold gasoline have less energy
6 hours ago
-
distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
8 hours ago
-
The Global Positioning System !
9 hours ago
-
A Question relating Power
10 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (22) |
50
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Manufacturing genes to attack flu virus
An international research team has manufactured a new protein that can combat deadly flu epidemics.
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (11)
I am a known LHC defender, but this statement is just lazy. Someone has to have done the actual math to come up with an actual figure so they dont just have to say "should easily". Very POOR reporting.
I want to report this article as violating Physorg's comments guidelines. Due to poor reporting, this is little more then troll bait.
When taking on the conspiracy theorists (the stated goal of this article) you cant leave silly loose ends like that.
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (17)
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
There would not be a universe to observe if this were the case.
See, no need to resort to transverse momentum equations, or probability. We have a universe to observe, our planet and solar system exist, therefor baby black holes either require energy in excess of the strongest cosmic rays, or they are not meta-stable.
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
Aug 29, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
What mechanism make it to do so?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Empty space isn't empty. It is filled with the QCD vacuum. Virtual particles and anti-particles pop in and out of existence continuously, usually annihilating each other. Under certain circumstances a virtual particle can be separated from it's partner and come into existence. This requires energy.
Near the schwarzschild radius of a black hole, one virtual particle can fall in while the other travels away from the hole. The energy to create this particle comes from the black hole, reducing it's mass. A microscopic black hole would evaporate very quickly into particles and anti-particles.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (16)
http://blogs.disc...-theory/
Now, we can just ask, what the physicists are afraid of, if they're spreading such transparent lies...?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (16)
http://www.univer...-matter/
Again, we can just ask, what the physicists are afraid of, if they're spreading such lies...?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
The relevant safety analysis was simply never done and we can just ask, which person from CERN is responsible for it?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (13)
Hawking radiation.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Recent simulations are indicating, the black holes may not evaporate so fast. After all, Hawking radiation was never observed in the same way, like the black hole itself.
http://news.scien...-01.html
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Or you have just solved what all the 'dark matter' is (just kidding)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (9)
Such a good rant going, and then you fail so hard here. Density does not matter, all that matters is whether or not a collision occurs. If a collision occurs, it will occur with 50 times the energy capable in the LHC. PERIOD. Density has NOTHING to do with it besides probability of a collision, but oh, wait, evidence of actual atmospheric cosmic ray collisions:
http://www.srl.ca...cyc.html
Thats the beauty of this argument - I get to fully accept every one of your premises about how dangerous and likely it is that LHC will create mini black holes, and then say "wait, why arent there a gazillion meta-stable mini black holes zipping around the galaxy?"
At the very least we should be witnessing the destruction of a great many stars and praying we dont get hit next.
Cosmic rays plus anthropic principle win.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
You're either throwing troll bait into this section of comments, or you're an idiot. Either way, stop posting rubbish and wait until you actually have some grasp on the physics taking place here.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Perhaps because he rated you? Don't sweat it. The rating system is useless.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Oops, sorry DavidMcC that was my fault. Your post was mixed in with all his junk, is there a way to correct it?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
I would bet not, so I gave him 5 stars just to be kindly.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I would also add:
They should just rephrase this as "black holes are impossible". I assume we aren't in agreement on this, but I have no fear of the LHC destroying the planet.
Even at a 1000-to-1 mass differential, I'd expect the 300KKms initial velocity to fall off rather quickly with each collision. But wouldn't an LHC-created microscopic black hole carry a positive charge derived from its original nucleons, which could imply possibly far fewer collisions?
In the end, I'll admit I was just a tiny bit pleased to see this phrase: "...whatever goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole is a bit mysterious and unknowable...", but it hardly makes up for the rest.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Which is definitely more difficult inside of Earth stratosphere with density less than 1 g/cubic meter - than inside of Earth core with density of 13.0 tons/ cubic meter. I presume, I'm talking with people, who heard of physics at least once during their short life.
Perhaps not, it's quite easy to find your upvoters and downvoters here.
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
Why they should notice it, if such black hole would escape from collider?
Aug 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Blackhole creation at LHC is possible. Reconfiguration required, though. Collision must be singular. Particle formation this reconfiguration stops. Reverse entropy and convert energy into pure singularity.
A lesson this is from a mind incomplete. Junk this article is, truth addressed is not. LHC cannot produce blackhole for reason other. Design of collider this reason be.
Supernova-Stars collide protons with spherical force. Does not so the LHC.
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
In fact, there is just no mechanism to keep it in one, solid piece.
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Why the hell are you talking like yoda?
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Ok, Yoda...
Aug 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Black hole size of dust.
Virtual particles like the grass.
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I know one thing... I wish we could even 10% of the energy the sun produces. Every second, it spits out more energy than all the electricity we've ever used (not counting what the Atlanteans may have used).
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You really, really, really should be grateful that we can't do that. The earth would be an instant fireball.
Wikipedia/google are your friends.
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
you offered no proof of the atlanteans either, but according to legends, they derived energy from the"darkside", what ever that may have been. If their technology destroyed then, it didproduce a black hole. the plain old earth ocean did. according to legend.
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
this is enough to lose sleep over, and has bothered me since I was a child and the theory of relativity was explained to me by my father, who must have had some small understanding of the concept in order to present it to me in a way that i could understand the principal of the theory. please respond as i am forever waiting for some hints to the solution, and hope to start a discussion on this asap.
Sep 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
So why doesn't the photon have mass?
Because it is not a particle, it is a wave (a vortex technically) expressed as a wave function simplistically. Height x Frequency = Energy.
Speedoflightsquared x Mass = Energy. This is: charge doubled (negativeXpositive) interacting to produce mass = Energy. Two positive two negative particles (of varying masses) create hydrogen atom. (2 Up Quarks 1 down quark and 1 electron) = (Hydrogen)
E=fh is derelative to E=mc^2. They are used for different aspects of reality. E=fh is the effect of E=mc^2. Going together gives you nothing. Relative that is.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
This is a mathematical annihilation.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Photons cause decay due to loss in energy (E=hf) and energy equals mass. Losing energy means losing mass. Also decay comes in form of W (positively charged mass) and W- (negatively charged mass) and Z bosons. Light is actually partial cause for mass loss. Charges radiate away their energy.
The gluon is the only energy carrier which doesn't cary energy away. Gluons strongly hold nuclei. The gluon is an inverse energy carrier in the atom. Antiradiative force.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
*The atom has 3 forces only. Outside of the atom the antiradiative force (force of attraction) is gravity.
The graviton is an *atomic virtual boson. It is a force bringer of gravity. Weak strong force (kind of). The force is strongest in the centre of mass. It weakens over distance (inverse square law: further from each other less influence on one another).
*atomic virtual boson as in it exists extra-atomically within the atom the force of attraction is strong but gravitational force is the attraction between masses. It is actually very much like the photon (inversely), both are extra-atomic. Both get absorbed by atoms.
The photon does not exist within an atom. It adds energy to an atom (other words: gets absorbed), and then reemitted. The photon always travels at c.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
A photon takes a long time to pass through a star because it gets absorbed and reemitted by every single atom that stands in its way out of that star sometimes after getting close to exiting the star it gets reflected back the other way, restarting its journey.
The photon doesn't exist in the atom. In the atom the photon increases charge of the atom (total energy, both positive addition to up quarks and negative addition to down quarks and electrons).
The gluon outside of the atom is a graviton (graviton as a quantization of gravitational force).
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Simplistic graphic way of expressing intensity. The higher the wave height graphically the greater the energy level of each quanta of light (photon) and the higher the frequency of repetition (shorter wave length) the higher the energy level of the light beam realistically.
Energy = Planck's constant x Frequency
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif
The ripples of smaller wavelength will disperse in such a way, their wavelength will gradually decrease. But the ripples of longer wavelength will expand instead. It basically means, our Universe appears expanding only because we are observing it in short-wavelength light. If we would observe it in micro-waves, it would appear steady-state with no Hubble red shift. And if we would observe it in radio-waves, we would experience blue-shift instead. These predictions can make the notion of Big Bang virtual and they could be tested rather easily. For example recently it has been observed, that the red-shift effects (SZ and ISW effect) cannot be observed in CMBR.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
and here i thought that water was only 13x's more dense than air ...
sigh ... i guess it has to do with how deep ya go ..
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Sep 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)