Large Hadron Collider gains pace: CERN

Jun 28, 2010
A view of a superconducting solenoid magnet at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva. The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said that the world's biggest atom smasher is swiftly gaining pace as scientists seek to unravel the secrets of the universe.

The world's biggest atom smasher is swiftly gaining pace as scientists seek to unravel the secrets of the universe, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said on Monday.

The has been setting records for the intensity of collisions since scientists started firing beams of the sub-atomic particles at unprecedented energy levels on March 30, spokesman James Gillies said.

"It's about CERN breaking its own records," he told AFP on Monday.

"We had one good run over the weekend when we were getting double the data sets that we had since the beginning," Gillies added.

"You'll keep on hearing this but we've got a long way to go."

The beams thrust around the 27-kilometre (16.8-mile) accelerator collide at nearly the speed of light, creating powerful but microscopic bursts of energy that mimic conditions close to the Big Bang that created the universe.

Scientists around the world are expected to take years to analyse the huge flow of data on a giant computer network, searching for evidence of a theorised missing link called the Higgs Boson, commonly called the "".

The experiment is still in the early stages of an initial 18- to 24-month run of billions of collisions.

Gillies said the "" of the beams -- a measure of their intensity and the frequency of collisions -- had been ramped up to 10 to the power 29, compared with 10 to the power 27 nearly three months ago.

Ten to the power 30 is scheduled for this week with a target of 10 to the power 34.

Scientists carefully examine each increase for safety and the reliability of the accelerator in a ring-shaped tunnel straddling the French-Swiss border near Geneva.

"Every time we increase the luminosity it comes with increased energy," said Gillies.

CERN hailed a new era for science when it began smashing atoms at energy levels of seven trillion (tera) electronvolts (TeV) on March 30.

It is aiming to trigger collisions at twice the , 14 TeV, equivalent to 99.99 percent of the , in the cryogenically-cooled machine after 2011.

At full power, the detectors in cathedral-sized underground chambers should capture some 600 million collisions every second among trillions of protons racing around the collider 11,245 times a second.

Explore further: It's particle-hunting season! NYU scientists launch Higgs Hunters Project

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Pioneering atom smashing bid makes faltering start

Mar 30, 2010

Scientists at the world's largest atom smasher seeking to unravel the secrets of the universe got off to a faltering start on Tuesday, when they failed to collide two high-energy proton beams.

World's most powerful atom smasher restarts: CERN

Feb 28, 2010

Scientists have restarted the world's most powerful atom-smasher overnight, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said Sunday, as they launch a new bid to uncover the secrets of the universe.

Large Hadron Collider sends beams in 2 directions

Nov 23, 2009

(AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher made another leap forward Monday by circulating beams of protons in opposite directions at the same time in the $10 billion machine after more than a year of repairs, ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

21 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 157

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias
5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
Gillies said the "luminosity" of the beams -- a measure of their intensity and the frequency of collisions -- had been ramped up to 10 to the power 29, compared with 10 to the power 27 nearly three months ago.

Ten to the power 30 is scheduled for this week with a target of 10 to the power 34.

This sounds so easily said when in actuality this means an ultimate increase of a factor of ten million! That's a pretty high goal. Interesting stuff.
Drumsk8
5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
If you go to the following website you can watch the machine in action, further details can be obtained by clicking the graphic and then selecting from the top right.

It's been interesting watching the machine in action over the last few weeks.

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2010
"Ancient" USA technology still outperforms the overpriced project of EU. A peak luminosity of LHC 5 x 1029cm-2s-1 is still THREE ORDERS bellow the perfomance of twenty years old Tevatron at Fermilab, which routinely operates at the luminosity 3-4 x 1032cm-2s-1. Illustratively speaking, they're getting the total number of collisions produced at the LHC this year about every couple of minutes. The current luminosity at LHC is almost certainly not enough to find new physics, despite the massive CERN propaganda, the main purpose of which is just to justify jobs for five thousands of physicists involved.
shavera
1.5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
I'll half-support Jigga, and say that it's absolutely true that current colliders can do a lot that LHC can't. RHIC can do polarized beams, and investigate qgp turn-on energies that LHC can't touch.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2010
If you go to the following website you can watch the machine in action, further details can be obtained by clicking the graphic and then selecting from the top right.

It's been interesting watching the machine in action over the last few weeks.

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
Looks like they just had some sort of cryo loss problem in S34. The beams have been dumped and there's a message - something to do with firemen!
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2010
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 (CERN safety committee) 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?
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2010
which remain on Earth,


Assumption dependent on the assumption that the lower speed would be VASTLY lower which is what it would take to be below escape velocity. We are talking about collisions that are taking place at VERY near light speed.

might do next?


Assuming that:

LHC can make mini-black holes in the first place

AND

Assuming that they would be below escape velocity

THEN

They would evaporate through Hawking radiation faster then they could capture more matter.

And that is two assumptions of exceeding low probability.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2010
Assumption dependent on the assumption that the lower speed would be VASTLY lower which is what it would take to be below escape velocity. We are talking about collisions that are taking place at VERY near light speed.
It's not an assumption. Didn't you read my excerpts? It's also physics 101. Just how much momentum do you think remains in a two-body collision, of equal and opposite force?
Assuming that:

LHC can make mini-black holes in the first place
This is the general assumption. Keep up.
AND

Assuming that they would be below escape velocity
See: Physics 101, from above.
THEN

They would evaporate through Hawking radiation faster then they could capture more matter.
A dangerous assumption, indeed. Hawking got it wrong. He failed to account for the GP/Kinetic energy between the infalling particle and the black hole.
And that is two assumptions of exceeding low probability.
Only to people who don't understand basic physics.
mysticshakra
1.6 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2010
Hate to break it ya, but nobody understands basic physics thanks to the dead end of Relativity.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2010
My ethical problem rather is, why qualified physicists are using LHC for testing of such theories, after then?


Because it was being built to test OTHER things and then some people decided that it might cover things that no had thought of yet. The black hole idea is dependent on the universe behaving very differently then is presently expected. In otherwords it is one step away from a wild assed guess.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2010
Just how much momentum do you think remains in a two-body collision, of equal and opposite force?
Just how often do you think there are head on collisions?
This is the general assumption. Keep up
Its a wild assed assumption requiring nano black holes at lower masses than are even remotely likely.
See: Physics 101, from above.
See Statistics 101.
A dangerous assumption, indeed.
IF black holes can exist at those masses AND if there can actually be a perfect head on collision AND something else wouldn't be produced instead.
He failed to account for the GP/Kinetic energy between the infalling particle and the black hole.
I haven't seen that claim and it would not be relevant to mini black holes in any case. Their cross section is too small.
Only to people who don't understand basic physics.
Black holes are not basic physics so I guess you don't know basic physics.

Ethelred
fmfbrestel
4.4 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2010
A dangerous assumption, indeed. Hawking got it wrong. He failed to account for the GP/Kinetic energy between the infalling particle and the black hole.


Oh really? you might want to alert a major peer reviewed journal about that, as I'm sure it would be headline stuff. Glad we have a super-genius willing to post here, who is also too timid share his genius with the world at large. We should all thank him for choosing us to receive his enlightenment.

All kidding aside, I cant believe how many novice physicists on here believe they have out-thought the entire scientific community. Have some humility will ya?
fmfbrestel
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2010
Wow really? I didnt know they started designing the LHC in March 2010! They are really fast builders.
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2010
But what it was designed for is irrelevant, unless you actually believe that those scientists are actually suicidal. Someone show me (and then immediately CERN) the maths which disprove hawking radiation.
fmfbrestel
2.8 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2010
Ok, so cosmic rays striking the atmosphere might create really fast moving black holes. but what about two cosmic rays colliding (nearly) head on? if micro-black holes were stable our universe would not support life.
Parsec
5 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2010
"Ancient" USA technology still outperforms the overpriced project of EU. A peak luminosity of LHC 5 x 1029cm-2s-1 is still THREE ORDERS bellow the perfomance of twenty years old Tevatron at Fermilab, which routinely operates at the luminosity 3-4 x 1032cm-2s-1. Illustratively speaking, they're getting the total number of collisions produced at the LHC this year about every couple of minutes. The current luminosity at LHC is almost certainly not enough to find new physics, despite the massive CERN propaganda, the main purpose of which is just to justify jobs for five thousands of physicists involved.

Luminosity and particle energy are 2 different things. A well thrown baseball has greater luminosity than Fermilab or the LHC. Its individual particle energy (velocity) however is somewhat lacking.
Mr_Man
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2010
@ ubavontuba post:

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


Ugh.. I am tempted to "report abuse" on your post. Paranoid ramblings driven by illogical fear and being uneducated on the topic have no place here.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2010
Just how often do you think there are head on collisions?
All the time. This is the very principle upon how the machine generates the collisions.
Its a wild assed assumption requiring nano black holes at lower masses than are even remotely likely.
Lots of physicists would disagree with you. It's even in the CERN literature. http://cerncourie...rn/29199
See Statistics 101.
Do you even know how many collisions we're talking about here?
IF black holes can exist at those masses AND if there can actually be a perfect head on collision AND something else wouldn't be produced instead.
Read the literature.
I haven't seen that claim and it would not be relevant to mini black holes in any case. Their cross section is too small.
Then Hawking radiation wouldn't work on them in that case, either.
Black holes are not basic physics so I guess you don't know basic physics.
They're just a thing. It's the math that gets complicated.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2010
Oh really? you might want to alert a major peer reviewed journal about that, as I'm sure it would be headline stuff. Glad we have a super-genius willing to post here, who is also too timid share his genius with the world at large. We should all thank him for choosing us to receive his enlightenment.
Lose the attitude. This is a science site. Show a little dignity.
All kidding aside, I cant believe how many novice physicists on here believe they have out-thought the entire scientific community. Have some humility will ya?
What? No science at all? All it would take is for you to find one teensy-weensy Hawking radiation formula showing an accounting for the infalling particle/black hole GP/kinetic energy ...just one.

So, if I'm so wrong, why is it so difficult to prove? It's not like I'm asking you to prove a negative. If it's there, show us. Rub my nose in it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2010
Ugh.. I am tempted to "report abuse" on your post. Paranoid ramblings driven by illogical fear and being uneducated on the topic have no place here.
Did you miss the quotes from the LSAG (Cern safety committee) report? What makes you think it's so safe? What do YOU know about it?

It looks to me like the abuse is coming from folks like you, spreading non-science (read, nonsense).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2010
Ok, so cosmic rays striking the atmosphere might create really fast moving black holes. but what about two cosmic rays colliding (nearly) head on? if micro-black holes were stable our universe would not support life.
There are large regions of space containing a mysterious dark matter (including dark matter halos and even entire dark matter galaxies) where ordinary matter appears to be suppressed. It's sometimes hypothesized that dark matter may consist of stable micro black holes.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2010
wow, you were really on a roll there until you tripped up hard against the anthropic principle. So why again is 70% of the universe stable micro black holes, and yet our back yard is devoid of them?

The single strongest argument against LHC destroying the world: We are here to argue about it. collisions with much greater energies and mass happen Millions of times a day naturally. Simply impossible for our planet/solar system/galaxy to not be completely swimming in black holes.
So either: 1 stable micro black holes ARE created all the time, but are somehow unable to grow. OR
2 Stable micro black holes are impossible to create.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2010
And once again, if it is so darned self evident that LHC is going to destroy the world, why are they doing it? Are they just dumber then you? or do they really want to destroy humanity? Come on, which is it -- are all of these physicists ignorant to this truth of yours, or are they all bent on ending life on earth?

If the maths are there, and hawking radiation doesnt apply to micro black holes. Why are you fear mongering on a site created for laymen? Go file suit against them in france, or is it a global conspiracy to destroy the earth?

Oh, I know maybe they are all fundamentalist Christians trying to bring about the rapture while the jews still control the holy land.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2010
You are the one making bold claims, lay the proof. If you have the goods, ill help you march on Paris to demand it shut down.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2010
wow, you were really on a roll there until you tripped up hard against the anthropic principle. So why again is 70% of the universe stable micro black holes, and yet our back yard is devoid of them?
It looks like you're confusing dark energy with dark matter.
The single strongest argument against LHC destroying the world: We are here to argue about it. collisions with much greater energies and mass happen Millions of times a day naturally. Simply impossible for our planet/solar system/galaxy to not be completely swimming in black holes.
So either: 1 stable micro black holes ARE created all the time, but are somehow unable to grow. OR
2 Stable micro black holes are impossible to create.
If dark matter is largely comprised of micro black holes, conservation of momentum (particularly angular) would keep us safe (generally speaking). Sometimes this appears to fail (hence dark matter galaxies - where not a single star shines).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2010
And once again, if it is so darned self evident that LHC is going to destroy the world, why are they doing it? Are they just dumber then you? or do they really want to destroy humanity? Come on, which is it -- are all of these physicists ignorant to this truth of yours, or are they all bent on ending life on earth?

If the maths are there, and hawking radiation doesnt apply to micro black holes. Why are you fear mongering on a site created for laymen? Go file suit against them in france, or is it a global conspiracy to destroy the earth?

Oh, I know maybe they are all fundamentalist Christians trying to bring about the rapture while the jews still control the holy land.
Again, no science? Didn't you just say this is a science site? Where's your science? Have you no dignity?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2010
You are the one making bold claims, lay the proof. If you have the goods, ill help you march on Paris to demand it shut down.
Now you're asking me to prove a negative.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2010
All the time
Rarely. I can do that too.
This is the very principle upon how the machine generates the collisions
The principle is that it is a collider. Due to the cross section of protons collisions are almost always off axis.
It's even in the CERN literature
Yes. As speculation. Try reading it. Non-Planck scale extra dimensions, brane theory and a need for mini black arising at energies MANY orders of magnitude lower than than any other claim.

You seem to have skipped over the conclusion as well.
It should be stated, in conclusion, that these black holes are not dangerous and do not threaten to swallow up our already much-abused planet
Do you even know how many collisions we're talking about here
Yes
Read the literature
You might try doing that yourself for instance reading the conclusion of the article.
Then Hawking radiation wouldn't work on them in that case, either
Hawking radiation INCREASES as the size of the black hole decreases.

Ethelred
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2010
http://arxiv.org/...49v2.pdf

you want science -- go read the science. Took me about an hour to get through it. You could probably read it faster as some of the maths were complicated for me.
fmfbrestel
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2010
read the paper, its not hard to understand. They dont look at one theory, they lay out every possible evolution of micro black holes (including those which do not exhibit Hawking radiation at all or strongly). Go ahead and prove your not just a troll. Try to actually understand.

You can bring a horse to water...
Jigga
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2010
Actually I'm not required to lay an eggs for being able to recognize the addled one. My high level logics is sufficiently clear a simple for being able to judge all theories, who are predicting the results of LHC and relying on them at the same moment.

The only scenario of micro-black hole evolution computed so far was presented in recent Choptuik's simulation:

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

And its conclusion is clear: colliding particles can make STABLE black holes at LHC conditions. No claimed many order insurance in energy density required for black hole formation actually exists here.

Any other blurbs are irrelevant, until you present another actual numbers, like Mr. Choptuik did. You cannot reverse the results of his simulation by some formal claptrap so easily.
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2010
Actually I'm not required to lay an eggs for being able to recognize the addled one. My high level logics is sufficiently clear a simple for being able to judge all theories, who are predicting the results of LHC and relying on them at the same moment.


Yeah, STABLE black micro black holes are discussed as possibilities in that article i linked. Read it, im not trying to Rick roll ya, just trying to advance the discussion.

But i guess your
high level logics

are sufficiently able to refute something you refuse to understand.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2010
@Ethelred
Rarely. I can do that too.

The principle is that it is a collider. Due to the cross section of protons collisions are almost always off axis.
That's a technicality. The principle is the collisions are designed to interact from opposing momentums (head on). The highest energy collisions are those with the least residual angular momentum (truly, head on).
Yes. As speculation. Try reading it. Non-Planck scale extra dimensions, brane theory and a need for mini black arising at energies MANY orders of magnitude lower than than any other claim.
That was one quicky example. There are thousands more.
You seem to have skipped over the conclusion as well.
Actually, that paper was written before the new science came out that forced the LSAG committee to rewrite the safety analysis (in 2008). That conclusion is similarly in error. I only used it to demonstrate that black holes have long been anticipated (it's not a new suggestion).

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2010
@Ethelred (2 of 2)
Yes
Enlighten us.
You might try doing that yourself for instance reading the conclusion of the article.
You might try keeping up with current information.
Hawking radiation INCREASES as the size of the black hole decreases.
But didn't you just say the cross section is too small for there to be any GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole? How's it fall in then? Are you suggesting both virtual pair particles escape? How's that work?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2010
http://arxiv.org/...49v2.pdf

you want science -- go read the science. Took me about an hour to get through it. You could probably read it faster as some of the maths were complicated for me.
I gave you a five rating on that post for an excellent effort. Unfortunately that paper is so wrong, on so many levels, I couldn't possibly give it a proper critique here.

For starters, it's written to support the LSAG report (essentially says so in heading 1), their black hole's proposed energy/mass is too small, their cross section is too small, they generally demand unverified charge effects, and they wholly ignore the energy density within the earth's core...

(Even the LSAG paper this is written to support reluctantly concedes black holes could be charge neutral.)

In short, this is an attempt to gloss over the LSAG's contentions, and it's cracked even worse than the LSAG report, itself.

Good try though!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2010
read the paper, its not hard to understand. They dont look at one theory, they lay out every possible evolution of micro black holes (including those which do not exhibit Hawking radiation at all or strongly).
That's a false statement.

For instance, they've ignored the hypothesis that a black hole cannot exhibit a charge at all.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2010
On the plus side, I've noticed (when I've looked) CERN's seemingly running the beams at apparently sufficient diparate energies to preclude earth capture of the higher energy collision results. I hope this is intended. It certainly eases my concerns.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2010
Bloody Hell another person that doesn't read his own links. Not exactly a surprise from Alizee the SockPuppet Creator.
And its conclusion is clear: colliding particles can make STABLE black holes at LHC conditions.
Bull. He said no such thing. He said:
Choptuik and Pretorius calculated the gravitational interactions between the colliding particles and found that a black hole does form if the two particles collide with a total energy of about one-third of the Planck energy,
PLANCK ENERGY, even a mere one third, is WAY beyond the LHC's capacity. As the article also said.
The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum.
Do try reading what you post Alizee-Jigaa. Just how many times have you been banned here anyway that you have to keep changing your name?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2010
That's a technicality
Hardly.
Light speed 300,000 K/sec
Escape velocity 11.2 K/sec
A ration of 26,785 to one. A collision could have 99.99% of the maximum energy and still produce escape velocity.
That was one quicky example. There are thousands more.
Yes and I am sure Alizee and others like him wrote at least nine tenths of them.
Actually, that paper was written
Lovely, you are using moving targets. I shoot the target and instead of dealing with it you move it.
Enlighten us.
I already enlightened you on the paper you linked to. You chose to remain in the dark.
You might try keeping up with current information.
You might try reading what you link to.
But didn't you just say the cross section is too small for there to be any GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole?
No. I just pointed out the present theory.
How's it fall in then?
By being very close. As virtual particles they can be arbitrarily close.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2010
Hardly.
Light speed 300,000 K/sec
Escape velocity 11.2 K/sec
A ration of 26,785 to one. A collision could have 99.99% of the maximum energy and still produce escape velocity.
So you're essentially saying that for every 26,785 collisions, we're likely to have one that's captured. So again, please enlighten us. Just how many collisions are we talking about here?
Yes and I am sure Alizee and others like him wrote at least nine tenths of them.
That's not very dignified of you, and it's patently false. I've clearly demonstrated that CERN physicists have been anticipating them (MBH's) for many years. You made an erroneous presumption in thinking that's all there is to it.
I already enlightened you on the paper you linked to. You chose to remain in the dark.
Really? I didn't see where you indicated how many collisions we're talking about. Did I miss it?
You might try reading what you link to.
I did. It suited my purpose (if not yours).

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2010
(2 of 2)
No. I just pointed out the present theory.
It's pretty clear to me that you did say the cross section is too small for there to be any GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole. Backtracking, are we?
By being very close. As virtual particles they can be arbitrarily close.
Close is not quite there yet though, is it? So how's it make it the rest of the way without any GP/KE between the VP and the MBH? Hmm?

Also, I hope you realize the math you used in your first statement is in error. It's not like they're putting arbitrary amounts of energy into the collisions.

Even at lesser enrgies they can be captured. It's a matter of equal and opposite force, not total energy input. Even if they have a high angular momentum, they can be captured (should they from MBH's, they'd just spin like crazy).
Thrasymachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2010
Seriously, this is enough. If you're that worried about the LHC, go chain yourself to doors or something, and stop spamming these comments with whatever pseudoscientific techno-babble you can cobble together.
Jigga
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2010
Choptuik's simulation of stable black hole formation at LHC is a technobable too? Actually, why this simulation wasn't done before planning of LHC experiment?

On 2 February 2000 the European Commission adopted the Communication on the use of the Precautionary Principle. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.

http://ec.europa....7_en.pdf
Thrasymachus
4.9 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2010
Yes Jigga/Alizee, it's technobabble. And what you're doing is spam. It's pointless, nonsensical drivel you use to fill up the comment boards that does nothing other that giving you the satisfaction of seeing your newest pen-name all pixelated on your screen and annoying the crap out of everybody else. You lack the courage of your supposed convictions to do anything worthwhile about it, you lack any acceptable evidence for your convictions, and you lack any sort of understanding of the real meaning of the theories whose vocabulary you hijack and whose math you entirely eschew. I'd feel sorry for you if I didn't want so desperately for you to be hit by a truck.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
Part the first

So you're essentially saying that for every 26,785 collisions, we're likely to have one that's captured.
No. I am saying that for every 26,000 or so possible black holes(not collision) there might be one that doesn't have escape velocity IF all the energy went into the black hole, which would qualify as the ultimate in-elastic collision. If the energy went into more than one object then the black hole could still be at escape velocity.
Just how many collisions are we talking about here?
Most likely none that produce black holes. To have any such collisions requires extra dimensions.
That's not very dignified of you, and it's patently false.
Nonsense. There haven't been thousands of peer reviewed articles about black holes at the LHC.
I've clearly demonstrated that CERN physicists have been anticipating them (MBH's) for many years.
Yes, some, and clearly not thousands of articles. So you are the one that made a false statement.

Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
Two mints
You made an erroneous presumption in thinking that's all there is to it
You made a bogus claim and I called you on it. Thousands, really, what utter nonsense.
I didn't see where you indicated how many collisions we're talking about.
It was in the paper. I take it you have reading difficulties. Please read the paper.
I didn't see where you indicated how many collisions we're talking about. Did I miss it?
Do your own figuring. You are the one making the claim. Play cute with me and you have to do the work. Of course even in the paper its based on brane theory(which is not yet a theory but is a hypothesis) with very unusual choices in the size of extra dimensions. None which have been shown to exist. Nor do dimensions actually require a size in any case. For instance what size is the time dimension? Its just a number.
It suited my purpose (if not yours)
If it suited your purpose why are you ignoring the life span of the black holes in the article?

Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
Three parts was Gaul cut into
Its lifetime is very short (of the order of 10-26s)
Now that suits my purpose.
It's pretty clear to me that you did say the cross section is too small for there to be any GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole.
If you have to put words on the page that are yours alone and claim they are mine you really should just quit.
Backtracking, are we?
You do seem to be all over the place. Perhaps you have gone backward as well. I haven't.
Close is not quite there yet though, is it?
Close enough. That is there.
So how's it make it the rest of the way without any GP/KE between the VP and the MBH? Hmm?
Given that virtual particles pair and can be arbitrarily close AND the can pair can have any arbitrary direction THEN sometimes the direction of the pair will send one particle straight out and the other straight in.

So much for making assumptions that things can only go the way you want them to.

Continued
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
Four thou shallt not count except as to go on to five
Also, I hope you realize the math you used in your first statement is in error.
Really. So why didn't you show the right numbers?
It's not like they're putting arbitrary amounts of energy into the collisions.
Where did I make that claim? Nowhere. So unless can actually show an error, instead of running a bluff like that, you should just start saving space.

I do notice it when someone puts words in my mouth.
Even at lesser enrgies they can be captured.
I assume that you mean that proton anti-proton pairs can collide. Which is obvious. So perhaps you meant something else but just couldn't be bothered to actually say it.

Yet Another Continuation
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
Five is right out, and done
It's a matter of equal and opposite force, not total energy input.
Do try to keep up. I said nothing in that calculation about the energy input. I was referring the momentum of the hypothetical black hole. As in just how exact the head on must be to have such a low residual velocity that the putative black hole would not escape the Earth. As in more than 99.99% of the momentum in the collision would have to be canceled out.

However the article was using a specific total energy so you didn't even get that part right. 14 TEV, the target energy for the LHC was the total energy input. With lower energy the production of collisions with a high enough energy would would be lower. Sufficiently lower and such collisions would never occur. As can be seen or rather black holes are not see, at Fermi Lab.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
No. I am saying that for every 26,000 or so possible black holes(not collision) there might be one that doesn't have escape velocity IF all the energy went into the black hole, which would qualify as the ultimate in-elastic collision. If the energy went into more than one object then the black hole could still be at escape velocity.
"Could still be" isn't exactly reassuring.
Just how many collisions are we talking about here?
Most likely none that produce black holes. To have any such collisions requires extra dimensions.
Why do you keep avoiding the question?
Nonsense. There haven't been thousands of peer reviewed articles about black holes at the LHC.
First you agreed there are thousands of articles (most, you claimed, written by Alizee), now you're trying to limit it to "peer reviewd articless," when my original claim was simply that there are thousands of articles. Why are you squirming?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
You made a bogus claim and I called you on it. Thousands, really, what utter nonsense.
Would you care to make a wager? There literally are thousands of black hole and LHC related articles.
I didn't see where you indicated how many collisions we're talking about.
It was in the paper. I take it you have reading difficulties. Please read the paper.
So if you found an answer, why then are you still avoiding the question?
I didn't see where you indicated how many collisions we're talking about. Did I miss it?
Do your own figuring. You are the one making the claim. Play cute with me and you have to do the work. Of course even in the paper its based on brane theory(which is not yet a theory but is a hypothesis) with very unusual choices in the size of extra dimensions. None which have been shown to exist. Nor do dimensions actually require a size in any case. For instance what size is the time dimension? Its just a number.
This is simply more evasion!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
It suited my purpose (if not yours)

If it suited your purpose why are you ignoring the life span of the black holes in the article?
Because it's irrelevant to my purpose in presenting the article. My purpose was to prevent you from credibly denying that serious researchers have long since proposed black holes will be created in the LHC (mission accomplished).
Three parts was Gaul cut into
Its lifetime is very short (of the order of 10-26s)
Now that suits my purpose.
So using outdated science suits your purpose? Why then don't we just forgo anything written after any arbitrary date? Heck, we can just make it all up as we go along!
It's pretty clear to me that you did say the cross section is too small for there to be any GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole.
If you have to put words on the page that are yours alone and claim they are mine you really should just quit.
They're yours. I only paraphrased, out of convenience.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
Backtracking, are we?
You do seem to be all over the place. Perhaps you have gone backward as well. I haven't.
So you admit I'm right now? Hawking did miss the GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole?
Close enough. That is there.
"Close enough" doesn't exist between black holes and infalling mass. Gravity doesn't stop working at any arbitrarily small distance (as far as is known).
So how's it make it the rest of the way without any GP/KE between the VP and the MBH? Hmm?
Given that virtual particles pair and can be arbitrarily close AND the can pair can have any arbitrary direction THEN sometimes the direction of the pair will send one particle straight out and the other straight in.
Learn some basic physics. Two masses approaching one another must have a kinetic energy value between them.
So much for making assumptions that things can only go the way you want them to.
Obviously, you don't even understand the basics!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
Really. So why didn't you show the right numbers?
The "right numbers" are a matter of contention. It's how you figured it to begin with which is wrong. There is no relationship between lightspeed and capture. Capture is solely based on the residual momentums of the collision results. I.E., 10kph minus 10 kph gives the same result as lightspeed minus lightspeed (zero).
Where did I make that claim? Nowhere. So unless can actually show an error, instead of running a bluff like that, you should just start saving space.

I do notice it when someone puts words in my mouth.
It was implied in your assertion.
I assume that you mean that proton anti-proton pairs can collide. Which is obvious. So perhaps you meant something else but just couldn't be bothered to actually say it.
What are you on about now? They're currently producing positron-positron collisions.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
Do try to keep up. I said nothing in that calculation about the energy input. I was referring the momentum of the hypothetical black hole. As in just how exact the head on must be to have such a low residual velocity that the putative black hole would not escape the Earth. As in more than 99.99% of the momentum in the collision would have to be canceled out.
You really don't get it. In a two-body collision, for the center of mass (CoM) of a collision result to be captured, all that matters is the momentums (relative to the earth) are opposite and equal in the approaching masses. How much energy remains captured in the CoM is another matter. That's to say the CoM will be captured, but the mass might shoot out in the ensuing melee (parton distribution).
BadMan
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
@uba, Even though I would rather not have your doomsday rantings constsntly showing up on physorg, I can understand where you are coming up with your basis for your rantings. By NO means am I trying to support you in any way, but I will make one and only one thing some have overlooked, and at the same time make a rebuttle in my next paragraph.

Ethelred, although I will give you more credit than uba, there is one thing that you are assuming to be true that hasn't been proven except in math. Hawking radiation. I am tired of so many people stating theory as empirical fact to the point I am ad nauseum, as I am with uba's constant doomsday prophecy of the LHC due to the probability that micro black holes could have been formed in the collisions of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and like the muons that are made move close enough to the seppd of light that they should reach the surface of the planet as easily as a micro black hole could.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
However the article was using a specific total energy so you didn't even get that part right. 14 TEV, the target energy for the LHC was the total energy input. With lower energy the production of collisions with a high enough energy would would be lower. Sufficiently lower and such collisions would never occur. As can be seen or rather black holes are not see, at Fermi Lab.
There you go with the old data again.

Fermilab's Tevatron can't approach LHC energies. Regardless, it's arguable that a black hole event (nearly?) already happened at Fermilab.

See: http://news.bbc.c...7613.stm
BadMan
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
Basicly put, If mini black holes could be formed in the LHC, they already have been formed in the upper atmosphere over the billions of years the earth has existed, then there already is micro black holes that are interacting with the earth now, or possibly have just passed through without so much as a wimper. Nothing I have said is news by any means, but has been agreed on by experts on both sides of the debate. Give it up or I will also ask for your account to be banned as well uba.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
@BadMan
Even though I would rather not have your doomsday rantings constsntly showing up on physorg, I can understand where you are coming up with your basis for your rantings. By NO means am I trying to support you in any way, but I will make one and only one thing some have overlooked, and at the same time make a rebuttle in my next paragraph.
I understand. Although I often state there's little danger (if any). My problem is with the physics, as presented.
BadMan
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
And as for the black hole incident you love to refer to once you are cornered, that was proven false and the scientist that propagated the story was dismissed in an unfavorable fashion.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
@BadMan
...due to the probability that micro black holes could have been formed in the collisions of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and like the muons that are made move close enough to the seppd of light that they should reach the surface of the planet as easily as a micro black hole could.

Basicly put, If mini black holes could be formed in the LHC, they already have been formed in the upper atmosphere over the billions of years the earth has existed, then there already is micro black holes that are interacting with the earth now, or possibly have just passed through without so much as a wimper. Nothing I have said is news by any means, but has been agreed on by experts on both sides of the debate. Give it up or I will also ask for your account to be banned as well uba.
For instance your representation of cosmic ray collisions here, somehow being evidence for safety, is wrong. Even the LSAG (CERN safety committee) eventually recognized this fact (in 2008).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
@BadMan
And as for the black hole incident you love to refer to once you are cornered, that was proven false and the scientist that propagated the story was dismissed in an unfavorable fashion.
References?

Regardless, you did notice my use of "(nearly?)," didn't you?
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
.. black hole .. was proven false ..
Oh, come on. LHC is openly expected to produce at least one black hole per second. While physicists are still saying, these black holes will not be sufficiently stable, they're openly planning to test theories just by phenomena, which should stabilize these micro-black holes (Higgs field, supersymmetry, extradimensions).

Actually, the more stable black hole will be formed, the more scientists will be happy from their findings because of evidence of "new physics" - there is an apparent conflict of interest between "science" and the rest of human civilization. Nobody did say, this "new physics" actually violates Hawking radiation theory toward lower values.

Do you want to explain, how Higgs field, supersymmetry and extra-dimensions are all expected to increase the stability of black hole - or do you understand it already?
BadMan
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
References?

You will have them tomorrow.

Regardless, you did notice my use of "(nearly?)," didn't you?

Yes I did, and that is why I did not call you a quack.
I just want the overuse of the doomsday scenario to stop.
Oh, come on. LHC is openly expected to produce at least one black hole per second.

According to string theory, yes, but again string theory is just that, theory, not proven fact.

Do you want to explain, how Higgs field, supersymmetry and extra-dimensions are all expected to increase the stability of black hole - or do you understand it already?

Yes I do understand it and again, theory.
I fully understand that we need theory as a base to start looking for the answers we all want, but to go overboard is as bad as quoting something as fact when it has not been proven. What we all need to do since there is no stoping CERN is to just see what will happen and then people can say "I told you so" since we will have more fact
genastropsychicalst
Jul 03, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2010
@BadMan:
Yes I did, and that is why I did not call you a quack.
I just want the overuse of the doomsday scenario to stop.
I try not to overuse the doomsday scenario. I'm honestly more interested in the physics - particularly in light of the fact that top minds (really, TOP MINDS) got it all so very wrong.

It fascinates me that no one recognizes the fact that Hawking's radiation hypothesis totally missed the boat on the infalling virtual particle's GP/KE with the black hole. This energy, becoming part of the black hole's mass, essentially makes the concept (of Hawking radiation) a conservation violation.

Furthermore, it literally took years of open debate for the LSAG committee (also top minds) to recognize their initial safety argument (based on cosmic ray bombardment) was horribly flawed. They actually tried to justify it in 2008 with an extreme (overly contrived) scenario involving binary, neutron star/white dwarf systems (they identified only 6 in the universe!).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
@BadMan (2 of 2):

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't lump responses to my posts with responses to other posters. People get confused enough around here. I have one screen name. I've used it for years.

Thanks.

ubavontuba
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
Savas Dimopoulous of Stanford and Greg Landsberg of Brown University have drawn a picture in which proton-proton collisions could create black holes with a cross section (likelihood of creation) only about a factor of ten less than for producing top quarks and at a rate of up to one per second

http://prl.aps.or.../e161602
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
Savas Dimopoulous of Stanford and Greg Landsberg of Brown University have drawn a picture in which proton-proton collisions could create black holes with a cross section (likelihood of creation) only about a factor of ten less than for producing top quarks and at a rate of up to one per second
For the SM, for the ADD model, or for what model? If you are advocating ADD (or any other non-standard model) fine. But do you know of any observation confirming your chosen model?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
"Could still be" isn't exactly reassuring.
This black hole stuff is every bit as frightening as when a Creationist tells me I am going to Hell.
Why do you keep avoiding the question?
Why do you keep asking the same question when I answered it the first time.
First you agreed there are thousands of articles
If you count crank stuff I am sure there are thousands. That was my point.
(most, you claimed, written by Alizee)

I said people LIKE Alizee. Perhaps you should just quote me. You seem unable to avoid distortion
Why are you squirming?
It hard to watch someone make as many mistakes as you are doing without feeling sorry for you. Such as constantly rewriting what I say.
Would you care to make a wager?

That line mostly comes from someone that has put their ego ahead of the truth.
There literally are thousands of black hole and LHC related articles.
Yes and there are thousands of articles claiming the Earth is less than 7000 years old.

Continues
Jigga
not rated yet Jul 03, 2010
For the SM, for the ADD model, or for what model?
Actually, many of them
http://arxiv.org/.../0106219
http://arxiv.org/.../0606193
http://arxiv.org/.../0402168
http://cerncourie...rn/29199
http://www.risk-e...risk.pdf
For ADD model, for example:
http://prd.aps.or.../e056010
http://prl.aps.or.../e161602

Such review is very easy to do, don't put such silly questions.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
So if you found an answer, why then are you still avoiding the question?
Because you are too, well lets be kind and call it, inexperienced to just post it like I would have in your position. I said yes. I have been reading about it for a decade.
Because it's irrelevant to my purpose in presenting the article.
Too bad since it is relevant to the discussion.
My purpose was to prevent you from credibly denying that serious researchers have long since proposed black holes will be created in the LHC (mission accomplished).
That was not what the article said. It said MAY be created IF their unusual version of an unproven, unfinished spin-off of another unproven and unfinished hypothesis isn't just the spit-wadding it looked like.
So using outdated science suits your purpose?
It was you that posted it and I haven't seen you show it outdated.
Heck, we can just make it all up as we go along!
You have been making up my position fairly regularly.

Continues
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
They're yours. I only paraphrased, out of convenience.
Yes it was convenient for you to change the meaning. Stick to what I actually said in the future as you don't seem to be able 'paraphrase' without a considerable degree of distortion.
So you admit I'm right now?
You really have a hard time reading without distorting don't you? If I should be convinced that you are right I will state it quite clearly.
Hawking did miss the GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole?
I am still waiting for you to back that up with something besides constant reiteration of the same thing.
"Close enough" doesn't exist between black holes and infalling mass.
Really? So it doesn't matter at all how close things are. I don't think that is in any way a reasonable approximation of reality.
Gravity doesn't stop working at any arbitrarily small distance (as far as is known).
So what is your point? I didn't claim gravity failed so why bring that up?

Yet more coming
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
Obviously, you don't even understand the basics!
You don't understand what arbitrary means do you? It means I can pick ANYWHERE and in ANY DIRECTION. I can do this since we are talking about virtual particles and unless you can show some restraint on where and when they pop up then they can point right at the black hole.
There is no relationship between lightspeed and capture.
There is a relationship between the speed of the colliding particles and the speed of the resulting debris and or black hole.
10kph minus 10 kph gives the same result as lightspeed minus lightspeed (zero).
Only in a perfectly head on collision. A tiny fraction of a percent off and you have momentum left over.
It was implied in your assertion.
It was misinterpreted in your mind. Stick to what I WRITE instead of making feces up and claiming I spewed it.

YMC
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
They're currently producing positron-positron collisions.
]Sorry. Yes they are. I keep forgetting that they aren't using anti-protons. So then, the protons will actually repel each other and make perfect head on collisions even less likely. Sorry I would have pointed that out had I not forgotten. Well there it is now. Collisions of the sort you imagine are even less likely than I was thinking. Thank you.
In a two-body collision, for the center of mass (CoM) of a collision result to be captured, all that matters is the momentums (relative to the earth) are opposite and equal in the approaching masses.
The angle of the collision matters.
That's to say the CoM will be captured, but the mass might shoot out in the ensuing melee (parton distribution).
Which results in particles moving at very high speeds.

Oh Bloody Hell there is more
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
Finished at last. Finished at last. Thank Wikipedia all knowing finished at last.

Fermilab's Tevatron can't approach LHC energies.
No! really! I didn't know that until many years ago! Like maybe a decade ago.

You seemed to have missed my point, again, in your obdurate efforts to think of me as some kind ignorant moron. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely hinted at me not being aware that Fermi Lab has a lower energy level than the LHC.
Regardless, it's arguable that a black hole event (nearly?) already happened at Fermilab.
Interesting, I missed that one. If true then Hawking Radiation has been observed.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
For the SM, for the ADD model, or for what model?
Actually, many of them
...
Such review is very easy to do, don't put such silly questions.
Then why don't you answer valid questions like
do you know of any observation confirming your chosen model?
and
Why do you use multiple accounts?
?
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

http://www.guardi...evidence

..do you know of any observation confirming your chosen model..
Of course, for example the Higgs field model confirm the experiments with dimuon events, tetraneutron, glueballs and pentaquark observations. Yukawa interaction is used in the Standard Model to describe the coupling between the Higgs field and massless quark and electron fields. Therefore Higgs field is responsible for Yukawa coupling and short distance interactions, which held particles together, thus making dense clusters of matter more stable, then they should be in classical models. You can think about pentaquark as about first indicia of strangelet formation in collider.

http://en.wikiped...gs_boson

The influence of extra-dimensions for increasing of black hole stability was discussed above.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
This black hole stuff is every bit as frightening as when a Creationist tells me I am going to Hell.
Except, to be fair, one might just be possible, the other is not.
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2010
This is why Bible warned us not to eat the fruit of understanding. We shouldn't try everything, what we can actually do. Especially when we don't know, what can happen next.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
We shouldn't try everything, what we can actually do. Especially when we don't know, what can happen next.
So why do you open your eyes after sleeping?
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
Because I cannot destroy the Earth and to kill innocent people by it. Actually, what we could get by LHC research? No particle revealed at accelerators during fifty years is of practical usage. This research is serving only to close community of physicists who are earning money in such way. If we could find some usage for LHC experiments after one hundred years, we could develop accelerators in much cheaper, effective and safe way, too. If nothing else, LHC consumes huge amount of helium, which is becoming strategic raw material.

http://www.scient...10-06-30
BadMan
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2010
@uba
Two apologies, one for my candor in replying to two people in one post. I will avoid that in the future.
Second. To my incorrect wording in stating "He was dismissed." I should have said his paper was dismissed as to there being an accual black hole.
From the official Brookhaven site:
http://www.bnl.go...oles.asp
In particular to quote, "This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2010
@uba
Two apologies, one for my candor in replying to two people in one post. I will avoid that in the future.

This apology is accepted. Thank you.

Second. To my incorrect wording in stating "He was dismissed." I should have said his paper was dismissed as to there being an accual black hole.
This apology is unacceptable (see next post).

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
From the official Brookhaven site:
http://www.bnl.go...oles.asp
In particular to quote, "This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole."
So what does that mean (rhetorical)? The paragraph you quote essentially states the RHIC can't create a massive "star swallowing black hole" (like you'd find out in space), but implies it can create a micro black hole (MBH). They only state the MBH won't swallow matter because they expect Hawking radiation to work!

Furthermore, the author of the paper, "says that his calculations show that the core of the fireball has the characteristics of a black hole." See: http://www.newsci...e/dn7145

Please, try again.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2010
@Ethelred:

Brother, you've gone off the deep end.

As for Hawking missing the GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole, just look at any Hawking radiation paper. If you find one that accounts for the aforementioned GP/KE (and claims Hawking radiation will still work), feel free to rub my nose in it.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2010
This is why Bible warned us not to eat the fruit of understanding.
Oh, no worries.. God knows you didn't! ;-)
And I believe, we have had enough evidence allready, to be quite sure about it aswell ;-D

Apart from it being the Fruit of Knowledge (from the Tree of Knowledge), I think you nailed it down there pretty well :-D

Cheers and thanks for the entertainment :o)
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
..apart from it being the Fruit of Knowledge (from the Tree of Knowledge)..
Thanks for correction, I'm not native English speaker. The relative advance in collider research is a remnant of cold war. We still have no practical usage for it. If technology would require to do such research, we can repeat it later in more effective and cheaper way.

In strategic games like Civilization or Age Of Empire every player knows, it has no meaning to invest into research more earlier, then the civilization can consume the fruits of this research - or it's just a waste of precious resources. But the lobby of CERN physicists doesn't care about effectiveness of their research, the safety of human civilization the less. They're following just their jobs and money. Even LHC research doesn't enable us predict mass of electron better, then the thirty years old Heim's theory enables - but such theories are ignored by mainstream. These guys actually doesn't care about understanding of reality.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
Except, to be fair, one might just be possible, the other is not.
I think the odds are about equal. That is for the idea of a black hole that neither reaches escape velocity nor evaporates yet can be created in the LHC.

Yes the odds are exceedingly low since neither has any evidence supporting them.

Keep in mind that the concept of Hell or at least some sort of afterlife is not exclusively or even originally Christian and thus is not dependent on the Bible actually being the word of Jehovah.

It is not just Creationists that engage in false dichotomies.

Ethelred
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2010
In strategic games like Civilization or Age Of Empire every player knows, it has no meaning to invest into research more earlier
Why do you mention a game? Do you think games are relevant?
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2010
If technology would require to do such research, we can repeat it later in more effective and CHEAPER way.
So cheaper is important, you think?

Do you have even a slightest clue, about how big, for example, the ANUAL millitary budgets are, even for relatively small countries? And how these anual millitary budgets compare to the puny, now-allready-15-YEARS spanning, and most importantly - INTERNATIONAL(!) LHC budget of $9 billions?

Just as a little teaser, here are some numbers on the above mentioned ANUAL budgets, for the year of 2009 (in US$):

Taiwan - $10 billion
South Korea - $27 billion
Japan - $47 billion
Germany - $48 billion
France - $67 billion
UK - $69 billion
USA - $663 billion (!)

And I say it again, those are anuals! Not 15 anuals, like the $9 bil. currently is for LHC!

And how many of those countries actually were, are, or expect to be in war any soon? Not many!

Still think the international LHC budget is gargantuan?

Holly cow batman! Get real! ;-D
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2010
Brother, you've gone off the deep end.
Such a rebuttal. A personal attack and no support of any kind.
If you find one that accounts for the aforementioned GP/KE (and claims Hawking radiation will still work)
I didn't need your permission for that however I did ask for you to back yourself up with something. Anything. So unlike you:

The paper you linked to used Hawking Radiation so those guys think your full of it. I do have a PDF from last year on my drive that goes on and on and on about black holes and not once is the phrase you keep using in evidence.
Found the source
http://arxiv.org/...2183.pdf

It goes on for considerable length and math covering Hawking Radiation.

The shallow end is where you seem to reside. Fear of the deep is your problem.

Your only response was to repeat one thing you don't support and then give me ones.

That was not in anyway a reply of merit.

Ethelred
aditya23456
not rated yet Jul 04, 2010
I want a black hole to be formed
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2010
A "few" more lines for Übertuber, Jigga and other members/affiliates of the Ingenious Alarmists bandwagon movement..

(-- LONG MULTI-POST INCOMMING, SORRY :-s --)

After being buggered with all the fearmonger pseudo-science agenda for the last few years, I have almost no will left anymore to keep trying to engage in some reasonable discussion with ya'll, as in the end, it almost allways turns into what seems to be a "fight against the windmills" somehow..

So I have only this left to tell: All your major points, which you mostly use as "facts" are MOOT, period.

You don't need Hawking radiation. You don't need sufficient escape velocity. And wether the (hypothetical) micro-BH is charged or neutral right after its creation, doesn't matter!

Because:

(..few pages inc..)
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2010
1.) LHC collides protons, so the much feared m-BH would originate from a collision (and partial merger) of 2 entities of a strictly positive net charge, and therefor, chances are high, that it would keep/capture at least a part of it. Even if it somehow remained purely neutral after creation, it WILL acquire a charge, sooned or later.

2.) If the m-BH really is neutral at first, it could possibly manage to find something to "chew on", BUT! by this very process, it will actually acquire a charge - depending on what is "digested", and how.

3.)As soon as it has acquired a high enough charge:

3a.) If (+)charged: It will capture electrons, which builds a negative "barrier" around the m-BH in the form of electron "shells", which in turn renders it "isolated" from getting close enough to anything negatively charged, or basicaly, to anything with electrons in orbit. (-continued-)
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2010
... With the m-BH being positive, and with the negative "bumper", it in essence, is unable to "feed" on anything with a strictly non-neutral charge anymore (without the help of some external force to overcome the charge repulsion, at least).

It could "chew on" a neutron, though this process would probably be analogous to digesting 1 proton + acquiring 1 electron (thus forming a shell). And the only place we know of, where "free" neutrons are supposedly (relatively) stable, is in Neutron stars. But these celestial objects have "quite a bunch" of electrons in orbit, so there is not much chance for an external (+)charged m-BH to get "to the lunch table", without acquiring some electron(s) en-route. Thus when a NS turns into a BH, it is most probably from an internal process, just triggered externally the most (by reaching critical mass/radi). (-continued-)
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2010
3b.) If (-)charged: Pepulsed from anything with a (-)charge. Repulsed from electrons (unable to "pass" through shells easily). Could "chew" on a free proton - even highly likely, as it would be subject to a much stronger attraction than just gravity. But, point 2.) applies in this case - so head back and continue from there :-P

4.) Based on observational data from events of stellar BH formation, the resulting mass of a m-BH, created by a collision of 2 protons, would most probably be just a small fraction of the rest mass of a single proton. Note: I'm not presenting this as a good analogy - which it certainly is not (even wrong) - just giving an example of what we observe happening at the stellar scale events, where only a fraction of the mass of the ex/im/ploding star makes it into the resulting BH. (-continued-)
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
Why do you mention a game? Do you think games are relevant?
Of course, the priorities in science investments are strategical priorities like any others and the game theory can be applied to it, too.

Why we aren't spending all of our money just in research of Pluto planet? It would be feasible, we just have no usage for it by now. Surprisingly, the same thinking doesn't applies to accelerator or cold fusion research - cold fusion research is underinvested, whereas accelerator research is overinvested.

This is because collider research was of strategical interest during years of cold war in the same way, like the space-ship research and managed flights to Moon. Now, after forty years we still have no usage for them - which is why nobody flights at Moon, albeit it would be more cheaper, then before.
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2010
5.) The schwarzschild radius of a mass equal to the rest mass of a proton is about as small compared to a proton, as a proton is small compared to the (current) radius of the visible universe. Actually, this is a little bit scarry :) And pretty hard to even imagine a scale difference of those proportions.

And finally - last but not least:
6.) The conclusion:

Even if blackhole-like objects were real at those "micro" sizes, they can in no way be compared to those observed at the stellar scale. The answer to the "why?" question is pretty simple though..

Because of that very SCALE difference itself!

Explanation (simplified):
As the scale changes, the ballance between fundamental forces changes aswell. This creates very certain scale based "boundaries", which are quite complex in their nature, yet very simple. These boundaries directly govern the upper and lower stability limits of all "elementary" constructs in our universe. Be it the masses of protons, electrons, their sizes, etc,etc.
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2010
.. That is why we observe these "particles" as allways having a seamingly precise fixed mass/size, because that are exactly the proportions set by the aforementioned boundaries/limits which allow them "to exist" (be stable) - eg. the "energy packets" are stable only at certain "equilibrial states", as I like to call them. And this all holds true for black holes aswell.

There are scale based boundaries, where fundamental forces undergo "phase shifts" aswell, from which we can conclude, that at a certain scale (up/down), these "stability limits" actually repeat(!), indefinitely. But thats for another discussion allready..

------------
"So will micro BH's consume the Earth?"
- No, they won't.

"BUT WHY?"
- Becuase the Universe is not stupid! :-)
------------

Everything is RELATIVE! Only the Universe itself, is absolute.

And with that last line I would like to rest my case here. Over and out :)

---
PS: Sorry for the long post(s), mostly to those who consider it as being just spam.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
Even if blackhole-like objects were real at those "micro" sizes, they can in no way be compared to those observed at the stellar scale
Actually they COULD be. This is why common atom nuclei are so similar to neutron stars. The difference is, the hydrostatic pressure is maintained by gravity force at neutron stars, whereas at the former case it's the surface tension of atom nuclei, similar to pressure inside of tiny mercury droplets. As the result, neutrons are as stable inside of atoms, as inside of neutron stars, because they're heavily compressed here. White dwarfs could be considered as a huge atoms from this perspective.

The concept of micro-black holes is based on idea, this balance of volume and surface forces repeats again at the more dense scales, which could stabilize heavy unstable particles like the strange quarks against their decay inside of strangelets and/or microscopic black holes.

Such model is indirectly supported by observed existence of stable quark stars
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2010
The concept of micro-black holes is based on idea, this balance of volume and surface forces repeats again at the more dense scales, which could stabilize heavy unstable particles like the strange quarks against their decay inside of strangelets and/or microscopic black holes.
Where did I either deny the existence or questioned the stability of such objects at other scales (scale-down in this case)?
You obviously missed my whole point there ;-)

I suggest you read again and try once more. I know you can do it, c'mon! :)

Such model is indirectly supported by HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION of observational data...
There, fixed it for you :)
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2010
..Such model is indirectly supported by HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION of observational data..
Well, in such case everything what we can observe from stellar Universe 100% reliably are just less or more intensive and colored dots.

Everything else (black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, the diagram of star evolution, the simulations of supernovas, redshift and different distance of stars) is just a HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION of these dots.

Be a man and admit it...;-)
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2010
Well, in such case everything what we can observe from stellar Universe 100% reliably are just less or more intensive and colored dots.

Everything else (black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, the diagram of star evolution, the simulations of supernovas, redshift and different distance of stars) is just a HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION of these dots.
With the "little" difference, that some have more evidence, pointing towards an uniform conclusion, and some have less.

Some even don't have any direct evidence at all, and are just results of a (more or less successful) brainstorming session.

There is a line, above which conclusions become more than just hypotheses - mostly based on evidence pointing towards one direction. But imo,that is not really yet the case in the Q-star conclusions. So it is not propper to use that conclusion as a "fact".

Be a man and admit it...;-)
I did it, I did it! Please, don't hurt me! :-D

Be real and call things with their correct names.. :-P
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
There is another issue - the convergence of the risk factors with time, which is thoroughly mapped in the review linked bellow:

http://tinyurl.com/yk4x5l7

Before twenty years, physicists never expected, the formation of black holes should be possible at accelerators because of cosmic ray arguments, etc..

When they realized it, they started to hope, such black hole should evaporate first, before they can grow in uncontrolled way. When it turned out, such black holes can be stable in minutes, they started to speculate about possibility of LHC survival at the Earth core by neglecting their short distance interactions.

When it turned out, black holes will interact with neighboring matter via electromagnetic field, too, they started to propose the ways, in which black holes should be expelled out from Earth.

http://tinyurl.com/q2ybsc

This is example, how the physicists are willing to manipulate public just for the sake of their beloved pet research.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
We can roughly say, during last fifteen years the probability of disaster scenario jumped up by about fifteen orders of magnitude just with improving progress of theories (which should be tested by this disaster scenario too, BTW).

Whereas no new safety factors appeared during this time.

This is not very heartwarming finding, indeed.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
Still think the international LHC budget is gargantuan?
Well - if it's not, then it should be no problem to throw it out just for the safety insurance of human civilization and to employ these 10.000 theorists in less dangerous and definitely more effective projects, like the cold fusion research.

For example, if they're so interested, how physics is really working, they could try to explain, how is it possible, the thirty years Heim's theory predicts mass of elementary particles so well even without Higgs boson and expensive collider experiments just by using of few fundamental physical constants...;-) If not, then we actually doesn't need to keep these parasites.

As you should know, every argument has two sides and as such it can be used in dual way.
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2010
Still think the international LHC budget is gargantuan?
Well - if it's not, it should be any problem to throw it out just for the safety insurance of human civilization and to employ these 10.000 theorists in less dangerous and more effective projects.
Geee, you are dense..

It's allmost a mirracle, you haven't collapsed into a black hole yet and comsumed the whole Universe!

Might be due to neuron degeneracy.. (hint hint) ;-D

(pun intended)
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2010
In strategic games like Civilization or Age Of Empire every player knows, it has no meaning to invest into research more earlier
Why do you mention a game? Do you think games are relevant?
Of course, the priorities in science investments are strategical priorities like any others and the game theory can be applied to it, too.
So you draw conclusions from games like Civilization or Age Of Empire to game theory (which is a formal maths theory) and from there to HE particle physics? Given your repeated misunderstanding of formal math I highly doubt that you have any idea what game theory is about. Obviously there's one game you're specializing in: the game of dropping buzz words without understanding their meaning. You've got to learn that this game does not impress those that delve into physics. But as you obviously think you can cheat everybody by using multiple accounts there's not much hope for you.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2010
Well dear, in all fairness, using multiple accounts does not necessarily imply that a person is dishonest, any more than using a nick does instead of your real name. Although I know that appearances are so important to your ability to discern the efficacy of arguments. Suggestion- best to stick to refuting his arguments on their content alone- leave ad hominim to Greeks.
Jigga
not rated yet Jul 04, 2010
..I know that appearances are so important to your ability to discern the efficacy of arguments..
Actually we should learn to perceive arguments just at their factual, not formal basis. I admit, I can appear too radical or ignorant in many aspects - but my stance is supported with coherent logics as well, as the stance of mainstream physicists.

The effectiveness and safety of HEP research is nothing, which should be accepted automatically. After all, it's all payed from our money.

I'd prefer not to construct these machines from the apparent reason: we are just collecting a know-how for technologies, which could serve to some less democratic regimes as a tool for intimidation at planetary level soon or later.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
Suggestion- best to stick to refuting his arguments on their content alone- leave ad hominim to Greeks.

So why did you rate with "1" my comment where I refuted Jigga's "argument" about the Iranians being "Arabians"?

Ad hominem remarks should be left to those who know Latin.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2010
Suggestion- best to stick to refuting his arguments on their content alone- leave ad hominim to Greeks.

So why did you rate with "1" my comment where I refuted Jigga's "argument" about the Iranians being "Arabians"?

Ad hominem remarks should be left to those who know Latin.
On principle, same as you. Cave Canum.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2010
Well dear, in all fairness, using multiple accounts does not necessarily imply that a person is dishonest,
True. However we are talking about Alizee-Alexa-Jigga and many others. The multinamed wanker has been seen giving itself FIVES and then giving anyone that disagrees MULTIPLE ones. Hence the technical term wanker.

Ethelred
frajo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
Suggestion- best to stick to refuting his arguments on their content alone- leave ad hominim to Greeks.

So why did you rate with "1" my comment where I refuted Jigga's "argument" about the Iranians being "Arabians"?

Ad hominem remarks should be left to those who know Latin.
On principle, same as you.
I wouldn't give the impression to be uneducated just in order to downrate a person who's right.
Cave Canum.
"canem" would be correct. Sed canem brevibum cruribum non timeo.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
@Ethelred:
Such a rebuttal. A personal attack and no support of any kind.
So the follwing isn't a personal attack?
It hard to watch someone make as many mistakes as you are doing without feeling sorry for you.
And this?
That line mostly comes from someone that has put their ego ahead of the truth.
Have some dignity, will you?

Generally speaking, you're responses are becomimng increasingly shrill and off-topic. I mean really... what do Creationists and Hell have to do with anything I've written?

You can't keep your stories straight either. For instance, first you wrote:
Yes and I am sure Alizee and others like him wrote at least nine tenths of them.
Then you wrote:
I said people LIKE Alizee.

Why did it all of a sudden change? Which is it?

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
@Ethelred:
I didn't need your permission for that however I did ask for you to back yourself up with something. Anything. So unlike you:

The paper you linked to used Hawking Radiation so those guys think your full of it. I do have a PDF from last year on my drive that goes on and on and on about black holes and not once is the phrase you keep using in evidence.
Found the source
http://arxiv.org/...2183.pdf

It goes on for considerable length and math covering Hawking Radiation.
What phrase are you referring to?

It looks to me like all you're saying here is you didn't find what I told you wasn't there! Good job.

Here's an example from Hawking himself:

http://prac.us.ed...king.pdf

He even admits the infalling particle is "...a real particle with a timelike momentum vector..." But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
@Ethelred:
The shallow end is where you seem to reside. Fear of the deep is your problem.
And you finished up with another personal attack. really... have you no dignity?
Your only response was to repeat one thing you don't support and then give me ones.
What one thing are referring to? This is incoherent. Make sense man!

I gave you low rankings because you've become shrill, off-topic, and incoherent.

That was not in anyway a reply of merit.
It's the best I could do, under the circumstances. Get over yourself.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
So the follwing isn't a personal attack?
Its retaliation in kind. Should you return to good behavior I won't have anything to retaliate against.
And this?
Well if you find the truth insulting perhaps you should change your behavior.
Have some dignity, will you?
I do. You started crapping on me. I am just cleaning it off and throwing at the producer.
Generally speaking, you're responses are becomimng increasingly shrill and off-topic.
False.
I mean really... what do Creationists and Hell have to do with anything I've written?
I am sorry that you are unable to understand metaphors and analogies.
Why did it all of a sudden change? Which is it?
Lying about it like that won't make it real.

How is saying Alizee and others like him not saying people like Alizee considering that Alizee HAS been writing only SOME of the crap?
What phrase are you referring to?
What do you care? You just change everything to mean something else anyway.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
Continued
He failed to account for the GP/Kinetic energy between the infalling particle and the black hole.
You even had the brass to claim that I agreed with you on that.

Leaving such disingenuous behavior alone would imply that I agreed with the distortions.
It looks to me like all you're saying here is you didn't find what I told you wasn't there!
Those weren't from Hawking.
He even admits the infalling particle is "...a real particle with a timelike momentum vector..."
Bogus quote. Try doing a search on the phrase and it simply wasn't in the PDF.
But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole.
And this has meaning how? It doesn't help you to claim someone hasn't done something UNLESS you can show that it has meaning. Quoting an article that doesn't support you, excuse me that should have been MISQUOTING, just isn't even remotely the same as a REAL quote from a source that agrees with you.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
frajo
Sorry I rated you a one by accident. So I gave you some fives. I rarely give ratings except when I see that someone has been given very unfair ratings. I would like for the things to go away.

Of course I do retaliate as is now going on with Uvontuba. I tend to go exponential after a while if they refuse to behave themselves.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
And you finished up with another personal attack. really... have you no dignity?
Yes and I intend to keep it by pointing it when you attack or distort. Retaliation is in no way a loss of dignity.

You sound like a right wing bully at the moment. Thinking of people as wimps when they let you get away with crapping on them and then whining about dignity when it comes back at you. Behave yourself and I won't have to show just how little tolerance I have for bullies.
I gave you low rankings because you've become shrill, off-topic, and incoherent.
Utter rubbish PLUS you went back and gave me one for all my posts. Even did it on another thread. For which I retaliated.
It's the best I could do, under the circumstances. Get over yourself.
If you had nothing worthwhile to say you should not have replied. Get a clue.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
Sorry I rated you a one by accident. So I gave you some fives. I rarely give ratings except when I see that someone has been given very unfair ratings. I would like for the things to go away.
Reckoned already that it was an accident while on a rating spree. :) Doesn't matter - I'm glad you fight those guys, too.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
@Ethered:

Again you've provided no science, just shrill, off-topic, and incoherent personal attacks.

And, you've proven you can't even search a PDF properly. My quotation was copied and pasted directly from the document.

It's a shame really. I foolishly thought (albeit briefly) you could do better. Such a shame...
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
My quotation was copied and pasted directly from the document.
Oops, since I copied and pasted your quote into the search and found NOTHING I came to the conclusion that you didn't cut and paste. Can't figure out what went wrong in the search. It worked this time.

Sorry about that.

Unfortunately the rest of that reply was the usual crap.
Again you've provided no science,
No just links to article that support me. Barely needed since you have linked to that article that support me. You have yet to link to one the supports you. The Hawking paper doesn't. You need something that covers YOUR claim of his alleged mistake.

Still waiting for that.
just shrill, off-topic,
Well that lie certainly counts as shrill. The claim of me being off-topic is absolutely ludicrous.
and incoherent personal attacks.
Fully coherent, almost laser like. Except for the failure of my search with the Hawking paper completely spot on.
Such a shame
Yes you are shameless.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
Unfortunately the rest of that reply was the usual crap.
Not science.

No just links to article that support me. Barely needed since you have linked to that article that support me. You have yet to link to one the supports you. The Hawking paper doesn't. You need something that covers YOUR claim of his alleged mistake.

Still waiting for that.
Again, not science. You're asking me to prove a negative. I'm the originator of the assertion, but I can't prove my assertion in every case, without showing every case (plus, you'd need to understand them all). You only need to provide one which contradicts my assertion. Neither your reference, or mine, provide the information. So, I'm two for two.

Well that lie certainly counts as shrill. The claim of me being off-topic is absolutely ludicrous.

Fully coherent, almost laser like. Except for the failure of my search with the Hawking paper completely spot on.

Yes you are shameless.
Not science.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
Not science.
Nor is that.
Again, not science.
It was a request for science that backs you so that was a lie.
You're asking me to prove a negative. [/w]I did no such thing. I asked to support yourself. Surely there must be at least one article that covers what you are so sure of. Either that or you are full of crap.
I'm the originator of the assertion,
So you are the only person that thinks the phrase
But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole.
has any significance at all. And you are unable to show that is has any meaning yourself.
You only need to provide one which contradicts my assertion.
Both you and I have posted links that clearly think Hawking Radiation is a done deal barring actual observation.
So, I'm two for two.
You are zero for none. No support and no reply that shows a lack of support for me.
Not science.
And neither is that so who was off-topic in the first place since you started the insults.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
@Ethered:

Obviously (as I noted before), you don't even understand the basics. Which, of course, is why you don't understand the significance of the phrase: "But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole."

Relative motion cannot occur without kinetic energy

See: http://en.wikiped...c_energy

...and mass cannot fall into a gravity well without a change to the gravitational potential energy.

See: http://en.wikiped...l_energy

Generally speaking, GP decreases as the mass falls inward, and KE increases proportionately.

If you STILL don't understand the significance of that phrase, then yoou need more eduction than I can provide.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2010
Obviously (as I noted before), you don't even understand the basics
As noted falsely.
Which, of course, is why you don't understand the significance of the phrase: "But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole
Which would not be basic even if significant. Basic physics doesn't deal with virtual particles
and mass cannot fall into a gravity well without a change to the gravitational potential energy.
Yes. The potential energy becomes kinetic energy.
Generally speaking, GP decreases as the mass falls inward, and KE increases proportionately.
How is this relevant?
If you STILL don't understand the significance of that phrase, then yoou need more eduction than I can provide.
That's OK I already know that you don't understand what you are saying well enough to explain it. You couldn't convince the physicists on physicsforum.com either.

Continued
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
Now to what appears to be your key misunderstanding of virtual articles.
Relative motion cannot occur without kinetic energy
Why do think that the virtual particles would have no kinetic energy? They can be moving apart. Indeed if they aren't moving apart they can't have an effect of any kind, the Casimir experiments have been pretty solid.

As I already said:
You don't understand what arbitrary means do you? It means I can pick ANYWHERE and in ANY DIRECTION. I can do this since we are talking about virtual particles and unless you can show some restraint on where and when they pop up then they can point right at the black hole.
Virtual particles CAN move away from each other. That is, they can have opposing kinetic energy thus momentum is conserved even though energy is not. Virtual particles seem to actually exist per the Casimir Effect experiments.

Continued
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
Links and more:

http://en.wikiped...duction.

http://en.wikiped...r_effect

It appears to me that you think you know something that no one else in science does and are ranting at me for not agreeing with you. Neither has anyone else. It is because you don't seem to notice that the your idea is WRONG.

Virtual particles have momentum.

Unless you can show that they can not have momentum then you are wrong. Not one single article supports you. Either that or you are too pig headed to link to one since I have asked you back yourself up several times. For which you insisted that I was a negative proof. Which is weird when someone is asking for evidence that you have something, anything, that could be construed as support. Simply claiming that Hawking and EVERYONE else doesn't have something isn't evidence that they should.

Ethelred
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2010
Simply claiming that Hawking and EVERYONE else doesn't have something isn't evidence that they should.
We should put a simple question:

"The proof of supersymmetry, Higgs field, quark-gluon plasma and extradimensions belong into main research targets of LHC experiments. Are these phenomena supporting the mechanism of Hawking radiation, or they could hinder it?"

IMO all these stuffs are expected to suppress the Hawking radiation and black hole evaporation in many orders of magnitude (actually, the black hole jet suppression is the main process, in which some of them can be studied and proven experimentally).

After then we can put another easy question:

"Is it ethical to test experimentally just the processes, which are increasing the risk of black hole danger in many orders of magnitude? Should we pay such research from our taxis at the terrestrial conditions, if we know, people are willing to do virtually everything for the money?"
daywalk3r
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2010
Is it ethical to test experimentally just the processes, which are increasing the risk of black hole DANGER in many orders of magnitude?
With "DANGER" being the catch-word, here is the catch-question:

By how many orders of magnitude does one need to increase ZERO, till it becomes more (or less) than just ZERO?

If you can find the answer to this question, and the proposed solution is a REAL number, then your concerns are justified.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
Based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle there is no such thing as ZERO. When you add in the Aetherbullfeces you find the not only is ZERO nonexistent neither a need for actual evidence or mathematics as it is all covered by Predicates LogicsBM.

Predicates Logics is registered Bullfeces Mark owned by Alizee the MultNamed SockPuppet a Limited Reality Corporation or LRC consisting entirely of Virtual IndividualsBM.

Virtual Individuals is a registered BullFeces Mark owned by SockPuppets LRC.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
@Ethelred:
Obviously (as I noted before), you don't even understand the basics
As noted falsely.
You didn't even understand a two-body collision, relative to a third observer(this seems oddly familiar)!
Which, of course, is why you don't understand the significance of the phrase: "But he assigns no GP/KE to it with regard to the black hole
Which would not be basic even if significant. Basic physics doesn't deal with virtual particles
Technically, particle physics IS as basic as it gets. Besides, you've ignored the fact that even Hawking admits it becomes a "real" particle.
and mass cannot fall into a gravity well without a change to the gravitational potential energy.
Yes. The potential energy becomes kinetic energy.
So you admit now the particle can't fall in without GP/KE? So now it's relevant that Hawking missed it altogether?

Make up you mind!

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Generally speaking, GP decreases as the mass falls inward, and KE increases proportionately.

How is this relevant?
Didn't you just admit the potential becomes KE? How can you not understand the relevance? Particles cannot fall into a black hole without GP/KE.
That's OK I already know that you don't understand what you are saying well enough to explain it. You couldn't convince the physicists on physicsforum.com either.
It becomes clear now. Now I know why your ignorance is so familiar. I think you went by "Trippy" on that forum, didn't you?

Still smarting over that horrendous, two-body collision mistake, eh?

What's worse, is you're still making the same mistakes!

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Now to what appears to be your key misunderstanding of virtual articles.
Now to what appears to be your key misunderstanding...
Relative motion cannot occur without kinetic energy
Why do think that the virtual particles would have no kinetic energy? They can be moving apart. Indeed if they aren't moving apart they can't have an effect of any kind, the Casimir experiments have been pretty solid.
I'm saying that they MUST have KE. It's Hawking who failed to assign KE.
As I already said:

You don't understand what arbitrary means do you? It means I can pick ANYWHERE and in ANY DIRECTION. I can do this since we are talking about virtual particles and unless you can show some restraint on where and when they pop up then they can point right at the black hole.
If this were the case, only a very small percentage of either virtual particles in the pair would end up "pointing right at the black hole" (which is not the same as being absorbed by the black hole).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Virtual particles CAN move away from each other. That is, they can have opposing kinetic energy thus momentum is conserved even though energy is not. Virtual particles seem to actually exist per the Casimir Effect experiments.
What's that got to do with the discussion? Clearly, Hawking radiation is fundamentally about splitting VP pairs. When did I ever say otherwise? Obviously, this is just more proof that you don't understand what we're talking about.
It appears to me that you think you know something that no one else in science does and are ranting at me for not agreeing with you. Neither has anyone else. It is because you don't seem to notice that the your idea is WRONG.
Obviously, (as usual) you're understanding of the discussion is WRONG.
Virtual particles have momentum.
When did I say otherwise?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Unless you can show that they can not have momentum then you are wrong. Not one single article supports you.
Again, when did I say otherwise?

As you noted above: Normally, THE PAIR (together) has zero momentum though.
Either that or you are too pig headed to link to one since I have asked you back yourself up several times. For which you insisted that I was a negative proof. Which is weird when someone is asking for evidence that you have something, anything, that could be construed as support. Simply claiming that Hawking and EVERYONE else doesn't have something isn't evidence that they should.
It's quite simple. Do particles need KE to have relative motion? If your answer is yes, then Hawking missed it. If your answer is no, then please provide references (I already provided references which state relative motion requires KE, but I'll do so again).

Here: http://en.wikiped...c_energy
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
Is it ethical to test experimentally just the processes, which are increasing the risk of black hole DANGER in many orders of magnitude?
With "DANGER" being the catch-word, here is the catch-question:

By how many orders of magnitude does one need to increase ZERO, till it becomes more (or less) than just ZERO?

If you can find the answer to this question, and the proposed solution is a REAL number, then your concerns are justified.
The danger is not zero.
daywalk3r
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2010
The danger is not zero.
You are right, it really is not..

It is roughly equivalent to the danger, that within 5 seconds after submitting this message, I turn into a giant planet-eating potato and destroy the World(!)

Run till you can! Ruuuuuuun! ;-O
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2010
..point being, that no matter how many "orders of magnitude" you increase the chances of me becomming a giant planet-eating potato within the next 5 seconds - it just WON'T happen.. (!)

And by the way, the net kinetic energy between the BH and the infalling particle is ZERO at the time of entry.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
And by the way, the net kinetic energy between the BH and the infalling particle is ZERO at the time of entry.
If that were true, then the black hole couldn't evaporate - as it suffers no net energy loss.

And, the now "real" escaping particles would present a conservation violation, as the energy comes from nothing.

Please, try again.
BadMan
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
Uba, by your last statement, you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand Hawking radiation whatsoever. Even though I am an opponent of said theory, I have an understanding of it's concepts.
You want proof? Well then I will describe it at a rudimentary level for you. Excuse me if this takes more than one post.
Let us start with virtual particles. Virtual particles are said to be able to form anywhere at any place, but not everywhere at once. Hawking stipulates that due to the warping of spacetime near the event horizon of a black hole (somewhere within 1 to 10 Planck lengths from the horizon,) the chances of formation of pairs of particles (in the form of massless and mass,) increase. If the pairs form at or very near parallel to the radius of the singilarity and are close enough to the event horizon (within1 to 2 planck lengths,) the event horizon can catch or trap the massless particle, and once this occours,
continues in next post.....
BadMan
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
Continued...
the particle is then subject to the laws that govern within the interior of the black hole. Upon reaching the singularity, the massless particle will combine with a particle of mass, annihilating each other, thereby decreasing the mass of the black hole by one unit of mass, as well as it's gravity.
The other particle outside of the event horizon, (the one with mass,) due to the curvature of spacetine in it's vicinity, would escape as thermal radiation, if we could detect it. The law of conservation will then be preserved. Of course this all is what lead to the infamous information paradox and another hole seperate from the information paradox which is a discussion for another place and time.

Basicly put Uba, make sure before you go bashing someone or something, make sure you have an inkling of what you are refering to before you procede to bash or make a statement refering to anything.

From one person to another, I am nicely asking for you to stop it now.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
@Badman:

It's not a mass particle and a massless particle. It's a particle and an antiparticle. Either of which has a 50/50 chance of being the one caught.

See: http://en.wikiped...Overview

Keep trying.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
Presuming you read the reference:

The problem (as I see it) is it's supposed, that with respect to an observer far away from the black hole, the infalling particle must have had a negative energy - yet this same observer will observe that the particle accelerates (falls) a finite distance to the event horizon and therefore has GP/KE relative to the black hole upon the moment of separation from its virtual particle pair.

This GP/KE is not small (relative to the energy of the escaping particle). And, it's certainly not negative. Keep in mind that even Hawking admits it's a "real particle" (on shell) upon separation.

Hawking's entire concept of "negative energy" is based on the observation that for Hawking radiation to work, the infalling particle must have had negative energy. That's it. He assumes Hawking radiation works, so he assumes negative energy. He never bothered to calculate the energy of the infalling particle to verify this supposition (as far as I know).
BadMan
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
Again you astound me with the depths of your ignorance. The refrence you posted is nothing more than a more robust explanation of what I posted.
The problem (as I see it) is it's supposed, that with respect to an observer far away from the black hole, the infalling particle must have had a negative energy - yet this same observer will observe that the particle accelerates (falls) a finite distance to the event horizon and therefore has GP/KE relative to the black hole upon the moment of separation from its virtual particle pair.

I love how you go from Hawking radiation to using the Holographic principle, which was Suskin's answer to the information paradox, with the injection of negative energy. Do you even understand what neg energy is? You also have reversed what you have been refering to, which was the particle being traped to the "escaping" particle. Nice way to sidestep. And yes, they are real particles. Do you think I am in kindergarden?
BadMan
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2010
The term "virtual" refers to the particles lasting only for a few nanoseconds, and fall into the domain of the uncertanty principle. So, at any one piont in spacetime, KE = 0. Hawking did take this into consideration, otherwise, the information paradox would have been second in line of objections to Hawking radiation.
BadMan
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2010
Oh, by the way,
http://en.wikiped...particle
specifically the last line of the header,
"Virtual particles should not be confused with antiparticles." You are starting to make me think you are Roy Masters, or at least a very close copy.
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
BadMan - the purpose of all theories tested at LHC is just to prove, Hawking mechanism of evaporation is insignificant for micro-black holes. They're all tested mostly by jet suppression. Without it the micro-black holes could never be formed, or they would evaporate fast.
you astound me with the depths of your ignorance.

In fact it's just you, who is ignorant troll here.
BadMan
not rated yet Jul 12, 2010
Evidently you haven't read any of my previous posts whatsoever. I have clearly stated that I do not support Hawking radiation, but I will fully defend any reasonable theory from beind twisted and combined with other theories just so someone will look as if they are all knowing. And you want to call me an ignorant troll? This coming from a confirmed troll who has had how many accounts closed? I am also not beneath defending myself. Call me a troll and ignorant if you want, you are only proving this of yourself. I will admit that this has gotten out of hand, for the realm and purpose of this site. I will open an account at physicsforums.com and let the moderators there decide who is doing the most dammage toward whom, or have you been banned there as well?
BadMan
not rated yet Jul 12, 2010
The name I chose on that site is TheBadness since BadMan has been used. I don't want you pm'ing them for no reason.
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
This coming from a confirmed troll who has had how many accounts closed?
Confirmed by banning? Come on... Galileo was even killed...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
The refrence you posted is nothing more than a more robust explanation of what I posted.
Where, exactly, did it refer to "mass and massless" particles?
I love how you go from Hawking radiation to using the Holographic principle,
I try to consider all aspects of a problem.
So, at any one piont in spacetime, KE = 0.
True, between the VP pair. Not true, between the infalling particle and the black hole.
"Virtual particles should not be confused with antiparticles."
From your own reference: "...a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle;"
See "Pair production"

http://en.wikiped...oduction

Evidently you haven't read any of my previous posts whatsoever.
Evidently, you didn't even read your own reference!
...just so someone will look as if they are all knowing.
I'm just asking the question: Why wasn't the GP/KE between the infalling particle and the black hole considered?

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
And you want to call me an ignorant troll?
I don't play that way. I never called you either ignorant or a troll. I've only observed that you need to be a lot more careful with both your assertions and your references.

If you feel slighted, it's not intended.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
The name I chose on that site is TheBadness since BadMan has been used. I don't want you pm'ing them for no reason.
Physicsforums won't allow open discussion on hypotheticals.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
Galileo was even killed...
Your history books obviously come from the same source as your physics books.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.