Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra dimensions

March 18, 2015 by Lisa Zyga feature
Credit: CERN

(Phys.org)—The possibility that other universes exist beyond our own universe is tantalizing, but seems nearly impossible to test. Now a group of physicists has suggested that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest particle collider in the world, may be able to uncover the existence of parallel universes, should they exist.

In a new paper published in Physics Letters B, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Mohammed M. Khalil explain that the key to finding may come from detecting miniature black holes at a certain energy level. The detection of the mini black holes would indicate the existence of extra dimensions, which would support string theory and related models that predict the existence of extra dimensions as well as parallel universes.

"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualized," Faizal told Phys.org. "This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science. This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions. As can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC. We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in gravity's rainbow [a new theory]. If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity's rainbow and extra dimensions are correct."

The search continues

In some ways, this idea is not new. The LHC has already been trying to detect mini black holes, but has come up empty-handed. This is what would be expected if there are only four dimensions, since the energy required to produce black holes in four dimensions would be much larger (1019 GeV) than the energy that can be achieved at the LHC (14 TeV).

However, if extra dimensions do exist, it is thought that they would lower the energy required to produce black holes to levels that that the LHC can achieve. As Faizal explained, this happens because the gravity in our universe may somehow flow into the extra dimensions. As the LHC has so far not detected mini black holes, it seems that extra dimensions do not exist, at least not at the energy scale that was tested. By extension, the results do not support string theory or parallel universes, either.

In their paper, Ali, Faizal, and Khalil offer a different interpretation for why mini black holes have not been detected at the LHC. They suggest that the current model of gravity that was used to predict the required energy level for black hole production is not quite accurate because it does not account for quantum effects.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, gravity can be thought of as the curvature of space and time. However, here the scientists point out that this geometry of space and time responsible for gravity gets deformed at the Planck scale. They have used the new theory of gravity's rainbow to account for this modification of the geometry of space and time near the Planck scale, where the mini black holes are predicted to exist.

Using gravity's rainbow, the scientists found that a little bit more energy is required to produce mini black holes at the LHC than previously thought. So far, the LHC has searched for mini black holes at energy levels below 5.3 TeV. According to gravity's rainbow, this energy is too low. Instead, the model predicts that black holes may form at of at least 9.5 TeV in six dimensions and 11.9 TeV in 10 dimensions. Since the LHC is designed to reach 14 TeV in future runs, these predicted energy requirements for black hole production should be accessible.

Many interpretations

If mini black holes are detected at the LHC, then it would arguably support several ideas: parallel universes, extra dimensions, , and gravity's rainbow—with these last two having implications for a theory of quantum gravity. Most obviously, a positive result would support the existence of mini black holes themselves.

"If mini black holes are detected at the LHC at the predicted energies, not only will it prove the existence of extra dimensions and by extension parallel universes, but it will also solve the famous information paradox in black holes," Ali said. Solving the paradox is possible because, in the gravity's rainbow model, mini black holes have a minimum radius below which they cannot shrink.

However, if black holes are not detected, the scientists will need to reexamine their understanding of these ideas.

"If are not detected at the predicted levels, this would mean one of three possibilities," Khalil explained. "One, do not exist. Two, they exist, but they are smaller than expected. Or three, the parameters of gravity's rainbow need to be modified."

In the world of theoretical physics, there is never just one interpretation, and the same goes for this issue. Remo Garattini, Professor of Physics at the University of Bergamo, has used gravity's rainbow in his work on regulating ultraviolet divergences, which have plagued models of . Although he is sympathetic to many of the ideas in gravity's rainbow, he points out that the current paper relies on only one proposal, which uses an equation that does not eliminate divergences.

"I think that the paper is interesting, but we have to be careful to extrapolate global results using only one proposal for the rainbow's functions," Garattini said.

Along these lines, Joao Magueijo, Professor of Physics at Imperial College London, cautions that the details of the theory that will either make it or break it. And at this early stage, it's difficult to tell what these details should be.

"The work is interesting, but like many other applications of rainbow gravity, it does depend crucially on the chosen free functions of the theory," Magueijo said. "Still, I think this work could be a valuable step in constraining those free functions."

Explore further: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory

More information: Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, Mohammed M. Khalil. "Absence of black holes at LHC due to gravity's rainbow." Physics Letters B. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.065

Related Stories

Space-time theory may reconcile black hole conundrum

February 9, 2015

We've come a long way in 13.8 billion years; but despite our impressively extensive understanding of the Universe, there are still a few strings left untied. For one, there is the oft-cited disconnect between general relativity, ...

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

January 3, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative theories of ...

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

The stacked color sensor

November 16, 2017

Red-sensitive, blue-sensitive and green-sensitive color sensors stacked on top of each other instead of being lined up in a mosaic pattern – this principle could allow image sensors with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity ...

125 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
4.3 / 5 (27) Mar 18, 2015
Parallel universes?

That would explain some of the commenters here.
Dethe
Mar 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
4.5 / 5 (25) Mar 18, 2015
Zephir, no one but the other crackpots care. Your link has your name on it, as if anyone with half a brain doesn't know you for your bullshit.

Go the hell away.
Dethe
1.1 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2015
One, extra dimensions do not exist. Two, they exist, but they are smaller than expected. Or three, the parameters of gravity's rainbow need to be modified
Or four, the extradimensions are so widespread, they evade the attention, because the darkest shadow is just under the candlestick. BTW even the finding of Higgs boson belongs into evidence of extradimensions conceptually. The physicists indeed don't expect, that the true black holes will be prepared, because such an artifacts would be very unstable even by existing schematic theories. So that they can expect only slight delay between decay of intermediate product of collisions and the symmetrization of the resulting jets of decay products (analogously to jets of real decaying black holes). But this is just the way, in which the Higgs boson gets detected in product of collisions: the search for symmetry in decay products. The physicists just don't realize it, because they're burrowed under pile of math and abstract models.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (26) Mar 18, 2015
Parallel universes?

That would explain some of the commenters here.

Absolutely nothing can explain you.
foolspoo
4.8 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2015
"Absolutely nothing can explain you."

sums up your comprehension of science, oracle
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2015
"Absolutely nothing can explain you."

sums up your comprehension of science, oracle

Wow!! Someone can spell science.
alextheaboveaverage
4.9 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2015
I love stories like this, especially when it's about a raw and unproven concept. I think we're about to learn a lot more about our universe after the LHC fires back up.
Dethe
1.2 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2015
Go the hell away
The karma of my comment indicates, that the LHC represents a gold cow for too many physicists, theorists and private companies involved, which they're not willing to discuss about at all. I'm hitting the surface of social black hole here - no information can be exchanged...;-)
nevermark
5 / 5 (29) Mar 18, 2015
...the LHC represents a gold cow...


You don't know how science works and don't appear to want to. Why do you waste your time posting criticisms with no meaning? Who are is your target audience for such drivel?

All those scientists working for their wages still have their conclusions and careers on the line based on the evaluation of scientists at other (and often competitive) institutions all around the world.

Your negativity and lack of gratitude toward science, scientists and what these large experiments have taught us adds no value.
barakn
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2015
I love the mixed unit comparison: " the energy required to produce black holes in four dimensions would be much larger (10^19 GeV) than the energy that can be achieved at the LHC (14 TeV)."
One TeV = 1000 GeV, so the actual comparison is 10^16 TeV vs. 14 TeV. Still a vast gulf...
Dethe
1 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2015
You don't know how science works
Or maybe I know about it too well.. At any case, nobody here is interested about my arguments, which speaks for itself. I don't owe the scientists anything: now we are on the verge of nuclear war just because of their ignorance of cold fusion. Their social responsibility in this matter is zero.

BTW Ironically it's just me, who describes, where and how to observe the extradimensions at LHC - while the above study explains, why it cannot be done...;-)
gkam
4.4 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2015
Dethe, we do not need arguments, we need PROOF!

Give us that, and you will have your fame and money.
hillmeister
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
The title of the article made me very excited to see the crazy comments. Internet trolls are very predictable. xD
Dethe
1 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2015
Dethe, we do not need arguments, we need PROOF
Try to prove me, that the common particles or atom nuclei are NOT mini black holes in the sense of extradimensional gravity model, instead. It's YOU who wants the money for their research - not me. BTW I'm not doing it for making money, but for saving money in futile research - so I cannot consider the support of scientists, who are motivated in their spending in this way or another. I can never get an appreciation of scientists for my activity.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
No, Dethe, I want the money to spread alternative, proven energy, not some magic box, which is just around the corner, like "clean coal", or "safe nukes", or SDI or finding the "WMD".
foolspoo
5 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
"are NOT"

to reiterate, you do not understand how science works
Dethe
1 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
But I do understand, how the science works - it's job creating and money consuming activity, in the same way like many others, which are subsidized with governments. Even the politicians, lawyers or doctors adjust the rules of their community for to get more money and subsidizes. Just this discussion illustrates it clearly - if you would be really interested about how extradimensions work in black holes, you would ask me for it already.. But you're interested just about the ways, how to prolonge & substantiate the research at LHC.
gkam
4 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
I think Dethe is projecting his own character onto science.
saposjoint
5 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2015
But I do understand, how science works


Says the well-known Internet troll and crackpot that thinks there really is an ether.
Dethe
1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
Try to prove me, that the common particles aren't just the mini black holes stabilized with extradimensions, which are searched at LHC - and you'll see, who is projecting into what..;-) If you're trying to build house, you should make sure first, that your estate isn't already developed - until you don't want to spend the money for construction works at any price. This is just what the scientists don't do.
saposjoint
5 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
I think Dethe is projecting his own character onto science.


What character? He seems to have at least a baker's dozen, all insane...
Dethe
1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
This missunderstanding has many dual counterparts in contemporary physics - the physicists search for black holes and ignore common neutron stars, they search for gravitons and gravity waves and they ignore the CMBR, they search for extradimensions and ignore all low-distance forces, etc. It has basis in misunderstanding of quantum gravity role in contemporary physics - it's not theory of extreme mass and energy density scales, but the scales BETWEEN quantum mechanics and general relativity. The theory connecting both theories must operate BETWEEN them, not OUTSIDE them. The quantum gravity effects are huge - actually so huge, that they were revealed before many years already and recognized under another well established names. We are ignoring them because we are standing on them. The dense aether model just makes it obvious, but it's not actually required for such an understanding.
Dethe
1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
So, if we apply the quantum gravity in most naive & trivial way, which conclusions we can actually get? As the first shot estimation we can simply use the algebraic average of both quantum mechanics, both general relativity. If we don't know, how to combine the general relativity and quantum mechanics, we can just average them. If the general relativity says, all massive objects will collapse into pin-point singularity and the quantum mechanics predicts, that all such an objects will expand into infinity, then the most trivial estimation will be, that these objects will be quasistable and they will fit the human distance scale somewhere between distance scale of quantum mechanics and distance scale of general relativity. This is the simplest - and also most robust - estimation of quantum gravity predictions.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
i am interested and plan to get acquainted.

my point is not whether your beliefs have any validity. the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. it is up to you to prove that they are not mini black holes. as long as the claim holds up against the method, it will continue to accumulate validity and recognition
Dethe
1 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
It's easy - the properties of common particles resemble the predictions of miniblack holes closely. There is no known artifact between massive pin-point singularity and Higgs boson or another, even more stable particles - which could be predicted with existing theories. Also, the detection methods of miniblack holes and Higgs boson and another particles overlap closely, as I explained above. For example, the conditions for finding of Higgs boson are just a subgroup of conditions for search of mini black holes. If we prove the Higgs boson existence, than the miniblack holes should be also proven by all existing criterions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
I think Dethe is projecting his own character onto science.
Well you do this when you make up your own facts and then cite your vast treasure of unrelated, alleged experience as qualification for doing this. you know like how high energy alpha cant penetrate skin for instance?

Right?
gkam
2.4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
Okay, otto, we will go through this one more time, so you will stop thinking I got something wrong.

I contended Alpha rays/particles were most dangerous and damaging in the lung, where there is no epidermis to shield us from the large, 5.4 MeV particle.

You found that in reactors, one in a thousand Alpha particles can be a high-energy Alpha particle, which can penetrate any skin which happens to be in that operating reactor.

otto, if you had any experience in this field, you would slink away in embarrassment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
otto, if you had any experience in this field, you would slink away in embarrassment
No, if you had any formal education in the field you would have known better than to tack the 'HIGH ENERGY' qualifier onto your statement about alpha. You did that just to make it appear as if you knew more about the subject than you actually did.

You should really be more careful when you bullshit here to impress. People here are usually smarter and more educated than you.
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
I'm going to find out where you live and secretly step on your lawn.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
I'm going to find out where you live and secretly step on your lawn.
Sorry I dont have a lawn. Why dont you just apologize and admit youre wrong when somebody catches you lying and making stuff up? It would save you a lot of trouble.

Admitting you are powerless over your mental problems is the first step to recovery you know.
Dethe
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
BTW The black holes were once considered as a portion of dark matter. Their search has been called of already - but we know, that the dark matter can contain lotta common particles and interstellar gas (galactic halo). It's indeed just an indirect indicia, but it would also mean, that the mini black holes are actually living well - in form of classical particles..
gkam
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
"Knowledge will be given to the world and decent people who know how to use it for the benefit of all."
----------------------------------------------

And who is going to do that, Ren?

You, . . or your Invisible Companion?
rufusgwarren
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2015
Really, we went there?
rufusgwarren
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2015
Maybe we'll find the demon of reason.
rufusgwarren
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
There are no black holes, infinite density is fiction; we only see very large clusters we have named Black Holes, In fact, mass is a delusion.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
I'm going to find out where you live and secretly step on your lawn.

Well, somebody is getting a turd on their lawn.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
More theoretical metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo from the clowns at LHC. Billions of wasted dollars hunting snipe....
KBK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2015
"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualized," Faizal told Phys.org. "This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.

~~~~~~

To try and implicate that something that is not testable, is not 'real', is a serious problem. It does not remain in the realm of philosophy, it simply is not testable in the realm of what some call science. Nothing more.
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2015
For mini black holes to form the super-void needs to change from a "void" state into a "skin" state.

As we are already in a "skin" super-void state (I.E. Earths Gravity) mini black holes are never likely to form.

I know they are looking for particle creation in the Higgs experiments, but as far as I've seen they have only ever created particle destruction.

Any elevated energy levels they find are likely derived from the EM field, not the super-void.
masamune666
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
Was going to create a relatively long post, ended up accidentally deleting the comment.

tl;dr:
Leave Science to white people. Trying to skip an entire dimension because of ineptitude is relatively both a waste of time and an insult to those actually trying, and knowing how to, learn knowledge.

Most of the articles and news that have been disappointing to read have been of similar ethnicity, disappointing with a context of:
Depressingly, unbelievably, "mind bending" worthless individuals somehow being mistaken as worthy of being written about.

Would've been better to write some science-fiction than this garbage.
saposjoint
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
What the hell is your problem? What with the ethnicity bullshit?
PhotonX
5 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
Try to prove me, that the common particles or atom nuclei are NOT mini black holes
One doesn't have to know much science or logic to know that the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. Should you accept my assertion that there is an extraterrestrial alien base on Pluto, just because you can't prove there isn't one? Of course not, it's absurd. So you, what?--had some psilocybin flash of inspiration that atomic nuclei are somehow mini black holes, and you expect everyone to accept that just because you strongly believe it's true, despite having no evidence to support the claim? Don't have to know much science to know that's not how it works. How do you explain radioactive decay, then? What would give your mini BH nucleus a positive charge for electrons to bind to? I'm not a physicist, but it's easy to see that your claim leaves a bucketful of unanswered questions.
.
.
DonGateley
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
Thank providence for the "ignore user" button.

The headline of this article deceived me into thinking that such mini black holes had been found not just that if they are found etc, etc,

The simple substitution of the word "would" for "could" clears that up. "Indicate" keeps it loose enough to justify "would."
mortoo
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2015
If this is where we get to post crackpot theories, here's mine:

"As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions". If gravity can flow out, then it can flow in. What would that look like? Gravity effects without obvious matter.

Bam! Dark matter - solved.
I Have Questions
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2015
I hope the public reads the headline and freaks out!
I Have Questions
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2015
Big or little they are all the same size.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
I nominate mortoo for a chocolate fish!
Pheardom
4.7 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2015
When you find the little black holes, can I have one? Remember, I asked first :D
Safier
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
Aren't black holes something that absorbs everything so if you start creating them in the LHC are we risking the earth getting sucked in?

Yeah, sounds a little silly to worry about it and I understand that min ones don't last but evaporate... but that contradicts the laymen definition of black hole - i.e. if they evaporate they are not really black holes. My understand is that black holes absorb everything including light and don't let anything out...
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
http://en.m.wikip...ack_hole
These pages explain it pretty well safier
indio007
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Let me translate:

"We've discovered Jimmy Hoffa's remains at CERN"
or in the alternative
"We'll say anything for continued funding!"
I Have Questions
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
Let me translate:

"We've discovered Jimmy Hoffa's remains at CERN"
or in the alternative
"We'll say anything for continued funding!"


Yeah, understanding the nature of matter hardly ever pays off. Why do you want everybody to think you are a moron?
Vidyaguy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2015
"....and by extension, parallel universes." More accurate to say, "...suggesting the possibility of parallel universes."
Tri-ring
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
Concerning micro black holes, if they are small as atoms would they follow the same behavior dictated by quantum mechanics?
If so what kind of gravitational field will it possess?
Ultron
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
@gcam

I'm going to find out where you live and secretly step on your lawn.


Actually Dethe has no lawn, because he is living in flat. But if somebody is planing a trip to Prague, he can say Hello to Dethe. Here is his name, adress, email and phone number:
Admin Name:Milan Petrik
Admin Organization:Milan Petrik
Admin Street: Molakova 34/577
Admin City:Praha 8
Admin Postal Code:18600
Admin Country:CZ
Admin Phone:+420.0123456789
Admin Email: milanpetrik@atlas.cz

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
It's interesting. CERN went from 'the creation of black holes in our machine is not possible' to 'the chance is vanishingly small' to 'we have been trying to detect them' to 'we are trying to make them'.

I think this is called mission creep. Or politics. Or creative pr.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
Aren't black holes something that absorbs everything so if you start creating them in the LHC are we risking the earth getting sucked in?

We are talking microscopic black holes.

Black holes do not 'suck everything in'. The gravity of a black hole is dependent on the amount of matter that formed them (if the sun were to turn into a black hole right now then the Earth would orbit that place exactyl the way it does now). The real 'sucky' effect only occurs close to and beyond the event horizon (for a solar mass that would be a region a few tens of kilometers accross where you'd actually be in trouble in a spaceship - and only 6km accross where there's no turning back)

For something created at CERN the energies would be so low that the event horizon would be really small. The chance of something like that hitting an atom is very low. There are cosmic rays of larger energies around. If they were dangerous the Earth, and stuff in general, would long have ceased to exist.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
but that contradicts the laymen definition of black hole

Laymen only get confronted with articles about supermassive black holes (the stuff at galactic centers)... and Hollywood movies.
Those have a bit more of a reach where stuff gets nasty* - though not nearly as much as one would think. We're talking maybe the size of a solar system here - which is still tiny in comparison to the galaxy.

*Hollywood movies about the subject get nasty on a temporal scale...from start to finish I usually want to throw up because they are so bad at getting the science correct.
reset
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Let me translate:

"We've discovered Jimmy Hoffa's remains at CERN"
or in the alternative
"We'll say anything for continued funding!"


Yeah, understanding the nature of matter hardly ever pays off...


So, with the nature of matter being that below the subatomic particles of proton, neutron and electron, everything quickly decays into photons (and the odd neutrino)...you can claim that you have learned anything you want to based on the sea of femto second quanta of unstable energy at various frequencies. He learned that repeated experiments require a shit ton more money to run, only to yield more theories that have no basis in stable reality...

You'd have to be a moron to think it will be different the next time, and king of the morons if you believe you are learning anything about "the nature of matter" in these experiments.

Reality will welcome you back with open arms should you decide to return to it.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
We do not understand the meaning of reality by looking at the parts.

We must see it in total, universally, being in one of the layers of synergy.
Dethe
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2015
The real 'sucky' effect only occurs close to and beyond the event horizon (for a solar mass that would be a region a few tens of kilometers accross where you'd actually be in trouble in a spaceship - and only 6km accross where there's no turning back)
This is naive belief, until the resulting black holes will be charged and magnetic - they would exhibit additional forces and fields, which would greatly accelerate their sucking effects. It has been proven already with astronomical observations, BTW.

The only thing is more dangerous than the physical theorist: the naive physical theorist... Unfortunately most of theorists tend to formal, schematic thinking - so that they're naive by their profession, so to say..
Victorag
not rated yet Mar 19, 2015
A parallel universe is predicted in the following paper: http://fqxi.org/d...Hole.pdf

It could also explain the so-called "dark energy" problem.
Dethe
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
The parallel Universe concept is social construct of theorists, who afraid of violations of their theories in near future. We can always say, that the existing theory is not violated with new observations and experiments - it's rather the manifestation of another universe. In another words, the parallel Universe is a new religion, the main purpose is to save the social credit and income of existing theorists.

Some people here are saying, that I don't understand, what the contemporary science is about...;-)
lthrwing
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
alternate universe. string theory. multiple dimensions... really? on a scale of importance where does all this rank? as a planet of such intelligent beings, we're appearing pretty backward assed! No joke there! C'mon people... California's about to dry up. Terrorists kill without second thought. people are starving, countries are on the verge of war and destruction, people HATE one another because they're fat or skinny, have colored skin or worst of all... don't wear the right name brand of clothing! if we spent as much money and as much brain power as is spent on this senseless technology and theories, how much better would we be and this planet? C'mon people. We need to wake up! here's a world saving, people empowering idea for you... watch more kung fu movies! LoL! Kung Fu Movie Reviews. Please check out my YouTube Videos. Search YouTube for Kung Fu Cabinet!
Dethe
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2015
The popularity of Kung Fu movies is a sign of increasing violent tension of existing world too, so I really don't understand the philosophy and mental state of yours. Not to say, you're normal spammer.
esophal
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
You don't need to go to that extreme to detect parallel universes. Comments here suggested people came from their own universes.
lthrwing
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
The popularity of Kung Fu movies is a sign of increasing violent tension of existing world too, so I really don't understand the philosophy and mental state of yours. Not to say, you're normal spammer.

Really??? You don't understand what I noted in my post? Here's a perfect example of just how asleep we are! And, you are so right... kung fu movies are truly a contributor to the worlds tension. LMAO! Please come back to reality... PLEASE!!!
Dethe
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
Please come back to reality
The reality is, this discussion is not about kung-fu spam, but about miniblack holes at LHC...
lthrwing
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
Please come back to reality
The reality is, this discussion is not about kung-fu spam, but about miniblack holes at LHC...


and again.... thank you for pointing out the problem with our species. its almost like a malfunction in the brain isn't it? a malfunction that has been growing over all these ages and through all these generations, to a point where it is finally showing itself. sort of like a cancer. I reiterate for your sake, if we could only adjust our resources, our focus, onto issues that are of much more importance... how much better we all would be. its not my label, which you refer to as spam, (its actually humor since you don't get it) that should be the focus here. its the article itself and the comments and how they both miss the mark (including you).... again!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
For something created at CERN the energies would be so low that the event horizon would be really small. The chance of something like that hitting an atom is very low. There are cosmic rays of larger energies around. If they were dangerous the Earth, and stuff in general, would long have ceased to exist
.... in theory.
vic1248
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2015
While I don't believe in multi-universe, I can entertain extra dimensions; however, I would still believe that only the XYZ plane is physical while the extra other planes are not.
vic1248
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2015
Make that "I would still believe that only the XYZ space is physical while the extra other planes are not."
tonybudz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2015
The extradimensions indeed exist and they're all around us. The formation of true black holes would be dangerous for terresterial life and such an experiments should be stopped ASAP. Fortunately the scientists don't understand their own theories and the hyperdimensional artifacts stabilized with extradimensions are produced at LHC routinely - it's various new particles and antimatter atoms. http://www.reddit.../ca3oc32 I'm illustrating, how the physicists systematically overlook the well established phenomena during search of effects confirming their theories.


Agreed, it's dangerous and they have no idea that it is.
kamcoautomotive
Mar 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
i8stinkychee
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
Welp, if there are parallel universes then the next step would be to find out what parameters surround the terms of existence.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
But I do understand, how the science works - it's job creating and money consuming activity, in the same way like many others, which are subsidized with governments
@the idiot ZEPHIR
no, this is how non-profit's work as well as religions, NOT SCIENCE

science is about finding answers
and until you have some experience in that and can show where you are capable of understanding the basics, then you will continue to fail epically with regard to physics and science period

try this: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
the ONLY excuse you would have for NOT learning is because you have already CHOSEN your decisions and are looking for justification for them
which is what the rest of the world calls RELIGION, Dunning-Kruger boy

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
The dense aether model just makes it obvious
@Dunning-Kruger ZEPHIR the idiot troll
except that aw/daw is FALSIFIED and proven wrong: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
your whole problem is that you believe so strongly in your faith that you are UNABLE to see science and it's logic for what it truly is: a refute of your faith in aw/daw
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

LHC. Billions of wasted dollars hunting snipe....
@cantthinkforhimself
pre-1890's or so a snipe hunter was extremely accurate and could hit a fast moving evasive target on the fly, thus the hunter was considered very very good
which is where the word Sniper comes from http://www.etymon...rm=snipe
only in modern days (post 1900 or so) is it used to denote a hoax or wild goose chase

the reason you are pissed is because the LHC results falsify your eu stupidity
keep trolling cd
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2015
Actually Dethe has no lawn, because he is living in flat. But if somebody is planing a trip to Prague, he can say Hello to Dethe. Here is his name, adress, email and phone number:
Admin Name:Milan Petrik
Admin Organization:Milan Petrik
Admin Street: Molakova 34/577
Admin City:Praha 8
Admin Postal Code:18600
Admin Country:CZ
Admin Phone:+420.0123456789
Admin Email: milanpetrik@atlas.cz

@Ultron
ROTFLMFAO
you know dethe is actually ZEPHIR right?
LMFAO
should also post the IP address he is using...
oh wait, never mind
he also uses an anonymizer which allows him to avoid being perma-banned except by sites which don't allow them

one more reason to enjoy the fruits of the frog instead of the TROLLS of the PO

what a way to ruin a beautiful city...Prague
i always thought they were progressive and intellectual when i was there... but each city has it's resident idiot... just like a town drunk
LOLOL

shane_simpson
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
CERN: Supercolliders, Subliminals, & Stargates: Illuminati's Plan for Satan's Arrival

youtube.com/watch?v=huO8yLcC6hU
verkle
Mar 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ultron
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
...
Admin Email: milanpetrik@atlas.cz

@Ultron
ROTFLMFAO
you know dethe is actually ZEPHIR right?
LMFAO
should also post the IP address he is using...
oh wait, never mind
he also uses an anonymizer which allows him to avoid being perma-banned except by sites which don't allow them

one more reason to enjoy the fruits of the frog instead of the TROLLS of the PO

what a way to ruin a beautiful city...Prague
i always thought they were progressive and intellectual when i was there... but each city has it's resident idiot... just like a town drunk
LOLOL


Sure I know that he is Zephir and I guess also cantdrive85 and many more. Actually he is a .NET coder, so it is understandable that it is hard to block him. He was trolling in many forums in past 8 years. I guess that generally he is quite smart, but has some irrational believes regarding physics, almost bordering to delusions.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
This is naive belief, until the resulting black holes will be charged and magnetic - they would exhibit additional forces and fields, which would greatly accelerate their sucking effects.

"Additional forces and fields"? Are you even listening to what you are typing? The energies at CERN could (potentially) create micro black holes at the very lower limit (Planck mass) - which means the charge they carry would be one elementary charge at most. That doesn't give you much of an electrical or magnetic field.

The chance of a black hole hitting any atom is infinitesimal. The stuff that is shot at each other in a collider is coming in at close to c. Black holes that would be created will go careening off at a fair clip (and it only requires 11km/sec for them to escape the Earths gravitational pull completely) - even if Hawking were wrong about he Hawking radiation thing.
TheOrphan
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
OK Here's a point of contention ...

Black holes exhibit a mass so large that they exhibit a gravitational force greater than or equal to the speed of light.

This being the case how can a plank scale particle mass exhibit Gravity greater than or equal to the speed of light ?

Are they now saying Gravity is not constant ???
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
This being the case how can a plank scale particle mass exhibit Gravity greater than or equal to the speed of light ?

Mass isn't the factor the determines whether something is a black hole or not. Density is.
You can have a black hole with a very small mass if it's very, very dense (read, very, very small). The mass just determines the gravitational pull this thing will have. Which, needless to say, is very tiny at even a miniscule distance more than its Schwartzschild radius.

Back-of-the-envelope-calcs give the Schwarzschild radius of a one Planck mass black hole as roughly 2E-37meters (note that this would be smaller than the Planck length which is on the order of E-35, so likely this is not all there is to it)
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
Still doesn't wash for me antialias, there isn't enough energy/mass in a collision to achieve it.

When they say they can form in the TeV range it implies all that energy is converted into a mass with a radius of around the plank scale. This hasn't happened in the LHC to date.

They also state that extra dimensions are a requirement for the energy to be as low as the TeV range.

All of which strikes me as wishful thinking, or possibly an attempt to explain atomic attraction and elemental cohesion.

The reality is, they refuse to accept that Gravity is not constant, the EM field and Higgs field point to this fact, but no one will accept it.

There is a very good chance that what we call Gravity on earth is a function of Em / Higgs field pressure and the Gravity of the quantum fields is in fact much lower than the larger atomic structures we live with.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
They also state that extra dimensions are a requirement for the energy to be as low as the TeV range.

Well, that's the trick here: If we see micro black holes at these energies then something must have 'leaked'...which could be an indication of extra dimensions.

The reality is, they refuse to accept that Gravity is not constant,

There's no reason to suspect that G isn't a constant. Th eEM field is an entirely different critter. That ship - explaining gravity and inertia in terms of EM fields - has sailed (are better: sunk) 100 years ago.
Mimath224
not rated yet Mar 20, 2015
@antialias_physorg when I read '...which would support string theory and related models that predict the existence of extra dimensions as well as parallel universes....' I just wondered if that was not the main motive. I do appreciate that there is a massive amount of data created during LHC runs and I wonder if sometimes someone working on the projects kind 'piggy backs' on the main objective. Would I also be right in saying that if mini bh were detected it wouldn't prove SString theory (as I think some would wish)? Would appreciate some help with these mini bh theories because although I have searched I haven't really found something with 'more meat on it' so to speak
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2015
Would I also be right in saying that if mini bh were detected it wouldn't prove SString theory

You can't prove a theory. But if stuff like this is detected which does not behave in a weird way (i.e. no extra dimensions needed to describe), then that would weaken string theory. In that way it's one of these really good tests where you can delineate between what the standard model predicts and what string theory predicts (which, up to now, has been a real problem - as string theory predicts basically anything.)

As for piggy backing: Of course (you do that everywhere. Lots of data is being reused in entirely different analysis methods. Only prudent to get everything possible out of the datasets you have)
It's not like the LHC will run these tests just for string theory. But if the data shows these anomalies then they can (and should) use it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2015
I'm not a specialist on string or brane theories, but from what I gather the idea is that gravity can work accross branes. Which would mean that
a) Gravity sources on another brane can affect us
b) Gravity sources here can affect stuff in other branes (the 'bulk')

It is the latter (I think) what they are talking about when they say there may be 'leakage'. because you would get a mass that has less gravitational effect here than expected (because some of the effects would be in the bulk)
lpreyna
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
The major flaw with this field of study is that the conditions they are trying to recreate did not actually exist at the time of our universe was created in fact no one knows what our universe looked like prior, during, and post big bang.... the effects of this universe size gap in knowledge has led to scientists making claims about discoveries that have huge flaws themselves... take the Higgs particle, it was theorized that a singular particle would be detected yet the actual results showed Higgs particles would show up in pairs and at a slightly different voltage, the models never predicted them & their existence has never been fully explained. Another flaw is the fact that it is being performed on earth subjected to earth's gravity. The hyper acceleration of particles in the presence of gravity can & should augment space time in a way that is unlike the conditions that existed when the universe was form, it could be that scientists are creating their findings instead of observing.
24volts
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
I really don't think they are going to find any tiny black holes. Even if they could blast particles together hard enough to force enough energy into one small spot that might otherwise qualify it will instantly come back apart again as there is not going to be enough gravity there to hold it together over the other atomic forces. All they might see if what ever particles or possibly bits of them that were crunched together come flying back out of that spot again. The cern is the wrong type of electrical mechanism to create a black hole.
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
There's no reason to suspect that G isn't a constant.


Yes there is ...
1. The Gravity constant experiments that have been performed for the last 40+ years.
2. Particle persistence.
3. The fact that super small particle groups like the Higgs and EM are not solid structures.
4. The Fact an electron can reclaim a photon.

It is the latter (I think) what they are talking about when they say there may be 'leakage'. because you would get a mass that has less gravitational effect here than expected (because some of the effects would be in the bulk)


So what you are saying is they have theorised a completely separate parallel Universe to explain observed discrepancies in the G constant ?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
Is it possible ... assassination?
@verkle
as you respectfully submitted this, i will respectfully reply

it has more to do with the poster as well as the history of the poster than anything else

it also has a lot to do with content:
when you continually flood a science site with religious dogma that is based upon a book that plagiarized other religions and has been proven fallacious and falsely accredited then there is a serious problem with the credibility of the pronouncements that you share from it

this also goes to the scientific content:
if you are not sharing from science (in layman's terms- from a perspective of being able to prove it with empirical evidence as well as experimental valid supporting evidence etc, like in court) then you are NOT posting respectfully on a science site, but intentionally trying to goad someone into a flame war

there are plenty of other places for religion and pseudoscience to be discussed
science is about evidence
not faith
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
Probably most of the participants in this forum have seen mechanical models of the solar system that recreate the movement of the main celestial bodies in it. Vacuum can be programmed locally within the solar system in this way to maintain the movement of bodies in exact synchron. Because cosmic vacuum is not empty space and has a structure with properties which devine the behavior of elemetary particles and energy transfer between them and their interaction respectively. So that gravity can be seen not as strength, but as programmed behavior.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
Such vacuum structure expalin some electromagnetic fenomena.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
Even if they could blast particles together hard enough to force enough energy into one small spot that might otherwise qualify it will instantly come back apart again as there is not going to be enough gravity there to hold it together over the other atomic forces.

if they make a black hole then it would be held together. It cannot come apart because no force carrier (not even nuclear forces force carriers) could escape that tiny, tiny region. The gravity inside the region would be enormous. Anywhere outsides a bit further out (say on the order of the size of an atomic nucleus) the gravitational force would be already very weak.

It's a bit like if you turn the sun into a black hole. The forces at a few km from the center would be gargantuan. But the forces at a distance that is the current surface of the sun (or further out) would be the same as they are now.

Such vacuum structure expalin some electromagnetic fenomena.

Math, please.
24volts
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015


Such vacuum structure expalin some electromagnetic fenomena.

Math, please.
You want math - get a calculator. The only way a black hole forms is to have enough mass to create the intense gravity needed. You are not going to get that intense gravity in a pin spot created by banging protons together in the CERN. That requires a whole lot of mass and it won't be there.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
this also goes to the scientific content: if you are not sharing from science ......... then you are NOT posting respectfully on a science site, but intentionally trying to goad someone into a flame war


Below quote from El Stumpo July 27 2014:

<@benni-haha
no twin, spark boy
ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on and AGAIN! MORE PROOF that you are not an electrical engineer! LOL
YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT about computers!>

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...slowdown
n-years.html#jCp

Is this "posting respectfully" on a science site? You threaten to commit identity theft on me & confronting me at my "doorstep" is respectful? Tell us why YOU are not your own definition of what you label as someone posting disrespectfully?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
You want math - get a calculator. The only way a black hole forms is to have enough mass to create the intense gravity needed. You are not going to get that intense gravity in a pin spot created by banging protons together in the CERN. That requires a whole lot of mass and it won't be there.


Yup, gravity has no imitation.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
Is this "posting respectfully" on a science site?
@Benji-haha
read the whole thread and see how you are being called out as a liar and troll
(and i can get your info if i WANTED to)

or look how you can't comprehend the basics, even when being helped: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

better yet, how about reading some of your own stupidity re: respectful posting
ask him if he can do Differential Equations
but funny enough, when asked to DEMONSTRATE YOUR OWN ability, you FAIL EPICALLY
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

you seem pretty cocky for someone who us "ROC's" keep pointing out as a blatant liar and full of BS

tell me again about how you are an engineer?
even my engineer daughter points out the stupidity of your posts

my post to V was respectful

but you are a liar
respect is earned
and you've earned only scorn and ridicule for your stupidity posted he
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
PS trolling benni
You threaten to commit identity theft on me & confronting me at my "doorstep" is respectful? Tell us why YOU are not your own definition of what you label as someone posting disrespectfully?
i never threatened to do anything
i said it was possible and i COULD do it
big difference...

i tried to be helpful to you once when you were stupidly posting, and you were a total jack*ss and tried to make it sound like the only person with intelligence on this site was you
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

you thought your crap didn't stink, but you made STUPID errors
especially WRT galactic years/milankovitch cycles and "earth wobbles" (chandler wobbles)

you want respect, you have to earn it
and all you've ever done is be an *ss with Dunning-Kruger who thinks he is better than everyone

you deserve all the ridicule and anything else you get because you are a stupid, narcissistic, arrogant, unbearable troll
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
El Stumpo,

You just don't know what great fun it is continuing to aggravate you into posting your psychobabble drivel like you just did.

Here you are posting about a topic you've never studied & are incapable of studying because your only college course was that Psychology course you took at that local community college in Texas. You need Differential Equations for Einstein's thesis in General Relativity & a psyc course simply isn't about to cut it.

So, yo there, King of Copy & Paste, you should be posting at an AARP site that is more suited to you level of demeanor & knowledge. By the way, almost every housewife in the country also knows how to copy & paste links to other sites.
whisperin_pines
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
People believing in something that cannot be proven: parallel universes. Sounds just like religion.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
You just don't know what great fun it is continuing to aggravate you into posting
@benjiTROLL
and you don't know how much fun it is to prove you are an idiot and a blatant liar!
especially with your own words as well as your own posts!
your only college course was that Psychology course you took at that local community college in Texas
LMFAO
2 degree's
unlike your MADE UP degree and your trying to tell people you are intelligent, but can't figure out how to do simple math (galactic year = milankovitch cycles? really? LMFAO)
By the way, almost every housewife in the country also knows how to copy & paste links to other sites
so you are saying you are not even as smart as a housewife?
because you have never been able to link references or provide links to support your conjectures, AARP man!
LMFAO

nice try
learn to INTERNET, benji
try starting here at my school: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
it is even free for you
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
El Stumpo,

You'd make for good Sunday morning TV. preaching to the rest of us how to live but never practicing it yourself.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
Math, please.
You want math - get a calculator. The only way a black hole forms is to have enough mass to create the intense gravity needed.

It's pretty simple. All you need is a great enough density. (density is the thing that defines if something is a black hole - not mass. There are supermassive stars that have a lot more mass than is needed to make a black hole, but they aren't black holes because they are not dense enough.)

The math is easy: To get a black hole you have to get enough mass inside a volume so that the volume is smaller than the sphere of its Schwarzschild radius.For 1TeV you come out to about 1E-18 meters. (Note that this is approximately 3 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton - very, very tiny)
http://backreacti...pen.html
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
@antialias_physorg thanks for your comments. I agree with you last post and it seems to me that some don't understand the difference between mass and density. It ought to obvious when reading simple algebraic sums where one finds examples of the calculation say for the Earth (Earth BH size of a pea etc.). But these are just math exercise and not to be taken as possible real outcomes.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
@Ren82
Behind every thought stands mathematics. But the mathematical apparatus known to mankind has no the power to describe all phenomena in the universe. It is at very low level yet.

In comparison to whom? & can you elaborate on 'The structure of the vacuum of space' albelian or non-albelian?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2015
.......it seems to me that some don't understand the difference between mass and density. It ought to obvious when reading simple algebraic sums where one finds examples of the calculation say for the Earth (Earth BH size of a pea etc.). But these are just math exercise and not to be taken as possible real outcomes.


But first there is a minimal mass is needed to create the gravity field required to create the density for the creation a BH. Density of material does not create gravity, that is created ONLY by the presence of the quantity of mass present within a stellar body itself of whatever type.

It is not possible to simulate a BH inside this collider simply because gravity cannot be simulated by colliding a bunch of subatomic particles together, this followed up with a lot of math skewed into some corny explanation that a BH was created for some brief moment in time. Gravity creates far different conditions than any collider can ever create to form hi-density mass.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015
@benjiTROL
the point is (as well as the point of the article, moron) is that a BH can be created without needing the mass of a star
http://www.scient...k-holes/

These black holes are hypothetical at this point and finding them would enlighten things about spacetime etc
as noted in the freakin article
In principle, a black hole can have any mass equal to or above the Planck mass (about 22 micrograms)
https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

point 10 is very interesting to anyone curious (low density BH?)
http://blogs.disc...k-holes/
preaching to the rest of us how to live but never practicing it yourself
and yet you are preaching and NEVER supporting your conjecture with evidence?
you say i don't but i've provided links above... and usually do
i proved you a LIAR above too!

epic fail, benji TROLL
baudrunner
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2015
try starting here at my school: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Good school. Maybe a little much for the laytrolls on this blog. Maybe he'd be happier with this, http://motionmountain.net/ - "Wonder and Thrill on Every Page".
baudrunner
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2015
String theorists get respect; black hole theorists get their respect; alternate universe and extra dimensional theorists get theirs, too. And yet none of these theories are actually provable, so doesn't that send those theories into the box labelled "pseudo science", or into the box labelled "conjecture"? Well, no, actually, because someone saw fit to group their creators in that exclusive domain of physics doctoral degree holders, and that automatically guarantees them some kind of immunity. Don't get on my case about the math, because mathematics can prove the impossible. Nope, there's just plain old discrimination going on here.

I have the answer to what is gravity, and how are black holes formed. You're not going to read about it until it gets published, because I'm not laying myself wide open to abuse. And, incidentally, where are the trolls calling for "Empirical Evidence" when these so-called doctors spew out their untestable "theories"? Huh...?!?!
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015
Nope, there's just plain old discrimination going on here
@baud
not really
the BH theory (and others) is based upon the physics and maths that are used to explain the universe
extrapolated from them in some cases, like GR/SR
so it is not hypothesis/pseudoscience when you make a prediction, then observe the prediction
Now, about
calling for "Empirical Evidence"
BECAUSE these theories are based upon the physics/math that we KNOW is true (GR/SR) then we can use this to search for observations that match the predictions (as stated)

And, like any good scientist, until something is validated, i remain firmly in the camp of "wait and see"
BUT at least this is firmly grounded in actual physics, unlike EU

when the EU claims that BH's are not BH's, i ask "where is the evidence" because they are making an ASSumption based upon a pseudoscience or a picture, NOT upon physics or math
BIG DIFFERENCE
& it is a well known pseudoscience at that

I still await evidence
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Has anyone ever heard of a stellar object called a Proton Star? No.

So why would anyone try to create BHs by colliding a couple of opposing proton beams at one another in the Hadron Collider when it is surmised the core of a BH was once a neutron star? Smashing protons together results in different byproducts than smashing neutrons together if your goal is to simulate a BH.

If your intent is to simulate in the Hadron Collider that which occurs in a neutron star or BH, you must at least start with the same subatomic particles & they're not even doing that.

Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2015
@Benni depends on how one interprets E=mc² doesn't it. m covertable to E or m is equivalent to an amount of E. If m is vewed as a state of E then a BH would depend upon concentration of E within a particular volume. So to a lay person like me that would mean if one continued to pour energy into some quantum state then one might end up with a qbh and I assume that LHC might be capable of doing that.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2015
@Benni depends on how one interprets E=mc² doesn't it
No, it's the math & what occurs when atoms are fissioned or fused....the sum of the parts always equals the whole.

m covertable to E or m is equivalent to an amount of E. If m is vewed as a state of E then a BH would depend upon concentration of E within a particular volume
It is not "conversion" that takes place via Energy/Mass Equivalence Principle (E=mc²) as calculated in Special Relativity, the correct term is TRANSFORMATION.

So to a lay person like me that would mean if one continued to pour energy into some quantum state then one might end up with a qbh and I assume that LHC might be capable of doing that.
This largely depends on what assumptions one makes about the "quantum state", but in the end the sum of the parts must ALWAYS equal the whole, nothing is wasted in the process of TRANSFORMATION, and conversely nothing is created in transformation.
baudrunner
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
when the EU claims that BH's are not BH's, i ask "where is the evidence" because they are making an ASSumption based upon a pseudoscience or a picture, NOT upon physics or math
BH theories are based on observation, and the mathematics can be created to fit a desired paradigm. There are any number of theories based on the possible physics of what is going on in BH's, so again the physics can only provide possible explanations, but no proof. So, while I agree that black holes exist, because we can see evidence of them, answers to questions pertaining to why they exist is still largely the product of creative thinking, as are any ideas to the contrary, and all of these ideas are equally valid until the empirical evidence tells us otherwise.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2015
BH theories are based on observation
Yep, there are some pretty well done observations about very fast orbiting stars at the very center of our MW. They certainly act like they're doing everything they can to avoid falling into something with very high gravity.

and the mathematics can be created to fit a desired paradigm
Just as Einstein did when he calculated gravitational lensing long before it was observed.

There are any number of theories based on the possible physics of what is going on in BH's, so again the physics can only provide possible explanations, but no proof
Agree with you there, there may be some answers here that the infrared JWT will give us.

while I agree that black holes exist, because we can see evidence of them, answers to questions pertaining to why they exist is still largely the product of creative thinking.... and all of these ideas are equally valid until the empirical evidence tells us otherwise.
Seems reasonable.

OdinsAcolyte
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Intuitively, we know there is a multiverse. It is string theory I do not buy.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2015
"Intuitively we know" is the same oxymoron, like the "multiverse".
qquax
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2015
This paper is hogwash. Don't take my word for it, you can read the opinion of one of the authors of a paper they referenced:

http://backreacti...ith.html

I Have Questions
not rated yet Mar 29, 2015
You'd have to be a moron to think it will be different the next time, and king of the morons if you believe you are learning anything about "the nature of matter" in these experiments.


OK, so computers, cell phones, GPS, satellite communications, your car, your air conditioner, flat panel monitors, your house, medicine, do I need to go on?

Yes someone who lives in a world completely dependent on understanding the nature of matter, completely dependent on science and technology that says what you said is a moron, obviously.
Mimath224
not rated yet Mar 29, 2015
@Benni sorry but I think you missed my point. If one can covert one form into another then transformation fits but if you have a slice of bread then, with our present tech, then we couldn't convert it in the first place to allow the transformation to take place. However, E=mc² still applie.
If the qu state was similar to the macro state then a unified theory would have been developed long ago, but it isn't. Do not misunderstand me, but SOME say E.C. is violated by some qu transfromations but it is momentary, as for example in the case of the W Boson which appears briefly yet is something like 100 more massive than the sytsem to begin with; & qu tunneling where particles in a 'well' are unable to escape because they lack energy the required energy to do so, yet some do escape! Now, don't give arguments against these as I am aware of them. All I am saying that it seems that these answers are regarded as unfinished. Perhaps others here can be more specific than I. cont
Mimath224
not rated yet Mar 29, 2015
@Benni Also every conservation law text talks of 'isolated' or 'closed' systems and I ithink you use the blanket phrase 'the sum of the parts must ALWAYS equal the whole' far too freely and is a bit outdated too!

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.