Atom Smasher May Create "Black Saturns"

David Shiga writes "If we ever make black holes on Earth, they might be much stranger objects than the star-swallowing monsters known to exist in space. According to a new theory, any black hole that pops out of the Large Hadron Collider under construction in Switzerland might be surrounded by a black ring — forming a microscopic 'black Saturn'. This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough." An evocative excerpt from the article: "...there is an outside chance that in a few years in a tunnel near Geneva, physicists will make a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut."

4D black donut?

[bunions (970377)]

mmmmmmmmmmmm, higher dimensional.

Re:4D black donut?

[Robber Baron (112304)]

I don't know about you, but I'm going to be keeping a shotgun and a chainsaw close by at all times!

Pic from article

[Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373)]

black saturn [flickr.com]

Re:Pic from article

[Drooling Iguana (61479)]

Here's a better picture: .

Note: Image has been heavily magnified.

Now wait a minute..

[QuantumG (50515)]

Are you actually suggesting that string theory might actually predict something that the standard model doesn't, and what it predicts might actually be measurable?! That's crazy talk! Next you'll be suggesting that string theory is disprovable and therefore actually science. I'll believe it when it happens.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[Lawrence_Bird (67278)]

We are the String Theorists. You will be assimilated. Resistance is non-dimensionable!

Re:Now wait a minute..

[by Anonymous Coward]

That was what I thought when I read the article. One of the major complaints about string theory has been that there's supposedly no way to test it experimentally. But the article says such a structure could only exist if there are really four dimensions. So if we succeed in creating one, would that be an experimental confirmation of string theory? Seems to me, at the very least it would confirm one of the major premises.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

String theory makes several predictions that are expected to be testable in the near future. String theory being untestable is a pop science myth that distorts the underlying truth -- string theory unfortunately has lots of parameters that need to be tuned.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[maynard (3337)]

Testing String Theory: [sciencedaily.com]

Physicists create string theory test

PITTSBURGH, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- Scientists have long questioned the validity of "string theory" and now U.S. physicists have created a test for the controversial "theory of everything."

[... click link to read article]

Re:Now wait a minute..

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

So Quantum Field Theory is not science either. QFT is just as broad, perhaps even broader, in what it could conceivably describe, as string theory. The Standard Model is a QFT, and not a particularly pretty one at that. Much of the work that goes on in string theory is looking for a string theory, a particular model within the framework of string theory in the same way as SM is a particular model within the framework of QFT, that describes our universe. String theory is already just as good, and arguably better than, QFT, except in that finding models in string theory seems to be much harder.

There are ways to test QFT, and there are ways to test string theory. For instance: Lorentz invariance. Just because nobody reasonably suspects that Lorentz invariance will turn out to not be a real feature of our universe does not mean that it is not a testable prediction. The frameworks of both QFT and string theory include Lorentz invariance.

Furthermore, string theory is not as purely descriptive as you seem to think. It begins with some quite simple and quite basic first principles, and then attempts to derive all of physics from those. If it turns out that they can't describe all of physics from those principles, then they'll have to go back to the drawing board and look for new principles. Those principles are hypotheses. They have left the observation up to other physicists, and are using the existing theories as a description of those observations. So, they are letting observation refine their hypotheses.

If they were merely looking for a way to describe all our known data, then they would just say "Well, our theory is: The Data Is As It Is." Such a theory would be absolutely right. It would even be science. It would be pretty poor science, but it would be science nonetheless. If they are truly looking for the simplest way to make equations that work out to cover all the physics that we know, then it is absolutely science. Simplicity and good description of data are what make a scientific theory good. And yes, they are trying to describe data. If they are trying to make particular limits of their theory match up with extant theories that are known to work in those same limits, then they are trying to describe data, simply because those extant theories are only extant because they themselves describe data.

Now, I don't much care for the particular approach that string theory takes, but that in no way makes it not science.

As I said, learn a little physics before you try and comment on physics. Learn a little bit more of the details of what string theorists actually do, and also learn a little bit more of the details of how every other scientific theory in existence was formulated. Not that they were all identical to string theory at some point, but at base, they all tried to find the simplest way of making equations describe data, and sometimes those data were represented by other equations.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[QuantumG (50515)]

It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it? You'll even get modded up. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything. Why? Because whenever someone finds a prediction with string theory that differs from observed data the string theorists have a reason why this doesn't disprove the theory. Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not. That's the difference.. that's what makes string theory not science. It may be interesting.. it may give us insights into how things may work, but you can't call it science. Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it?

Yes, it is. But I do try to do my part to combat misconceptions, because public misconceptions about one part of science tend to hurt all of science in a small way.

Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything.

True. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community regards string theory as something which could very well be the most important thing since the relativities and QFT.

Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not.

As I tried to explain previously, but you obviously either didn't read or didn't grasp, you are comparing apples to oranges. The SM is a particular instance of QFT. Nobody has yet found a comparable particular instance of string theory. You would in fact have just as difficult of a time disproving QFT as you would string theory, perhaps even more difficult of a time. For instance, suppose we did our searches for extra dimensions (these are done regularly at HEP labs) and found that our data supported a universe with 15 extra dimensions! This would rule out string theory without drastic modifications, but wouldn't hurt QFT at all. Wouldn't even hurt the SM.

Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.

If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place. If you're intending to hide behind a shield of "I don't really know what I'm talking about," then actually behave as if you don't know what you are talking about. Keep your mouth shut unless you've really got something worthwhile to say.

Most of the scientific community that I am familiar with (experimental HEP) doesn't really much care for string theory, but neither do they think it is not science and is a waste of time. In other words, they and I largely agree. Now which scientific community did you want me to take this up with again? (and don't forget the concept of a vocal (and book-writing) minority. Only a tiny minority of scientists ever write pop-science books. Their opinions should not necessarily be considered representative.) In my opinion, it is the amateur public, who is easily and immensely swayed by a few popular books, and then who reinforce each others misconceptions by such things as posting to slashdot and saying "yeah, string theory, sucks doesn't it. I really hate it.", who need to be addressed.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[QuantumG (50515)]

Science is the study of the disprovable. Man. Shouldn't have to explain this stuff....

Re:Now wait a minute..

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

Such a theory is predictive. As it stands, it predicts that that is all the data we will ever have, or that any further data will exactly mimic what we've already got. That's why it is such poor science; it is ludicrously easy to falsify.

Science's definition depends a great deal on who you talk to. Most everyone who has studied would agree that Plato did a bit of science. In fact, Plato's science was pretty amazing for its time. You recall the "four (or five) elements"? Plato said that each element was in fact tiny tiny versions of the Platonic solids. For instance, fire was made of tetrahedrons, and it hurt because it was sharp. When things decayed, the reason they smelled strongly was that the elements were actually breaking up into little triangles (their faces), and those triangles were small, so they got into our noses easily.

Plato's science wasn't very predictive at all. Pretty much purely descriptive. And yet it was a sterling example of early science.

Quantum Field Theory in and of itself is barely predictive. Pretty much its only predictions are directly its assumptions, such as the Lorentz Invariance I mentioned previously. Perhaps it is not science (and if you say that QFT is not science, then I might well agree that string theory is not science either, but I would then argue that we certainly need QFT to get the SM, which is science), but most people agree it is.

It is of course difficult to come up with decent examples of purely descriptive science, because of course purely descriptive science is very poor science indeed, and is rightly largely ignored.

Re:Now wait a minute..

[StarvingSE (875139)]

Why is it not science? I think what is called "string theory" should probably be renamed "String hypothesis" since that is what it really is IMHO. A science means following the scientific method, and the ideas proposed in string theory make up the hypothesis, and now researchers need to focus on experiments that test the theory. If the observable findings agree with the hypothesis on a regular basis, then we can call it a theory.

But to call it "not science" is just ignorant. People used to laugh at individuals who thought the Earth was round you know..

Re:You know all those unexplained gamma-ray bursts

[nizo (81281)]

Then suddenly global warming won't seem like such a big deal?

Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole

[David_Shultz (750615)]

Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth?

You're not the only one worrying, but trust me, there's no danger of this whatsoever. First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else. Remember, on an atomic scale there is mostly space. And these things are not just small -they are so small its hard to fathom. They are formed by smashing together protons moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. A black hole (might) be formed, if, during the collision, the resultant density of the object is greater than the density required to form a black hole. The gravity will be no greater than the mass of the objects combining it, so you don't need to worry about it sucking things in. Let me jsut give you an example. A basketball could, theoretically, become a black hole, so long as you compressed its mass into a small enough area -but it would still have the gravitational pull of a basketball. And here, we are talking about turning protons into blackholes! In short, nothing to worry about chap!

Third of all...

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else.

Third of all: The kind of (and energy of) collision in question occurs with non-trivial frequency when cosmic rays hit atoms in the atmosphere. If it created a long-lived black hole that could suck down a planet in a geologically short time we would have been down the drain LONG ago.

Re:Third of all...

[David_Shultz (750615)]

Fourth of all, all of this is theoretical so far since we haven't done it. Maybe our models are all wrong and this will in fact create a black hole capable of consuming everything around it and eventually the Earth and solar system. Probably not, but you can't really rule anything out completely.

This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.

Second, the only reason we have to believe in black holes is because of our scientific models, and now you are jumping up and down warning us that our models might be wrong? You would be standing on firmer philosophical ground by rejecting the notion that a black hole will be created at all (there you are just being a skeptic about theoretical entities). But your position as it stands is contradictory -you claim our models might be wrong and black holes might eat the planet, but yet you trust those theories in predicting the appearance of a black hole.

Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

Don't worry. If the LHC were going to make Earth-swallowing black holes, if there were any real chance at all of it happening, then cosmic rays would have done it long long ago.

Earth-cosmic ray collisions occur at an absolutely fantastic rate, higher than the LHC would ever even dream of. The energies of cosmic rays are distributed across an extremely broad spectrum, extending both above and below LHC energies. If there is any chance of the LHC making an Earth swallowing black hole, then there is precious little chance of the earth being outside of a black hole by tomorrow morning, much less any chance of the earth having survived 4.5 billion years.

Furthermore, pretty much everything in the galaxy, and presumably in the universe, experiences a cosmic ray flux comparable to what the earth sees. If the LHC were going to make planet or star swallowing black holes, then the sky would be mostly nothing but black holes.

Re:Dangerous mini-black-hole

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

Because the black holes (if they are formed at all) are not what we are interested in. Additionally, the detectors that we use at LHC weigh on the order of thousands of tons. That'd be an awful big weather balloon to lift them. Furthermore, the detectors we use are very narrowly focused. If a collision doesn't take place nearly exactly at the center of the detector, with the two particles involved having pretty much exactly equal speeds in opposite directions, then our measurements will not be on, or at any rate, the detector will be immensely more difficult to calibrate so that we get some kind of meaningful results from it. Also, having the detector underground, we can shield it from a lot of noise that adds uncertainty to our measurements. Finally, the results are immensely easier to study (in some ways, possible to study) if the particles involved always have nearly the same energies as in every other collision we are studying.

Cosmics have energies spread out over an absolutely huge range of energies. Their timing and location are nigh unto impossible to predict. We don't get anything like a 0 net momentum collision between a cosmic ray and an atmospheric atom. The upper atmosphere is an incredibly noisy place, primarily because of cosmics. We would have an awful hard time telling the difference between a particle that originated from a cosmic-atmosphere collision we were interested in and a stray particle that came from the hadron shower of some other cosmic-atmosphere collision.

Re:mmmm

[rolfwind (528248)]

It has to do with quantum moderation - a post can be in multiple states at once (offtopic/funny) until you look at it, then it takes assumes one and only one.

Re:mmmm

[kypper (446750)]

I feel my chances of getting laid drop with every chuckle at this joke.

Re:Questions from the Peanut Gallery

[kebes (861706)]

The short answer is: don't worry.

All black holes emit "Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org]", which causes them to slowly lose mass. For black holes below a certain size, this evaporation due to Hawking radiation will be so fast that they won't even have a chance to grow through matter accumulation before they evaporate into nothing. I know this doesn't match up with the pop-science description of black holes--where they consume all matter around them until nothing is left--but suffice it to say that the pop-science explanation leaves out many of the important details.

So, again, the creation of micro-black-holes is nothing to worry about. Remember that although the energies in the LHC are really massive, there are other similarly high-energy natural events occuring throughout the universe, and they appear not to routinely form micro-black-holes that consume everything around them. Creating stable (i.e.: big) black holes appears to be a comparatively rare event.

Some people are not appeased by the above arguments and point out that our current theory of particle physics may be lacking in some unforseen way, and we will destroy ourselves. Then again, the only reason to think a black hole will form at all is because of the current theory of particle physics. If that theory is wrong, it's more likely that... well... no black hole will form at all. (Again, look around the universe and notice the distinct lack of universe-consuming mega-black-holes.)

Re:Mmmmmmm universe!

[Chess Piece Face (247847)]

Hawking: I call it a Hawking Hole.

Fry: No fair! I saw it first!

Hawking: Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?