Concern Over Creating Black Holes 597
Maria Williams writes to tell us about worry surrounding the impending startup of CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Some fear that the device, in creating mini black holes, could jeopardize Life As We Know It. While the tiny black holes should evaporate quickly — throwing off so-called Hawking radiation that can be detected — CERN software developer Ran Livneh reminds us that "Any physicist will tell you that there is no way to prove that generated black holes will decay." The LHC site assures us there's nothing to worry about. The flap is reminiscent of the time the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider went live. The worry then was that "negative strangelets" could gobble up the world.
Please, for the love of God... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks.
For those who don't know, in the John Titor story, the CERN LHC allegedly lays the groundwork for using artificial black holes as part of a time machine (made for the military by General Electric, of course!).
(And no, John Titor is not a real time traveler.)
For example:
Along with the prediction of World War III, another notable prediction is that of a Civil war in America, which was predicted to begin in 2004, around the time of the presidential election, and would escalate until 2008, which, according to Titor, "[is] a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over."
Even statements like this are subjective and many people still choose to believe; I'm sure there are many slashdot readers (judging from the kind of posts I see here) who believe we are currently in a nascent "civil war" and that, indeed, the "world they thought they were living in was over." This is all typical vague crap that can be viewed a variety of different ways, Nostradamus-style, and never soundly disproven, conspiracy-theory-style. Even now, people are arguing that John Titor's visit may have allowed us to "change our future". Yeah, because the mental giants who believe the John Titor story have had a huge impact on things.
...
It's quite impressive how many people actually believe this tripe, though.
Of course he's not a real person... (Score:5, Funny)
Time travel.. (Score:2)
Civil War (Score:2)
Actually, the civil war prediction is pretty clear-cut. Do we have two or more large factions of Americans shooting each other for political purposes? No. Therefore, while the country is certainly polarized, we are
Re:Civil War (Score:4, Funny)
Ahhh, so that's what happened to her teeth...
Re:Please, for the love of God... (Score:5, Funny)
On November 3rd, 2004, civil war was narrowly averted when Kerry supporters realized that only 0.03% of them owned a gun.
interestingly enough (Score:3, Informative)
Back then, the "republican" conservatives opposed the expansion of slavery and made freeing the slaves a goal. I believe they actually won the election before the civil war. Techically, Lincoln started out as a "whig", although by then the whig party was split along pro-slave/anti-slave lines and most of the anti-slave whigs (including Lincoln) became republicans by
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying his story still holds together, if you want to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ack! (Score:5, Funny)
It's already begun!
m-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So?
Well, the event-sphere is actually small enough to fit between two atoms and not even touch their electrons. If the black-hole passed through the earth, it would come out the other side with about half velocity and about twice its original mass. And that's only if Hawking radiation is fallacious. If it's not, then the black hole will only have an event horizon until the decrease in mass causes its schwartzchild radius to dr
Calling Dr. Freeman (Score:5, Funny)
I hear the Vortigaunts are our allies.
Dr. Freeman? Meet Mr. Blackwood! (Score:2)
- Gage Blackwood
Agent 5 of the Temporal Security Agency
Re: (Score:2)
Creating them is a problem (Score:5, Funny)
You see, the problem is that we could all get sucked off before we know what's going on.
Re:Creating them is a problem (Score:5, Funny)
I meant sucked in.
Re:Creating them is a problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Creating them is a problem (Score:4, Funny)
The world didn't end last time... (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh shit! Yeah, our bad -- man, are our faces red. Sorry about that, everybody."
Re:The world didn't end last time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The world didn't end last time... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I buy that reasoning. That's like saying that a {particle beam, laser} won't work because the hole at the end of the tube is only big enough for one {atom, photon}.
Except it's worse than that. As soon as things shift around a little so that a single atom goes in, the event horizon is now slightly larger. Repeat ad infinitum. All it takes is an occasional atom getting through.
A microscopic black hole either dissipates or it doesn't. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have a problem. It may take millennia to become a serious problem, but....
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Just to clarify, I don't think there's much chance at all that such a tiny black hole would be able to gather enough mass quickly enough to create such a chain reaction. I'd imagine the initial mass needed for such a reaction to be sustainable is probably much larger than we would ever be able to create on Earth. That said, -if- it were the case that it does not dissipate, then there's a potential problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You sound like Einstein - "um, i don't THINK the a-bomb will create a chain reaction of splitting atoms that will destroy the universe as we know it... but... just in case you might wanna get you some of that AFLAK insurance."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Curiously, the LHC is going to come online in 2007. Hope that's just coincidence.
You are correct (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an assumption in all of this, that the singularity is a point in space/time. This is how it is normally considered, but it is by no means the only interpretation that would be valid. Evaporation only applies within this assumption because entropy can only ever increase and the entropy of a physical point singularity that did not evaporate would be a constant. If a singularity does not exist as a point (there are other solutions, such as a "Kerr Ring Singularity") or doesn't actually exist as a physical entity at all (see below for a trivial theory where that would work), then all bets are off.
This is a "just for amusement" theory, for the sole purpose of illustrating a singularity that would not violate the second law of thermodynamics and still not evaporate. Let us say that a singularity does have infinite gravity at the point at which it "exists", and that the curvature of space/time is a direct function of gravity, then what we call a singularity would not actually exist as an object. At all. What you would have is a "well" of essentially zero diameter where the sides were orthogonal to space and along the axis of time in a negative direction. The notion that "space and time end at a singularity" would not be true to an observer within the Universe, as they would not experience the well as anything other than a continuation of space. However, space would then not be simply-connected and it would be mathematically possible to show that there were mathematically definable points within an otherwise well-defined region that could not be reached.
Now for the well itself. It cannot stop within the universe, because there are no forces along that axis. F=ma, so if F=0, then a=0. Nor can it continue forever, because it's going along the axis of time and time does not continue forever. There is exactly one place such a well could terminate, that being the moment of the Big Bang. (It stops there because there's nothing more to travel along.) It would be an express trip, there would be no possibility of getting off anywhere else. So it's just as well that, if this correct, anything that fell in would be crushed into quantum foam. Nothing else is going to fit in a well of zero diameter. Hawking's theory of imaginary time becoming real time would certainly fit this description.
This theory would require that (a) black holes can only ever expand, (b) hawking radiation would contain equal numbers of particles and anti-particles (which would explain why we have such trouble finding any), (c) the recently-proved Poincare hypothesis does NOT apply to space/time, as it is no longer simply-connected, and therefore the Universe is NOT topologically equivalent to a hypersphere (which is going to upset the Chinese and Russians no end), and (d) the Hubble constant absolutely must be below 1.
(That last one might not be obvious, so I'll explain. This theory recycles matter and energy through time to the big bang. Since you have a Universe's worth of matter/energy, you would not need inflation theory - which is "good" because inflation is an ugly hack whose chief benefit is that it works vastly better than every other mainstream theory in existance. But you can't guarantee that the whole Universe is recycled if the Universe is open. You can only guarantee 100% recycling if every possible photon and every possible particle is absolutely
Re:You are correct (Score:4, Funny)
So... That's a yes, right?
Re:You are correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the idea behind Hawking radiation is that the intense gravity gradient of a black hole causes virtual particles to become actual near the event horizon. One goes in and the other escapes. It doesn't matter which one went in. Of course, a pair of particles just appearing out of the vacuum leaves a "hole" that must be filled (otherwise cionservation of mass/energy is violated). The energy to fill the hole tunnels out of the black hole itself. The net result is that it loses the mass of the escaped particle.
It's worth noting that the size of black hole we're talking about here would evaporate in a small fraction of a second, most likely before it would even encounter another particle. It would have to somehow absorb a few hundred metric tons of matter to even last 1 second.
Should all of this theory prove wrong, we may still feel safe since collisions with this level of energy DO occur in nature already and obviously haven't created "The Black Hole that Swallowed the Earth".
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh shit!"
Re:The world didn't end last time... (Score:5, Funny)
"Scientists constructing a device that could potentially destroy the earth? Don't we have super-heroes to deal with this sort of thing?"
Re:The world didn't end last time... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it doesn't destroy the world, scientific knowledge advances.
If it does, no onw will be around anymore to worry about it.
its one way to go... (Score:4, Funny)
Standing at the pearly gates it would be a great converstation starter... "oh yeah? I was killed by a black hole...."
Re:its one way to go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:its one way to go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried, but I started to think about a Beowulf cluster of black holes for some reason.
Am I the only one that read.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite the way it would happen (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not quite the way it would happen (Score:5, Funny)
Woah, man. I think you just blew my mind.
keanureeves If I even have a mind....
Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
I would say the "The Lifeboat Foundation's" chances of building a self sustaining space colony by 2020 are about a quadrillion times greater than the chance of a man-made mini-black hole eating us all.
You Fear What You Don't Understand (Score:5, Interesting)
It's natural to fear what you don't understand. It might even be a quality of a species that determines its success as many things in nature are quite dangerous. For better or for worse, mankind has this built in as a default setting no matter who you are whether you're fearing a black hole or suffering from xenophobia.
I am not a physicist but I think the fears here are quite unfounded. All the math and theory point to a black hole having a finite event horizon. If the black holes they are producing are microscopic and last relatively little amount of time, they shouldn't be very dangerous. I think this has been covered before [slashdot.org].
It is interesting though, because I believe a black hole's event horizon has a radius proportionate to the amount of mass it consumes. I believe that if you make them small enough, however, they don't last long enough to expand. I would be concerned if they were attempting to make massive singularities to destroy garbage heaps with these but I don't see how those would be possible to create as the only known method is to accumulate so much mass in such a small volume that gravity crushes it into a singularity. My understanding of the collider is that it smashes particles together at a fast rate and, as a result, very tiny and brief black holes may result. As this article [nature.com] states:
People will, as always, fear what they don't understand so I believe it's hopeless to quell all fears about physics research. I'm sure a lot of people are concerned about this being the next "atomic bomb" technology. Where we "drop" black holes on enemies. Though that doesn't really make sense, it still could have military applications such as creating electromagnetic devices that are so strong they displace gravity and aiming them at your enemies. Sure would make for a cheesy sci-fi book whether it was true or not!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, merging gravity and the quantum world has been one of the biggest scientific challenges for about 80 or so years, so it is safe to say that we really don't know much about gravity on these length scales.
On the other hand, there is nothing to worry about here anyway.
Thrice upon a time (Score:2)
Cool book, anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No way? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course there's a way. Empirical research, just like they're doing. First you make a black hole, then you see if it expands until it destroys all life on earth. Simple, straight forwards, effective.
SETI paradox resolved (Score:5, Interesting)
Civilizations routinely destroy their home planet by creating miniature black holes thereupon whilst trying to figure out what makes them tick. Technology advances faster than democracy, and it has never yet in the long history of the universe been put to a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Forget the name of the book though.
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
I thought everyone knew... (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest the following items: (Score:2)
Silver-lined tinfoil hat [theodoregray.com], cleverly disguised as a normal trucker's hat.
Silver Boxer Shorts [theodoregray.com] -- while all you smartie-pants rationalists are protecting your *brains*, I'll be protecting Man's truest contribution to the future of humanity.
There was concern over atomic weapons too... (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [wikipedia.org] (wikipedia, blah blah blah)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There was concern over atomic weapons too... (Score:4, Interesting)
But don't worry. Physicists will never make a mistake again. And, hey, the atmosphere didn't ignite, so, no problem.
The biggest word in that sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
While the tiny black holes should evaporate quickly...
The biggest word in that sentence is should.
Re:The biggest word in that sentence (Score:4, Funny)
Finally! (Score:2)
Cosmic rays have prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cosmic rays have prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Fermi knew the answer long ago (Score:5, Informative)
Natural Particle Accelerators (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, there are as yet little-understood phenomena that can accelerate particles six orders of magnitude faster than anything achievable in a lab. Try reading about Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays [wikipedia.org].
More specifically read the story of the Oh-My-God Particle [fourmilab.ch]. This was a proton detected in October of 1991 that had an energy of 3.2 * 10^20 eV. The equivalent energy of a baseball thrown at 55 mph... all in a single proton travelling at 99.99999999999999999999951% the speed of light!
While something travelling that fast has little probability of interacting with anything you could imagine the surprise if one of those hit you! I think that the fact we are alive with such powerful forces already at work in our universe means we have little to fear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, even though the particle was traveling that fast, it interacted with the thin upper atmosphere, right? Isn't that where the telescope was looking to see the flashes?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At Last! (Score:2)
Industrial Accidents (Score:2)
Utter Crap (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there are physicists who are concerned. There is a chance that this could happen - one of those "if everything we know about high energy physics is completely wrong, this could happen". There is an approximately equal chance that Pat Buchanan will be nominated as the Democrat candidate for president in 2008. No physicist can prove that this won't happen - just like no physicist can actually prove that Superman doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, it's about the only way a reporter can "sexy up" a story about a particle accelerator. I can't wait to see the headlines in 2007 - "Will the Earth end tomorrow?" (subheading: "Respectable scientists say 'No'").
Re:Utter Crap (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Utter Crap (Score:4, Funny)
"Earth NOT Destroyed"
What, you think reporters aren't complete idiots?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Two points:
OK, imagine the black hole not decaying... (Score:5, Funny)
We'll all die. Simultaneously. Noone will feel anything.
What's the big problem aside from the end of the earth?
Might actually improve things... (Score:2)
Then again, those who believe this should join the tin-hat club...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but who's gonna turn off the lights?
Has anyone seen my car keys? (Score:3, Funny)
This reminds when I read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, he mentioned that there was a possibilty of creating another Universe when (if it were possible) smashing together Superstrings. Something like that, I'm not sure where I put the book.
The Hole Man (Score:2)
"The math is chancy..."
I once read (Score:2, Redundant)
That was ridiculous too.
Better we kill ourselves... (Score:3, Funny)
But better us then nature!
What happens when multiple black holes combine? (Score:2)
get a "less tiny" black hole?
And isn't that... "bad"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Black Holes and Birth of our World (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And here I sit... (Score:5, Funny)
I bet you $1,000,000... (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of a SCIFI book I read (Score:3, Informative)
Nature itself tells us: no doomsday (Score:5, Interesting)
See Doomsday Fears at RHIC [highbeam.com] in particular the reference Review of Speculative "Disaster Scenarios" at RHIC [arxiv.org]
Where do they think black holes come from!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
The rest, as they say, is astronomical history....
Not this again (Score:3, Insightful)
already too late... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And David Brin (Score:3, Informative)
Earth [amazon.com]
where an artificial black hole grows out of control and slowly eats the planet earth from the inside out.