CERN and black hole

[sanctus]

Yesterday someone at the weekly juggling meeting asked me what I think about the risk of creating a black hole with the new experiment at CERN (I think he meant LHC). It seems that it was in all newspapers and I missed it. Anyone has any good links to articles?

Afterwards I would like to discuss it...

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Yesterday someone at the weekly juggling meeting asked me what I think about the risk of creating a black hole with the new experiment at CERN (I think he meant LHC). It seems that it was in all newspapers and I missed it. Anyone has any good links to articles?

Afterwards I would like to discuss it...

Bonjour Sanctus,

The story originated from PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 558 September 26, 2001 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon, where it was written:

...Physicists hope to bring this whole process down to earth by manufacturing tiny black holes amid the stupendous smashups of protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) being built at CERN. Until recently theorists thought gravity was so weak compared to the other forces that it, and gravitationally bound objects like black holes, could be studied on an equal footing with the other forces like the strong nuclear force only at energies of 10^19 GeV. In the past few years, though, some models featuring extra spatial dimensions hint that the unification of the forces, including gravity, might set in at much more modest energies, even in the TeV realm of the LHC. Thus one can contemplate forming a TeV- mass black hole even as one can imagine creating new particles in that mass range. [...] A particularly striking signature of the black hole would involve an electron, muon, and photon in the final state of debris particles. Properties of Hawking radiation could tell physicists about the shape of extra spatial dimensions. A possibility of recreating the early moments of the universe in the lab would further unite particle physics and cosmology (Physical Review Letters, 15 October 2001

See also American Institue of Physics.

If I recall, the story was blown out of proportion, (i.e., there is no way to form a mini-black hole at CERN-LHC or any other future particle accelerator) But I have not yet found an article to that effect (or looked for one).

Here is a computer generated image of what it would look like.

Computer display of a hypothetical decay of a mini black hole in a collider detector. Collimated "jets" of particles correspond to quark and gluons produced from "Hawking radiation" emitted by the black hole.

.

Anyone else find anything more recent?


A+


CC

[JTankers]

ColdCreation writes "there is no way to form a mini-black hole at CERN-LHC or any other future particle accelerator"

Yes, that is out of date. New theories in physics now predict that micro black holes may be creatable at Large Hadron Collider energies. The CERN Courier in 2004 predicted possible creation of micro black holes at a rate of one per second. (cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199]The case for mini black holes - CERN Courier)

But CERN predicted that they would be safe, because a 30 year old theory by Dr. Hawking predicted that micro black holes would decay.

But other PHD's in Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences predict that micro black holes may be just as likely to grow, and if they become charged, then grow quickly.

Basic arguments:

Hawking Radiation is disputed as "no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes" and cosmic rays striking Earth do not prove safety because if stable neutral micro black holes were created, they would travel through Earth and exit at relativistic speeds.

CERN has presented a credible and detailed new safety report with arguments for safety based on Neutron stars and cosmic rays. And while I am very thankful for the creation of this important report, I can not ignore what CERN's SPC Committee writes in their validation report:

"A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years."

I suggest that this experiment wait for confirmation from the GLAST space telescope which will attempt to validate Hawking Radiation. If Hawking Radiation can be confirmed, then perhaps we can consider the Large Hadron Collider reasonably safe. If not, then more confirmation is needed.

Good links to learn more:

Good balanced encyclopedia article, Safety of the Large Hadron Collider on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider]Safety of the Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Safety arguments in more detail: LHCFacts.org

Legal Defense: LHCDefense.org

[Overdog]

Here is the latest I am aware of on the subject...

UCSB professor's paper on safety of large hadron collider to be published in Physical Review D

Particle colliders creating black holes that could devour the Earth. Sounds like a great Hollywood script.

But, according to UC Santa Barbara Physics Professor Steve Giddings, it's pure fiction.

Giddings has co-authored a paper, "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes," that has been accepted for publication in an upcoming edition of the peer-reviewed journal Physical Review D, documenting his study of the safety of microscopic black holes that might possibly be produced by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is nearing completion in Europe. The paper, co-authored by Michelangelo Mangano of the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), which is building the world's largest particle collider, investigates hypothesized behavior of tiny black holes that might be created by high-energy collisions in the CERN particle accelerator.

If they appear at all, these black holes would exist for "about a nano-nano-nanosecond," Giddings said, adding that they would have no effect of consequence. However, the paper studies whether there could be any large-scale effects in an extremely hypothetical situation where the black holes don't evaporate.

The Giddings/Mangano study concludes that such microscopic black holes would be harmless. In fact, he added, nature is continuously creating LHC-like collisions when much higher-energy cosmic rays collide with the Earth's atmosphere, with the Sun, and with other objects such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. If such collisions posed a danger, the consequences for Earth or these astronomical objects would have become evident already, Giddings said.

"The future health of our planet and the safety of its people are of paramount concern to us all," Giddings said. "There were already very strong physics arguments that there is no risk from hypothetical micro black holes, and we've provided additional arguments ruling out risk even under very bizarre hypotheses."

The LHC, near Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to begin operations this summer. It will collide proton beams at levels of energy never before produced in a particle accelerator. Those results will then be studied for clues to new forces of nature, and possibly even extra dimensions of space. The first collision of beams is likely to be in September. The $8 billion project has taken 14 years.

Two men have filed a federal lawsuit in Hawaii in an attempt to halt the LHC due to their concerns about the safety of black holes. Giddings' study has been cited by CERN as evidence of the safety of the LHC.

[JTankers]

The report above is available here: indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=35 065

And quoted in that report under the micro black hole section about the new neutron star and cosmic ray argument is this:

"A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years."

An other professors write of the theory that predicts decay "no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes"

As Dr. Paul J. Werbos of the National Science Foundation writes: "stake the very survival of all life on earth on the truth of their ZPE stuff! … a gamble."

That may be an understatement, we have not even confirmed whether the deck is stacked against safety or not!

LHCFacts.org

[freeztar]

What would be the Swarzchild radius of a TeV black hole? If it did not dissipate, what would be the worst that could happen?

[Little Bang]

I for one am very skeptical of Hawking radiation therefore think that if the energies are great enough to create a black hole it will grow.

[modest]

Originally Posted by freeztar

What would be the Swarzchild radius of a TeV black hole?

1 TeV = 10^12 eV = 1.602E-7 joules

by e=mc^2 that's 1.783E-24 kg

Schwarzschild radius is 2Gm/c^2 which gives:

2.65 x 10^-51 meters. by comparison, an electron is about 10^-18 meters. So, it would be 33 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. I wonder what the chances would be that it would hit anything. I guess it probably would if it didn't evaporate, in which case...

Originally Posted by freeztar

If it did not dissipate, what would be the worst that could happen?

If it had less than earth's escape velocity of 11 km/s it would stay gravitationally bound to earth - falling through the earth almost out the other side. Then back through again and again until it settled down toward the middle. At first, I imagine it might grow rather slowly. Eating an atom here and there. Eventually though, it would get big enough to grow rapidly at which point the ground would start to fall beneath us.

I'm sure it would be loud, painful, debilitating, and confusing. Shock waves and concussive blasts would probably disintegrate the earth's crust killing most everybody from falling or being crushed or accelerated beyond human tolerance. I doubt it would be a gentle descent into the singularity. At the end of the day everything that was your existence would be erased from the universe forever.

But, I'm sure that won't happen

~modest

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by modest

1 TeV = 10^12 eV = 1.602E-7 joules

by e=mc^2 that's 1.783E-24 kg

Schwarzschild radius is 2Gm/c^2 which gives:

2.65 x 10^-51 meters. by comparison, an electron is about 10^-18 meters. So, it would be 33 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. I wonder what the chances would be that it would hit anything. I guess it probably would if it didn't evaporate, in which case...



If it had less than earth's escape velocity of 11 km/s it would stay gravitationally bound to earth - falling through the earth almost out the other side. Then back through again and again until it settled down toward the middle. At first, I imagine it might grow rather slowly. Eating an atom here and there. Eventually though, it would get big enough to grow rapidly at which point the ground would start to fall beneath us.

I'm sure it would be loud, painful, debilitating, and confusing. Shock waves and concussive blasts would probably disintegrate the earth's crust killing most everybody from falling or being crushed or accelerated beyond human tolerance. I doubt it would be a gentle descent into the singularity. At the end of the day everything that was your existence would be erased from the universe forever.

But, I'm sure that won't happen

~modest

Could something that much smaller than an electron even eat an electron? Could it compress an electron? It certainly couldn't tear an electron apart, it has no parts. How many millions of years would it take such a small black hole to grow big enough by consuming particles small enough for it drag into it's event horizon. are there any particles small enough for it to drag into it's even horizon? Photons maybe? I'm betting it would take millions if not billions of years for it to grow big enough to consume any thing other than possibly photons.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

1 TeV = 10^12 eV = 1.602E-7 joules

by e=mc^2 that's 1.783E-24 kg

Schwarzschild radius is 2Gm/c^2 which gives:

2.65 x 10^-51 meters. by comparison, an electron is about 10^-18 meters. So, it would be 33 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron.

Thanks Modest. It's funny that when I clicked back on this thread I was scolding myself for not doing the math and just asking the question, and then I saw your post.

That seems immeasurably small. Would we even be able to detect that one was created?

EDIT: I guess we could indirectly detect them via the presence of muons and such?

If it had less than earth's escape velocity of 11 km/s it would stay gravitationally bound to earth - falling through the earth almost out the other side. Then back through again and again until it settled down toward the middle. At first, I imagine it might grow rather slowly. Eating an atom here and there. Eventually though, it would get big enough to grow rapidly at which point the ground would start to fall beneath us.

I'm sure it would be loud, painful, debilitating, and confusing. Shock waves and concussive blasts would probably disintegrate the earth's crust killing most everybody from falling or being crushed or accelerated beyond human tolerance. I doubt it would be a gentle descent into the singularity. At the end of the day everything that was your existence would be erased from the universe forever.

That doesn't sound that bad.