Black Hole Eats Earth
Marko Amnell
Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=11520991
Try this headline: Black Hole Eats Earth
By Dennis Overbye
Published: March 29, 2008
More strife in Iraq. U.S. financial system in crisis. Rice prices
soar.
None of these headlines will matter a bit, though, if two men
pursuing a lawsuit in a court in Hawaii turn out to be right.
They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing
protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce
a black hole that will spell the end of the Earth - and maybe
the universe.
Scientists say that is very unlikely - though they have done
some checking just to make sure.
The world's physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion
building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding
protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a
trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will
sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues
to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of
nature.
But Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists
at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN,
have played down the chances that the collider could produce,
among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say,
could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called
a "strangelet" that would convert our planet to a shrunken
dense dead lump of something called "strange matter."
Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an
environmental impact statement as required under the
U.S. National Environmental Policy Act.
Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious
issue that has bothered scholars and scientists in recent
years - namely how to estimate the risk of new groundbreaking
experiments and who gets to decide whether or not to go ahead.
[...]
Sam Wormley
The LHC energy will be a piffle compared to cosmic ray collisions...
by several orders of magnitude.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
Yeah, those people with an education.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
> > Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> > could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> > the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
>
If it's that simple, what does this paragraph later in the article
refer to?
"Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the
speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a
paper last year that black holes would not be produced at the
collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum
gravity might appear."
If the collisions to be produced by CERN do nothing beyond
what ordinary cosmic rays produce on regular basis, what
might Lisa Randall have been talking about?
Joachim Pimiskern
> Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
Shouldn't we all lie on the floor or put paper bags over our heads?
Joachim
greysky
"Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:298b1931-e8e9-48dc...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
>
Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
is *NO* chance of destroying the earth with this machine. If a small black
hole lasts long enough to feed on the walls of the LHC, it wont decay, but
grow. If a strangelet is formed and it is stable, the same. The basic
arguement for this not happening is that it already would have due to cosmic
ray collisions in the upper atmosphere - problem is, those cosmic rays are
hitting a target that is essentially standing still so the products are
still moving at high velocities away from us. With the LHC, you are going to
have two particles moving at equal velocities but in opposite directions.
The chances for products like mini black holes to form with zero velocity
with respect to the earth are therefor much higher. If this happens all the
observing scientists can do is shit bricks. That's why the LHC should not be
operated and I hope some nation finally comes forward and states that if it
is turned on it will be a decleration of war against the human race, and
then send jets over to bomb it into rubble. I am not an anti-science
luddite, it's just that I don't want to die in a horrible manner.... I feel
that those Cern Pecker-woods do not have the right to destroy us all.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build an FTL radio.
Marko Amnell
> "Marko Amnell" <marko_amn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:298b1931-e8e9-48dc...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> > could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> > the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
>
> Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
> is *NO* chance of destroying the earth with this machine. If a small black
> hole lasts long enough to feed on the walls of the LHC, it wont decay, but
> grow. If a strangelet is formed and it is stable, the same. The basic
> arguement for this not happening is that it already would have due to cosmic
> ray collisions in the upper atmosphere - problem is, those cosmic rays are
> hitting a target that is essentially standing still so the products are
> still moving at high velocities away from us. With the LHC, you are going to
> have two particles moving at equal velocities but in opposite directions.
> The chances for products like mini black holes to form with zero velocity
> with respect to the earth are therefor much higher.
Has anyone tried to quantify these probabilities?
Do you have a reference to an article about these matters?
Even a Web link would be nice.
> If this happens all the
> observing scientists can do is shit bricks. That's why the LHC should not be
> operated and I hope some nation finally comes forward and states that if it
> is turned on it will be a decleration of war against the human race, and
> then send jets over to bomb it into rubble. I am not an anti-science
> luddite, it's just that I don't want to die in a horrible manner.... I feel
> that those Cern Pecker-woods do not have the right to destroy us all.
We would have to weigh the odds of something bizarre and horrible
like that happening against the value of what we might learn about the
universe using the LHC. One lawsuit in Hawaii by two fairly unknown
individuals is not enough for me to support shutting it down.
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
What the fuck has it to do with the US Environemnt act? This is
Europe!! The energies concerned are tiny in any case.
K.
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
> "Marko Amnell" <marko_amn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
What do you mean in a horrible manner? You wouldn't know anything
about it - it would be so fast.I personally believe its the Yanks
trying to stop the Europeans getting their first...
K.
Uncle Al
>
> Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
1) It's bullshit. Black hole decay time is proportional to the
cube of its mass. An LHC- or RHIC-born black hole wouldn't have time
to go anywhere within its vacuum containment before decaying. Work it
out for two gold nuclei.
t = m^3/(11.94x10^15 kg^3/sec)
m in kilograms
t in seconds
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/core8.htm
2) It's bullshit. Given a nanometer- or even micron-diameter black
hole, crap must *spiral* into it. Angular momentum is conserved.
Stuff can swirl around but it won't enter in any magnitude of real
time,
htt://www.funnelworks.com/
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Androcles
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5xwHj.30771$R84....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
|
| "Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:298b1931-e8e9-48dc...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
| > could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
| > the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
| >
|
| Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
| is *NO* chance of destroying the earth with this machine.
Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
is *NO* chance of a bright green flying elephant laying its eggs in black
holes,
crank.
Yousuf Khan
>> The LHC energy will be a piffle compared to cosmic ray collisions...
>> by several orders of magnitude.
>
> If it's that simple, what does this paragraph later in the article
> refer to?
>
> "Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the
> speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a
> paper last year that black holes would not be produced at the
> collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum
> gravity might appear."
>
> If the collisions to be produced by CERN do nothing beyond
> what ordinary cosmic rays produce on regular basis, what
> might Lisa Randall have been talking about?
If any black hole does form, it will be so small that it would take it a
100 years to swallow just a proton, let alone the whole Earth. More
likely, it will evaporate into gamma ray light before that.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> We would have to weigh the odds of something bizarre and horrible
> like that happening against the value of what we might learn about the
> universe using the LHC. One lawsuit in Hawaii by two fairly unknown
> individuals is not enough for me to support shutting it down.
If you can create a large enough self-sustaining blackhole that can feed
off of the material in the Earth, then that black hole will munch the
Earth down to a ball of neutronium about 1 cubic centimeter in volume.
An object which is made of neutronium is otherwise known as a neutron
star, not a black hole. So such a mythical blackhole will have destroyed
its status as a blackhole and turned itself into a neutron star.
Sam Wormley
Do the Math: t = m^3/(1.194 x 10^16 kg^3/s)
Dr. Mary Ruwart
> Does anyone understand these issues well enough that they
> could explain how the physicists cited below would estimate
> the chances of a tiny black hole forming, or a strangelet?
>
The "black hole" they refer to is a statistical variation of a field
formula which will not behave with certainty like the other field
equations for magnetism, static electric fields, and gravity fields we
are all... mostly :) familiar with in the Newtonian Universe we
live in. (versus the relavistic universe "out there")
If the field does actually form it does not have the energy or mass to
sustain itself because it will only be a field. Its true that the
world around it will react to it. For about a trillionth of a
trillionth of a second before the field collapses on itself hopefully
yielding the same energy it took to make it minus the losses of making
it in the first place.
I say hopefully because that too is a field equation in relavistic
statistical analysis.
That means its a paper 'thing, not an end of the world 'thing. It may
liberate additional energy from the world around the collapsing field
or it may do nothing at all.
So what? Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite.
Respectfully,
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Greg Neill
news:47eecad3$1...@news.bnb-lp.com
Nonsense. Black holes can be destroyed by evaporation,
but certainly not by "conversion" into neutrons!
Anything that goes into a black hole ends up as just
more mass contributed to the black hole.
A black hole of only an Earth-mass would be evaporating
at a fierce rate, and it is doubtful that it could be
fed faster than it shed mass by Hawking radiation.
Tom Roberts
> [about the LHC] Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
Hmmm. There are no guarantees in this world. When Edison built his
lightbulb there was nobody able to "absolutely and finally say there is
*NO* chance of destroying the earth with this machine". Ditto for the
atom bomb (there were bets by knowledgeable physicists about "igniting
the atmosphere..."), or even the guy with the first wheel....
> If a small black
> hole lasts long enough to feed on the walls of the LHC, it wont decay, but
> grow.[... long-winded nonsense]
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Please compute:
A) the largest-mass black hole the LHC could possibly create.
HINT: total the energy of one proton in each beam combined.
HINT: E=mc^2.
HINT: 1 TeV/c^2 = 1.8*10^-24 kg.
HINT: in the LHC each beam has a maximum energy of 7 TeV.
B) the radius of a black hole of that mass. Compare to the
radius of a proton.
HINT: a proton has a radius on the order of 10^-15 m.
C) the evaporation time of such a black hole due to Hawking radiation.
HINT: a 1 kg black hole has a lifetime ~10^-16 sec, and this
scales as m^3.
D) how far such a black hole could possibly travel before evaporating.
Compare to the radius of a proton, and to the distance to the
beampipe.
HINT: Just assume it travels with speed c.
HINT: in the interaction regions the LHC has several mm (or more)
of free space (the nearest object is a vertex detector, not a
"wall").
Yes, my hint for (A) assumes the BH is created at rest, which is
inconsistent with my hint for (D). But with quantitative values his
"doomsday" scenario is impossible by so many orders of magnitude that a
factor of 3*10^8 is irrelevant (!). Sensible people do not worry about
such grotesquely impossible scenarios, much less agitate to turn off a
multi-billion dollar project.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> If you can create a large enough self-sustaining blackhole that can feed
> off of the material in the Earth, then that black hole will munch the
> Earth down to a ball of neutronium about 1 cubic centimeter in volume.
No. The black hole would grow to about 1 cm in size (assuming it started
with negligible radius, but big enough to both live long enough to
capture other matter, and to have a reasonable chance of swallowing a
proton if it hits one). Life on earth would be impossible shortly after
the creation of such a black hole.
Note that if you want it to live 1 second, it must mass about 10^5 kg.
That's probably FAR too small to be able to "eat" matter from the earth
faster than it decays via Hawking radiation.
Tom Roberts
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Tom,
I agree!
The experiment cannot produce a litteral black hole, only the the same
type of subatomic particle "flux" that makes up the "inside" or
individual components of nuetrons and may make up the material inside
the surface of black hole. It is not stable nor can it sustain itself
for anything but a tiny fraction of a second. It cannot have the
gravity of a black hole, only the same degenerate sub nuetron flux but
in higher densities more suitable for study.
Black holes cannot be made up of compressed degenerate nuetrons. It is
more likely that if they exist, then they are made up of sub-nuetron
flux material compressed to a much smaller volume with entirely
different properties. Black hole matter cannot be simply matter
compressed to a horrible density because its previous state was sub-
atomic particles (nuetrons) in contact with each other. Once you get
past nuetrons, "matter" becomes energy packets (very tiny "fields" in
strange decay times) with peculiar new properties independent of each
other. And we give them very strange names.
The media oversimplifies everything.
Its fun to read the scientific papers but these papers are not all
inclusive. They express an idea to be sure, but this does not mean
that everything in the published journals is all there is to be
learned.
Sam Wormley
And how much energy is required to make a "large enough" black hole?
Androcles
"Dr. Mary Ruwart" <drmary...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96422693-80aa-4b2d...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Tom,
I agree!
The media oversimplifies everything.
A kook that can't spell "neutron".
*plonk*
Dr. Mary Ruwart
> "Dr. Mary Ruwart" <drmaryruw...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:96422693-80aa-4b2d...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Androcoles,
Neutron is spelled "neutron". Check the spelling by others here
including yourself. You have a point to make with the "kook" name you
called me? I mean other than your spelling ability?
What I mean is that the subject was not "spelling", so, can you do
better than the name "kook" in the way of ideas of valuable interest
of others, or are you the class clown here?
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Dr. Mary Ruwart
> Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and finally say there
> is *NO* chance of a bright green flying elephant laying its eggs in black
> holes,
> crank.
Dear Androcles,
I see you are the class clown here.
Good One.
(you spell good too)
Paine
news:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
To Greysky i say, "Don't sweat the really, really
small stuff."
To Tom i say, "Scientific arrogance can be a
particularly terrible thing."
And to everybody else i say, "Enjoy to the fullest
each and every meal, each and every moment!
For no one, nobody, exists who can say for sure
that it won't be your very last!"
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
P.S. Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
Eric
PD
The plaintiff in this case also filed suit against the startup of the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in
Long Island, NY. The cause of action was identical to that for the
LHC.
A very similar evaluation by physicists was done for RHIC as was done
for LHC. The energy deposited in collisions at RHIC is actually higher
than what will be deposited at LHC. RHIC has operated without disaster
for several years now.
It is a nuisance filing, intended only to slow things down.
PD
BradGuth
> "Marko Amnell" <marko_amn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You mean the mutant incest foaming Semitic/Zionistic black hole likes
of rabbi Art Deco and company eats Earth. Figures, doesn't it.
. - Brad Guth
john
Bullshit.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
There are no Black Holes.
There's a snake under your bed!!!
(One might just have popped
in via a Quantum 'wormhole'.)
How much is society paying for these fools,
anyway? They should go out in the
woods and catch their own food for awhile.
John
Art Deco
Good luck asking for anything quantitative from greysky.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen
Art Deco
*ding*
>. - Brad Guth
Still #1 inside the skulls of teh koøks.
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Hello Marko,
Given that Black Holes even exist, I would like to remind you that the
entire subject of black hole evaporation is speculative. It's "proof"
involves figuring out how to perform quantum-field-theoretic
calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and
which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with
experiments. Physicists think that they have the correct theories to
make predictions about black hole evaporation, and even clever
computer programs have been written to allow "anyone" to run the
numbers, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.
Without validating experimental results all the math that has been
cited as describing this phenomena could be wrong.
The first problem in proving the evaporation theory is the mechanisim
by which this is accomplished. Stephen Hawking's math predicts this,
but does not describe how it works. How could it? So it remains a
curious mathematical modelling of a fantastic natural "predicted"
phenomena.
In a separate subject for a moment that hightlights this problem; I
recall how geologic continental drift theory here on earth languished
until maps of the oceans great rift valleys parting a continous
distance and the photographic evidence of geologic plate subduction
the same distance verified that this was possible. In otherwords, a
mechanisim by which a premise of science could work. These
observations showed how continents could move over long periods of
time and yet still appear to be permanently fixed in place to our
eyes.
This kind of simple observational evidence is the missing piece to
allow black holes actual recognition in the scientific community and
not languish as merely a theory. Let alone black hole evaporation. The
good news? Maybe black hole evaporation radiation will be the key in
actually directly detecting one. Direct detection. Direct observation.
Until then its all just a theory, isn't it?
greysky
Hello Marko,
Dr. Mary,
You are giving an excellent reason why the LHC experiments should, at the
least, be postponed until we have beter data. Like you say, Hawking
radiation is not a proven fact yet. Drawing analogies from laminar fluid
flow and applying them directly to point gravity sources may be hazardous in
the extreme. I mean really, what do you think those LHC researchers are
going to say if it turns out mini black holes don't evaporate - and they
learn this fact by making one? "Oh my, we made a boo-boo..." It'll be one of
the last facts we write about.
Without validating experimental results all the math that has been
cited as describing this phenomena could be wrong.
Problem here is that the maths can lie. String theory isn't really much more
than a hypothesis, and a mathematician's wet dream, but it has served quite
nicely to derail the brightest minds on the planet, and I'm not sure what
that fact is saying about us as a people. We currently have no theory which
will allow us to even remotely guess how far beyond the standard model we
can safely push things. I do not think we will be damaged if the human race
stops things for a few more years to allow more ideas to float to the
foreground. Of course, it'll do no good if the russians or the zimbabweans
choose to ignore the halt and continue on with their own accelerator
experiments. ... which is why I personally have no hope that wiser, more
patient minds will prevail. Despite the current lawsuit being brought forth
in Hawaii, I think the best hope for things to slow down is if the current
world economic slowdown turns into a full scale depression and the money for
such big, showy projects literally dries up. Things will get delayed by at
least a decade if not more.
The first problem in proving the evaporation theory is the mechanisim
by which this is accomplished. Stephen Hawking's math predicts this,
but does not describe how it works. How could it? So it remains a
curious mathematical modelling of a fantastic natural "predicted"
phenomena.
In a separate subject for a moment that hightlights this problem; I
recall how geologic continental drift theory here on earth languished
until maps of the oceans great rift valleys parting a continous
distance and the photographic evidence of geologic plate subduction
the same distance verified that this was possible. In otherwords, a
mechanisim by which a premise of science could work. These
observations showed how continents could move over long periods of
time and yet still appear to be permanently fixed in place to our
eyes.
This kind of simple observational evidence is the missing piece to
allow black holes actual recognition in the scientific community and
not languish as merely a theory. Let alone black hole evaporation. The
good news? Maybe black hole evaporation radiation will be the key in
actually directly detecting one. Direct detection. Direct observation.
Well, it can be argued that there has already been a direct detection of
black holes or strangelets. There is some evidence that the earth was
impacted by two small yet massive objects moving around a million kilometers
per hour back in 1993 - they took only a few seconds to bore completely
through the planet and sail back off into space. These objects left their
trace in the seismic record - I do not want to think what would have
happened if they were moving slow enough to be captured by our gravity well.
I also do not relish the thought that we may wind up creating one of these
objects at zero velocity in just under a year.
Until then its all just a theory, isn't it?
Respectfully,
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Live long, Dr. Mary.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Uh, hello? Cosmic ray collision events are many orders of magnitude
more powerful than the LHC can ever produce.
greysky
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48033777-7f7c-4183...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
So what? Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere is not going to
produce zero-velocity products. Two neuclii moving in opposite directions
and hitting in a machine have a much greater chance of producing products
that can get captured by the earth. The chance may not be very high, but
when betting on the wrong outcome can result in the death of everythich not
rescued by aliens, just how small do you think the chance should be before
it becomes acceptable? I also do not even think Steven Hawking is smart
enough to give a trustworthy answer.
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Gotta love the logic.
Can't trust conventional theory that says black holes that small will
evaporate, but use the same theory that says black holes will be
formed in collisions.
I think it is so cute how people - like you - who toss aside modern
physics [FTL radio? durr?] on a whim, but then hide behind it to
prevent basic research in projects like the LHC.
Y.Porat
----------------
little idiot moron psychpath !!
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------
Gisse is a little pomous psychoapth
and a walking damage to this ng
i suggest ignoring him completely
he is a 24 years undergraduate
that whants to teach his ignorance here
Y.P
----------------------
Eric Gisse
cry more?
Jerry
Not "many" orders of magnitude, but "several" orders of magnitude.
Considered on a center-of-mass basis, the 14 TeV (1.4x10^13 eV)
energy of the LHC would be equivalent to 10^17 eV cosmic rays
hitting a fixed target. The highest observed cosmic ray energies
are on the order of 10^20 eV.
Nevertheless, your point is completely valid. The Earth
experiences on the order of 10^12 to 10^13 encounters every year
with cosmic rays of 10^17 eV and above, so the Earth, Sun, Mars,
Jupiter, etc. should all have been swallowed up by black holes
ages ago, if Greysky's scenario is correct.
Jerry
Greg Neill
Not to mention the fact that the only way a micro black
hole would have a hope in hell of encountering any mass
to swallow would be to charge through some at high
enough speed so that the mean free path time is
significantly less than the evaporation time. Ain't
gonna happen with zero velocity!
Marko Amnell
> Hello Marko,
>
> Given that Black Holes even exist, I would like to remind you that the
> entire subject of black hole evaporation is speculative. It's "proof"
> involves figuring out how to perform quantum-field-theoretic
> calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and
> which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with
> experiments. Physicists think that they have the correct theories to
> make predictions about black hole evaporation, and even clever
> computer programs have been written to allow "anyone" to run the
> numbers, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.
>
> Without validating experimental results all the math that has been
> cited as describing this phenomena could be wrong.
>
> The first problem in proving the evaporation theory is the mechanisim
> by which this is accomplished. Stephen Hawking's math predicts this,
> but does not describe how it works. How could it? So it remains a
> curious mathematical modelling of a fantastic natural "predicted"
> phenomena.
Thanks for the explanation (and thanks to other posters as well).
I actually have read something about black holes. I read parts of
Hawking's "The Large-Scale Structure of Space Time" as an
undergraduate over 15 years ago, and parts of another book
that was easier to understand, "Black Holes: The Membrane
Paradigm" (name of author escapes me) which studied black
holes using thermodynamics, which was an interesting idea...
PD
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48033777-7f7c-4183...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 10:48 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Uh, hello? Cosmic ray collision events are many orders of magnitude
> more powerful than the LHC can ever produce.
>
> So what? Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere is not going to
> produce zero-velocity products.
Well, first of all, there is a well-known relationship between the
energy in a fixed target collision and the energy in a collider
experiment. It is, after all, just a change in reference frame to go
from one to the other. The *center-of-mass* energy of cosmic ray
collisions is much higher than than at the LHC.
> Two neuclii moving in opposite directions
> and hitting in a machine have a much greater chance of producing products
> that can get captured by the earth.
Secondly, this capture time is also easy to calculate. In cosmic ray
collisions, if a black hole were created, then the mass near the
horizon (as it passes through the earth) would be more than enough to
fall into the horizon enough to slow the hole and be captured by the
earth. In this sense, there is no substantive difference between a
stationary black hole and a moving one in terms of outcome.
> The chance may not be very high, but
> when betting on the wrong outcome can result in the death of everythich not
> rescued by aliens, just how small do you think the chance should be before
> it becomes acceptable?
About 1 in a billion. What do YOU think the chance should be?
Sam Wormley
Hello Dr. Mary J. Ruwart--Thank you for participating in sci.physics.
Black holes, like everything else in the universe, are not exempt from
the laws of thermodynamics.
I suspect there is some non zero probability that Hawking Radiation
could be confirmed in the new run of LHC experiments... IIRC there
has been a hint of "black hole" formation at the particle collision
level previously.
It's a shame we don't yet have a better way to study "up close" the
details of the cosmic ray collisions that are many orders of magnitude
more energetic.
Sam Wormley
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:48033777-7f7c-4183...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 10:48 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Uh, hello? Cosmic ray collision events are many orders of magnitude
> more powerful than the LHC can ever produce.
>
> So what? Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere is not going to
> produce zero-velocity products. Two neuclii moving in opposite directions
> and hitting in a machine have a much greater chance of producing products
> that can get captured by the earth.
Gee I really hate to tell you... but the Cosmic rays debris (that lasts
long enough) does hit the earth!
greysky
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:47f0d8db$0$7981$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f55d0e6-16cc-41df...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com
> On Mar 30, 11:57 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:48033777-7f7c-4183...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 30, 10:48 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Uh, hello? Cosmic ray collision events are many orders of magnitude
>> more powerful than the LHC can ever produce.
>>
>> So what? Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere is not
>> going to produce zero-velocity products. Two neuclii moving in
>> opposite directions and hitting in a machine have a much greater
>> chance of producing products that can get captured by the earth. The
>> chance may not be very high, but when betting on the wrong outcome
>> can result in the death of everythich not rescued by aliens, just
>> how small do you think the chance should be before it becomes
>> acceptable? I also do not even think Steven Hawking is smart enough
>> to give a trustworthy answer.
>
> Gotta love the logic.
>
> Can't trust conventional theory that says black holes that small will
> evaporate, but use the same theory that says black holes will be
> formed in collisions.
Because, dear grasshopper, there is more evidence of black hole formation
than there is evidence of black hole evaporation. Theory has nothing to do
with it.
>
> I think it is so cute how people - like you - who toss aside modern
> physics [FTL radio? durr?] on a whim, but then hide behind it to
> prevent basic research in projects like the LHC.
Modern physics is not the problem. Greedy, self centered scientists who are
more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion just
so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are. Mind you, I
am not saying stop things permanantly, but just for the time required to
make sure things can proceed safely - or at least have a backup contingency
plan if things do go wrong. For example, most of the scientists I have
spoken to feel there will be a small amount of time, the exact length of
time is debatable, where a mini black hole or a strangelt will remain inside
the machine mass, as part of its structure, before it gets large enough to
'fall out'. It can also be detected because of the radiation it emits as it
slowly eats the matter around it. That is the only window of opportunity we
are going to get to do anything constructive, and no one as far as I know,
except for me, have proposed a solution. This is inconscionable.
Not to mention the fact that the only way a micro black
hole would have a hope in hell of encountering any mass
to swallow would be to charge through some at high
enough speed so that the mean free path time is
significantly less than the evaporation time. Ain't
gonna happen with zero velocity!
Well, if Hawking radiation doesn't happen, then I certainly hope the
velocity is super-slow! Delay the inevitable...
Eric Gisse
> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:47f0d8db$0$7981$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com..."Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f55d0e6-16cc-41df...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:57 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48033777-7f7c-4183...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 30, 10:48 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Uh, hello? Cosmic ray collision events are many orders of magnitude
> >> more powerful than the LHC can ever produce.
>
> >> So what? Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere is not
> >> going to produce zero-velocity products. Two neuclii moving in
> >> opposite directions and hitting in a machine have a much greater
> >> chance of producing products that can get captured by the earth. The
> >> chance may not be very high, but when betting on the wrong outcome
> >> can result in the death of everythich not rescued by aliens, just
> >> how small do you think the chance should be before it becomes
> >> acceptable? I also do not even think Steven Hawking is smart enough
> >> to give a trustworthy answer.
>
> > Gotta love the logic.
>
> > Can't trust conventional theory that says black holes that small will
> > evaporate, but use the same theory that says black holes will be
> > formed in collisions.
>
> Because, dear grasshopper, there is more evidence of black hole formation
> than there is evidence of black hole evaporation. Theory has nothing to do
> with it.
Name one time a microscopic black hole has been observed.
>
>
>
> > I think it is so cute how people - like you - who toss aside modern
> > physics [FTL radio? durr?] on a whim, but then hide behind it to
> > prevent basic research in projects like the LHC.
>
> Modern physics is not the problem. Greedy, self centered scientists who are
> more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion just
> so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are. Mind you, I
> am not saying stop things permanantly, but just for the time required to
> make sure things can proceed safely - or at least have a backup contingency
> plan if things do go wrong. For example, most of the scientists I have
> spoken to feel there will be a small amount of time, the exact length of
> time is debatable, where a mini black hole or a strangelt will remain inside
> the machine mass, as part of its structure, before it gets large enough to
> 'fall out'. It can also be detected because of the radiation it emits as it
> slowly eats the matter around it.
What is the Schwarzchild radius of 14 TeV mass equivalent? How many
orders of magnitude is it smaller than a proton? Why are you still
talking?
[...]
greysky
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:12db102a-d963-4bd9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
I am not saying ths is a common scenario, Jerry. But I think it is a bit
more complex than that. First of all, you need to ask what is the percentage
of those 10^13 encounters are with a black hole. Not many, I'd bet. The
chances of black hole formation at such low energies is probably a rare
thing. Perhaps, for the sake of argument, lets say that 10 mini black holes
intersect the earth per year. Of those, how often will one be moving slow
enough to get captured? Of those, assuming hawking processes really do
occure under all conditions, how often will one of those holes that are
moving slow enough will be moving at just the right speed to be fed enough
matter to actually grow? It might work out to one in a trillion years of
cosmic ray collisions.
The LHC changes this equation. All the particles collide to produce a net
energy of zero. The movement of any black hole, or strangelet pairs, in this
case is almost completely determined by the cross sectional impact radii -
the closer to a dead on impact the slower the resultant products will be
going wrt the earth. Now, with the proper, thoughtful studies, it may be
determined that the chances of a disasterous accelerator accident occuring
and threatening the planet are still trillions to one against - to which I
would say go ahead and do the experiment. But what if it is only a thousand,
or a million, to one against? At what point does it become too risky? That
is a discussion we *all* must engage in because we are all going to be at
the same level of risk of death.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Learn how to build a FTL radio.
This is all that really needs to be read to realize that you are an
idiot.
greysky
Sometimes when I talk to you, I gotta wonder what it is that's between your
ears....
>
>
>
> > I think it is so cute how people - like you - who toss aside modern
> > physics [FTL radio? durr?] on a whim, but then hide behind it to
> > prevent basic research in projects like the LHC.
>
> Modern physics is not the problem. Greedy, self centered scientists who
> are
> more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion just
> so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are. Mind you, I
> am not saying stop things permanantly, but just for the time required to
> make sure things can proceed safely - or at least have a backup
> contingency
> plan if things do go wrong. For example, most of the scientists I have
> spoken to feel there will be a small amount of time, the exact length of
> time is debatable, where a mini black hole or a strangelt will remain
> inside
> the machine mass, as part of its structure, before it gets large enough to
> 'fall out'. It can also be detected because of the radiation it emits as
> it
> slowly eats the matter around it.
What is the Schwarzchild radius of 14 TeV mass equivalent? How many
orders of magnitude is it smaller than a proton? Why are you still
talking?
[...]
So you are saying that because the black hole is smaller than a proton, it
will just pass harmlessy through it. Whew! Thanks for putting my mind at
ease, Eric. I don't know what I'd do without your intellect to rely upon.
I'm gonna pull every string I have with the Nobel Committiee to make sure
the rest of the world rewards you for your heroic efforts!
greysky
Good Job, old man! Show the world that when arguements of logic fail, always
resort to namecalling!
PD
> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:47f0d8db$0$7981$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com..."Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't know what you think there is to be gained and so how greed
would be satisfied.
During and after WWII, there were Russians and Americans (and Japanese
and Germans to lesser extent) that were working on fission and fusion
bombs. I'd be hard pressed to classify any of them that were doing
this out of greed or self-centeredness. In historical accounts and
biographies, there are basically three categories of attitudes toward
the work:
- Deeply morally conflicted. Oppenheimer is the most visible example
of this. Einstein is an interesting case, too.
- Deeply morally motivated. Wheeler and Teller (American) and
Zel'dovich (Russian) were unshakeable in their conviction that not
only was this necessary but humanitarian.
- Those that were interested in the risk, but primarily as a physics
problem to be solved. Feynman is on record self-classifying this way.
Keep in mind that the "super", which could in principle be made a
million times stronger than Hiroshima (and was in fact ostentatiously
tested by the Russians at 5000 x Hiroshima yield), was definitely a
world-finisher.
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sure, why not? Makes as much sense as someone who ignores modern
physics [hello FTL 'radio' that doesn't exist] using the same physics
to argue against turning on the LHC.
Others have already explained the physics to you, but here you are
regardless.
greysky
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:600a20ff-7310-4784...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Not greed for money or power, or even the chance to win a Noble prize. But
there is still a greed for knowledge. This coupled with a blindnss to the
potential risk has created a dangerous situation. Notice how most scientists
classify their thoughts concerning the current lawsuit brought forth in
Hawaii: Derision, and belittlement. The attitude is perfectly displayed by
Tom Roberts' reply to my posting - a reply based on silliness. Problem is,
any attempt to predict how the world behaves beyond the Standard Model is
going to rest with supergravity, and ultimately with String Theory. We might
as well consult with a VooDoo priestess who will probably be more accurate
using chicken guts and tarot cards. If you knock a theorest down, and sit on
him or her and refuse to let them up untill they tell the truth, they will
finally relent and admit that they can only produce an educated guess as to
what is going to happen when they run the LHC at full power. And hey,
reality being statistical as it is, we may even get to run the collider for
many years before our luck runs out.
PD, I'm not an anti-science luddite. Seriously, I am all for the advancement
of knowledge. But, I like the world the way it is, too. I spent a long time
getting to the point I'm at, and I simply do not want to get taken out by
what would ultimately be a stupid mistake that could have been avoided.
Every time I pass by a playground full of screaming, laughing children I
feel a certain responsibility to maintain the world for their generation
too. If we hump the pooch badly enough now, there wont be anything left for
them to screw up .
greysky
On Mar 31, 11:58 am, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6679b0f3-a4ef-4292...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 11:51 am, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Greyskywww.allocations.cc
> > Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>
> This is all that really needs to be read to realize that you are an
> idiot.
>
> Good Job, old man! Show the world that when arguements of logic fail,
> always
> resort to namecalling!
Sure, why not? Makes as much sense as someone who ignores modern
physics [hello FTL 'radio' that doesn't exist] using the same physics
to argue against turning on the LHC.
My FTL radio wouldn't work if modern physics was wrong. But you're right if
by what you said you mean my work developing the worlds' only quantum
communication device has given me a unique perspective on things. Can't be
helped I guess.
Tom Roberts
> [...] trillions to one against [...]
You didn't do my quantitative computations. It is VERY MUCH larger than
"trillions to one against". So much so that "VERY MUCH" does not really
capture it!
Tom Roberts
stone
is it possible that in 2012 they finally
manage to make a blc hole large enuff
in order to eat tha entire earth?
Androcles
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bYbIj.30947$R84....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
|
| "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:600a20ff-7310-4784...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| > are
| > more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion
just
| > so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are.
|
| I don't know what you think there is to be gained and so how greed
| would be satisfied.
Paul Draper (PD) has confessed to being a troll, the equivalent of a usenet
terrorist.
Ref:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7bb83a5237013f2a?hl=en
You can trust anything he says the way an American should trust Usama bin
Laden.
PD
> "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bYbIj.30947$R84....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> || "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> |news:600a20ff-7310-4784...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> | > Modern physics is not the problem. Greedy, self centered scientists who
> | > are
> | > more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion
> just
> | > so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are.
> |
> | I don't know what you think there is to be gained and so how greed
> | would be satisfied.
>
> Paul Draper (PD) has confessed to being a troll, the equivalent of a usenet
> terrorist.
> Ref:
>
> You can trust anything he says the way an American should trust Usama bin
> Laden.
You have absolutely no skill as a physicist, but as a propagandist you
are merely clumsy and ham-handed. With practice on the latter, I'm
sure you'll be able to do better, but on the former there is sadly no
hope.
PD
Jerry
> I am not saying ths is a common scenario, Jerry. But I think it is a bit
> more complex than that. First of all, you need to ask what is the percentage
> of those 10^13 encounters are with a black hole. Not many, I'd bet. The
> chances of black hole formation at such low energies is probably a rare
> thing. Perhaps, for the sake of argument, lets say that 10 mini black holes
> intersect the earth per year. Of those, how often will one be moving slow
> enough to get captured? Of those, assuming hawking processes really do
> occure under all conditions, how often will one of those holes that are
> moving slow enough will be moving at just the right speed to be fed enough
> matter to actually grow? It might work out to one in a trillion years of
> cosmic ray collisions.
>
> The LHC changes this equation. All the particles collide to produce a net
> energy of zero. The movement of any black hole, or strangelet pairs, in this
> case is almost completely determined by the cross sectional impact radii -
> the closer to a dead on impact the slower the resultant products will be
> going wrt the earth. Now, with the proper, thoughtful studies, it may be
> determined that the chances of a disasterous accelerator accident occuring
> and threatening the planet are still trillions to one against - to which I
> would say go ahead and do the experiment. But what if it is only a thousand,
> or a million, to one against? At what point does it become too risky? That
> is a discussion we *all* must engage in because we are all going to be at
> the same level of risk of death.
OK. Let us assume the following:
1) Black holes exist.
2) Black holes do not evaporate.
3) Stationary black holes can be created by the head-on collision
of two 14 TeV protons.
Roughly 6000 cosmic ray protons of energy 14 TeV or greater
intersect a 1 square meter area each year. That implies that a
rectangular solid 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 light year (= 9.46e15
cubic meters) will contain 6000 ultra high energy protons.
The volume of a proton is roughly 4e-42 cubic meters. At any
given "instant" of time, therefore, there is a 2.5e-54 chance
of two protons in the column being in a state of collision.
In a cubic light year, there is a 2.2e-22 chance of of two
protons being in a state of collision at any instant.
Let the time it takes light to cross the diameter of a proton,
i.e. 6e-23 seconds, be considered the time it takes for a new
unique configuration of protons to occur within the volume of
space under consideration.
Then every second, in every cubic light year of space, 3.6
cosmic ray protons collide.
Suppose that only 1 out of every 1e9 of these collisions
results in a relatively stationary black hole, of slow enough
speed to be captured by the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, etc.
Then, over the history of the universe, every cubic light
year in the universe will have accumulated on the order of
1.5e9 relatively stationary world-destroying micro black holes,
not even counting fast black holes that are move too rapidly to
be captured by the Earth or Sun.
It does not appear that stars can exist, since they would all
have been swallowed up by micro black holes.
Jerry
Androcles
On Mar 31, 5:13 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bYbIj.30947$R84....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> || "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> |news:600a20ff-7310-4784...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> | > Modern physics is not the problem. Greedy, self centered scientists
> who
> | > are
> | > more than willing to risk the planet and everything on it to oblivion
> just
> | > so they can add one more note in their book of knowledge, are.
> |
> | I don't know what you think there is to be gained and so how greed
> | would be satisfied.
>
> Paul Draper (PD) has confessed to being a troll, the equivalent of a
> usenet
> terrorist.
> Ref:
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7bb83a523...
>
> You can trust anything he says the way an American should trust Usama bin
> Laden.
| You have absolutely no skill as a physicist,
"That is NOT true." -- PD
| but as a propagandist you
| are merely clumsy and ham-handed.
"That is NOT true." -- PD
| With practice on the latter, I'm
| sure you'll be able to do better, but on the former there is sadly no
| hope.
"That is NOT true." -- PD
You should be saying what things are NOT, Duck, you are such an expert at
it.
Art Deco
Learn how to quote a usenet post correctly; this is apparently a much
more difficult task.
--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen
Art Deco
[defective quoting corrected]
You forgot to mention that the only evidence for the existence and
functionality of this alleged device consists of your words alone.
>
>Others have already explained the physics to you, but here you are
>regardless.
Who are these "others", and where is "here"?
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Roughly 6000 cosmic ray protons of energy 14 TeV or greater
> intersect a 1 square meter area each year. That implies that a
> rectangular solid 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 light year (= 9.46e15
> cubic meters) will contain 6000 ultra high energy protons.
FYI: cosmic ray protons with LHC energies of @ ~10^13 eV have a
[approximate] flux of 1 per cubic meter every 30 seconds or so. Should
we be afraid?
Protons of energies of say ~10^18 eV - five orders of magnitude more
powerful than the LHC can ever be - occur at a rate of about one per
square kilometer per year. Go up a few more orders of magnitude to the
GZK cutoff and you are hitting ~10^21 eV but with a frequency of one
per square kilometer per century.
I'm running off of older data though - http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0206072
, but the answer hasn't changed except for pushing the cap to ~
10^20.5 eV.
Still jack squat on human, geologic, and cosmological time scales. The
tyrannies of education - stuff like this makes me pissed off, not
scared.
[...]
Jerry
> On Mar 31, 3:04 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Roughly 6000 cosmic ray protons of energy 14 TeV or greater
> > intersect a 1 square meter area each year. That implies that a
> > rectangular solid 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 light year (= 9.46e15
> > cubic meters) will contain 6000 ultra high energy protons.
>
> FYI: cosmic ray protons with LHC energies of @ ~10^13 eV have a
> [approximate] flux of 1 per cubic meter every 30 seconds or so.
Hmmm... Your flux values are several orders of magnitude higher
than my assumptions. I admit to merely "eyeballing" my assumed
values from a Wikipedia graph. What is the source of your
figures?
The implication of your higher value is a "many" orders of
magnitude higher hypothetical production of black holes than my
rough computation, yielding an even stronger reductio ad absurdum
conclusion than the one that I drew.
Greysky's assumption of non-evaporating black holes being
creatable at LHC energy levels is completely at odds with
observation.
> Should
> we be afraid?
>
> Protons of energies of say ~10^18 eV - five orders of magnitude more
> powerful than the LHC can ever be
Only a single order of magnitude more powerful, if you calculate
center-of-mass energy.
> - occur at a rate of about one per
> square kilometer per year. Go up a few more orders of magnitude to the
> GZK cutoff and you are hitting ~10^21 eV but with a frequency of one
> per square kilometer per century.
>
> I'm running off of older data though -http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0206072
> , but the answer hasn't changed except for pushing the cap to ~
> 10^20.5 eV.
>
> Still jack squat on human, geologic, and cosmological time scales. The
> tyrannies of education - stuff like this makes me pissed off, not
> scared.
>
> [...]
Jerry
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 31, 6:32 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 3:04 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Roughly 6000 cosmic ray protons of energy 14 TeV or greater
> > > intersect a 1 square meter area each year. That implies that a
> > > rectangular solid 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 light year (= 9.46e15
> > > cubic meters) will contain 6000 ultra high energy protons.
>
> > FYI: cosmic ray protons with LHC energies of @ ~10^13 eV have a
> > [approximate] flux of 1 per cubic meter every 30 seconds or so.
>
> Hmmm... Your flux values are several orders of magnitude higher
> than my assumptions. I admit to merely "eyeballing" my assumed
> values from a Wikipedia graph. What is the source of your
> figures?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0206072
>
> The implication of your higher value is a "many" orders of
> magnitude higher hypothetical production of black holes than my
> rough computation, yielding an even stronger reductio ad absurdum
> conclusion than the one that I drew.
>
> Greysky's assumption of non-evaporating black holes being
> creatable at LHC energy levels is completely at odds with
> observation.
I can't wait to see what new and stupid direction the argument will
evolve into. Hearing that black holes that "aren't moving" will
destroy the earth because they are DIFFERENT!!! from whatever is
produced in the cosmic ray collisions is a new low.
However, I have full confidence some moron will see the bottom of the
barrel and slam the accelerator.
YKhan
> Nonsense. Black holes can be destroyed by evaporation,
> but certainly not by "conversion" into neutrons!
I'm not saying that the black hole will convert itself into neutrons,
just that attempting to eat the Earth will not be stable enough to
stay a blackhole. At best as this blackhole will evaporate and the
Earth will continue to absorb itself in the form of neutronium.
Greg Neill
news:6759cc40-5d92-4a59...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Why would it do that? It's not doing it now, and
any black hole created here on Earth would not add
any mass to the Earth. What's changed?
Sam Wormley
> is it possible that in 2012 they finally
> manage to make a blc hole large enuff
> in order to eat tha entire earth?
Not a large enough energy source.
Bob Cain
Learn to quote, moron.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Thomas Heger
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> greysky wrote:
>> [about the LHC] Problem is nobody knows enough physics to absolutely and
>> finally say there is *NO* chance of destroying the earth with this
>> machine.
>
> Hmmm. There are no guarantees in this world. When Edison built his
> lightbulb there was nobody able to "absolutely and finally say there is
> *NO* chance of destroying the earth with this machine". Ditto for the atom
> bomb (there were bets by knowledgeable physicists about "igniting the
> atmosphere..."), or even the guy with the first wheel....
>
>
>> If a small black hole lasts long enough to feed on the walls of the LHC,
>> it wont decay, but grow.[... long-winded nonsense]
>
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Please compute:
> A) the largest-mass black hole the LHC could possibly create.
> HINT: total the energy of one proton in each beam combined.
> HINT: E=mc^2.
> HINT: 1 TeV/c^2 = 1.8*10^-24 kg.
> HINT: in the LHC each beam has a maximum energy of 7 TeV.
> B) the radius of a black hole of that mass. Compare to the
> radius of a proton.
> HINT: a proton has a radius on the order of 10^-15 m.
This topic is terrible, this discussion is terrifying. Not because of the
black-hole, but because of too many wrong methods.
As far as I remember a black hole has something to do with gravitation and
spacetime curvature. It is created by gravity, that curves spacetime in a
certain way, so light could not escape any more.
It should be possible to figure out how much mass is needed to curve a
region of spacetime enough to fullfil this demand. The earth has not enough
mass (we're still there). So what the *** is this speculation about?
Micro-blackholes are as dubious as hawking-radiation.
Thomas Heger
Dr. Mary Ruwart
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank You Thomas
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Actually if it were not for Paulie's exclusion principle the earth and
everything else would become black holes.Remember that objects and
particles cannot occupy the same place at the same time i.e. you cant
fit 1 kilogram of mass into a single particle it just wont work that
way.Last time I read I think that what I read implied that you would
have to put the mass of the entire earth into something like a 1 inch
diameter sphere before it would become a black hole.What these people
are saying is that it doesn't take all that much energy if you put all
of that energy into a small enough area the question them is if they
have ever really been able to do that.I think and this is probably
wrong because its from memory but I think it may have been 1 kg of
pure energy to turn even a proton into a micro black hole and thats a
huge amount of energy way beyond what anyone has been able to produce
in that way.But last I remember the talk was about turning something
like an electron that has essentially no volume at all into a really
really small black hole and in theory its a maybe, after all point
particles have something that might be considered centers that may in
fact be small enough, but then again maybe not.Planks scales etc are
so small that they fit right between reality itself or at least thts
implied from what I read so even electrons may have no place where all
of their tiny energy's can be focused so making a black hole, no mater
how small, out of one is going to be a lot more difficult than
assumed.
See my other posting and whats on my web site is enven less than my
posting but it all helps alttheories.com for the theory on why black
holes have expanded space around then and I would be interested in
what this means for such things as event horizons and black hole
evaporation.The thing is if space expands around a black hole you no
longer have a region of space where an event horizon can exist unless
you still consider it one despite being some extreme like a light a
light year deep.
Also since this alternative theory if correct would mean that our
universe is actually inside of a at least modest sized black hole and
we don't see planets or particles decreasing in mass to provide the
energy for evaporation but it could still occur by some mechanism but
not be obvious to us.In Hawking's ideas its the singularity that
decrease in mass, its just theoretical but its more plausible if he
was right.
In this alternative theory it dose appear that one has a minimum
amount of mass that is needed before you can have a universe and while
you do get a lot more mass that what was used to create the black hole
as viewed fro inside it might mean that you also need to start with a
certain amount and if so you would have a completely different
property to different black holes depending on the starting amount of
mass.For example if you were to remove mass from our universe till
only a single star remained it would explode back into the original
space as it could no longer remain as a black hole in the original
space it had started from.
Needs more work.
Dale
RichD
> The plaintiff in this case also filed suit against the startup of the
> Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in
> Long Island, NY. ....
> RHIC has operated without disaster for several years now.
How can you be sure?
--
Rich
PD
My aunt would have been sucked into it by now, and I got an email from
her day before yesterday. It wasn't red-shifted in the least.
PD
john
I think what really upsets me
is how seemingly intelligent people
can believe in things like Black Holes, which are
obviously impossible from a logical standpoint- just because
they are possible mathematically.
This suspension of logic in the
face of math- especially things dealing with infinities-
how can someone 'intelligent' do that?
It's like lemmings, I guess, except even the lemmings
thing doesn't happen.
John
PD
> On Apr 3, 1:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:47 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The plaintiff in this case also filed suit against the startup of the
> > > > Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in
> > > > Long Island, NY. ....
> > > > RHIC has operated without disaster for several years now.
>
> > > How can you be sure?
>
> > > --
> > > Rich
>
> > My aunt would have been sucked into it by now, and I got an email from
> > her day before yesterday. It wasn't red-shifted in the least.
>
> > PD
>
> I think what really upsets me
> is how seemingly intelligent people
> can believe in things like Black Holes, which are
> obviously impossible from a logical standpoint
What makes them illogical, John? What are you insisting must be true,
that a black hole violates?
> - just because
> they are possible mathematically.
>
> This suspension of logic in the
> face of math- especially things dealing with infinities-
> how can someone 'intelligent' do that?
Depends on what you call logic. I don't see any *logic* that's been
suspended at all.
Sam Wormley
>
> I think what really upsets me
> is how seemingly intelligent people
> can believe in things like Black Holes, which are
> obviously impossible from a logical standpoint- just because
> they are possible mathematically.
Logic gets in the way of modern physics... which is empirically
correct to date! Do some self education, John.
BradGuth
Where's the insurmountable problem if black holes are just a core of
antimatter that's safely surrounded by a dense cloud/sphere of nearly
resting photons, or possibly gravitons?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Very good feedback, and I totally agree that sticking with some kind
of concentrated gravity related consideration is what's most likely BH
worthy.
However, where's the insurmountable problem if black holes are just a
core of
antimatter that's safely surrounded by a dense cloud/sphere of nearly
resting photons, or possibly of gravitons?
. - Brad Guth
xenu
> On Mar 30, 4:11 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dr. Mary Ruwart" <drmaryruw...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:96422693-80aa-4b2d...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 29, 7:52 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > > If you can create a large enough self-sustaining blackhole that can feed
> > > > off of the material in the Earth, then that black hole will munch the
> > > > Earth down to a ball of neutronium about 1 cubic centimeter in volume.
>
> > > No. The black hole would grow to about 1 cm in size (assuming it started
> > > with negligible radius, but big enough to both live long enough to
> > > capture other matter, and to have a reasonable chance of swallowing a
> > > proton if it hits one). Life on earth would be impossible shortly after
> > > the creation of such a black hole.
>
> > > Note that if you want it to live 1 second, it must mass about 10^5 kg.
> > > That's probably FAR too small to be able to "eat" matter from the earth
> > > faster than it decays via Hawking radiation.
>
> > > Tom Roberts
>
> > Tom,
>
> > I agree!
>
> > The experiment cannot produce a litteral
>
> > black hole, only the the same
> > type of subatomic particle "flux" that makes up the "inside" or
> > individual components of nuetrons
>
> > and may make up the material inside
> > the surface of black hole. It is not stable nor can it sustain itself
> > for anything but a tiny fraction of a second. It cannot have the
> > gravity of a black hole, only the same degenerate sub nuetron
>
> > flux but
> > in higher densities more suitable for study.
>
> > Black holes cannot be made up of compressed degenerate nuetrons.
>
> > It is
> > more likely that if they exist, then they are made up of sub-nuetron
>
> > flux material compressed to a much smaller volume with entirely
> > different properties. Black hole matter cannot be simply matter
> > compressed to a horrible density because its previous state was sub-
> > atomic particles (nuetrons)
>
> > in contact with each other. Once you get
> > past nuetrons,
>
> > "matter" becomes energy packets (very tiny "fields" in
> > strange decay times) with peculiar new properties independent of each
> > other. And we give them very strange names.
>
> > The media oversimplifies everything.
>
> > Its fun to read the scientific papers but these papers are not all
> > inclusive. They express an idea to be sure, but this does not mean
> > that everything in the published journals is all there is to be
> > learned.
>
> > Respectfully,
> > Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
>
> > A kook that can't spell "neutron".
> > *plonk*- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Neutron is spelled "neutron".
but dotore, read your foken shit dotore
you said foken nuetrons many places
what a foken shameless mothofaka, comin here
with dr. preambling his name
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> A) the largest-mass black hole the LHC could possibly create.
>
> This topic is terrible, this discussion is terrifying.
It shouldn't be "terrifying". Yes, greysky cannot do any of my
quantitative challenges. But those of us who can do so know that his
"doomsday scenario " is not possible by MANY orders of magnitude
(precisely how many depends on details, but in any case it is greater
than 10^20 and almost surely greater than 10^30).
> As far as I remember a black hole has something to do with gravitation
> and spacetime curvature. It is created by gravity, that curves spacetime
> in a certain way, so light could not escape any more.
Yes, speaking quite loosely.
> It should be possible to figure out how much mass is needed to curve a
> region of spacetime enough to fullfil this demand.
It is not mass that matters, but density.
> The earth has not
> enough mass (we're still there).
Yes, it does, if its density were somehow increased so enormously that
it entire mass fits inside a sphere of 1 cm radius. Incidentally, that
is many orders of magnitude more dense than any atomic nuclei.
> So what the *** is this speculation about?
Ask greysky, not me. _I_ know it is unfounded.
> Micro-blackholes are as dubious as hawking-radiation.
Hmmm. They both are theoretically possible, insofar as we know today.
While there are excellent candidates for super-massive black holes at
the centers of galaxies, there is no evidence for either micro black
holes or Hawking radiation. There are also good reasons to expect that
no such evidence could be known to us today, given our current technology.
Tom Roberts
Thomas Heger
I like to think in contxt of GR and black hole as some area of spacetime
with a lot of curvature. About spacetime itself I think about as an average
sum over tiny elements that are somehow like spacetime itself. Average
because we experience moving things, what are some wordlines out of the
average (in that picture).
Hawking radiation is somehow doubtful because is uses particals as
primordial entities (particle antiparticle pairs) and gives no hint, why
only the antiparticles fall into the black holes. The hole idea does not
realy fit into the model of relativity.
Thomas Heger
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ft46gh$gpd$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
...
> Hawking radiation is somehow doubtful because is uses
> particals as primordial entities (particle antiparticle pairs)
GR does not define "primordial entities", only "bodies". A
particle can be treated like a body in general relativity, with
the understanding that Reality will be significantly different
unless a huge population of such particles is treated
statistically.
> and gives no hint, why only the antiparticles fall into the
> black holes.
They don't have to. We even see antimatter sraying out of one of
the poles of the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
> The hole idea does not realy fit into the model of relativity.
True. Hawking radiation is more quantum than classical, so
relativity will only glancingly apply... by consuming one of the
matching particles, and a whole host of other particles that we
see neither partner.
David A. Smith
greysky
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_weJj.37$h7...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:oqBHj.11122$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Please compute:
>>> A) the largest-mass black hole the LHC could possibly create.
>>>]...]
>>
>> This topic is terrible, this discussion is terrifying.
>
> It shouldn't be "terrifying". Yes, greysky cannot do any of my
> quantitative challenges. But those of us who can do so know that his
> "doomsday scenario " is not possible by MANY orders of magnitude
> (precisely how many depends on details, but in any case it is greater than
> 10^20 and almost surely greater than 10^30).
Then you are telling us that you are not a proponent of String Theory, Tom?
I am glad to hear that finally physicists are starting to jump off the
stringy bandwagon. The so-called 'challenges' you outlined do no take into
account the possibility that the potential energies needed to create some
small black holes are only in the > 10Tev range with some of those string
theories that assume extra spatial dimensions. I am hoping you didn't bias
your 'challenge' purposfully just to suit your arguement that a doomsday
scenario is not possible by 30 orders of magnitude.... I fervently hope we
do not have the bad luck to be living in a universe that will so easily
allow us to destroy ourselves.
>
>
>> As far as I remember a black hole has something to do with gravitation
>> and spacetime curvature. It is created by gravity, that curves spacetime
>> in a certain way, so light could not escape any more.
>
> Yes, speaking quite loosely.
>
>
>> It should be possible to figure out how much mass is needed to curve a
>> region of spacetime enough to fullfil this demand.
>
> It is not mass that matters, but density.
You also need to hope there are no hidden spatial dimensions that will lower
the bottom line energy parameters to a point where we silly apes can
actually hurt ourselves.
>
>
>> The earth has not enough mass (we're still there).
>
> Yes, it does, if its density were somehow increased so enormously that it
> entire mass fits inside a sphere of 1 cm radius. Incidentally, that is
> many orders of magnitude more dense than any atomic nuclei.
>
>
>> So what the *** is this speculation about?
>
> Ask greysky, not me. _I_ know it is unfounded.
You know this because you believe in your math so confidently you are
willing to put your life where your beliefs are. I, on the other hand, know
just how fast old theories are replaced by new ones when new information is
discovered - oh wait, if you're wrong, we wont be around to learn anything
else. What scientists believed and were confident in even 10 years ago
causes us to laugh quaintly today. I hope we are still around in another 10
years to continue laughing...The LHC as well as all other high energy
new-generation accelerators should be put on hold until we, and by 'we' I
mean the entire human race, have enough time to really think through some of
the potential consequences and determine if we can safely proceed.
But, I know I am just yelling into a gale on this... The ones who are
confident, like you, will be the first to press the 'on' button, damn the
consequences. The only thing I am confident in is that you could be wrong,
and your maths snatchered.
Greysky
Eric Gisse
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:_weJj.37$h7...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
Cosmic ray energies are eight orders of magnitude - EIGHT ORDERS OF
MAGNITUDE - larger than the LHC will ever be. Why are you still crying
about this? All that bullshit about somehow the LHC is "special" and
that whatever is created will be more dangerous because it will be
going /slower/ than whatever is produced in the upper atmosphere.
Thomas Heger
>
> Where's the insurmountable problem if black holes are just a core of
> antimatter that's safely surrounded by a dense cloud/sphere of nearly
> resting photons, or possibly gravitons?
> . - Brad Guth
I dont know for shure, but I heard a lot about failed experiments, trying to
disprove GR. Hence there is very little reason to think, that black-holes
are something else than regions of heavy gravitation. If you apply the
schwarzschild radius to a very small region, that makes no sense. I do not
realy trust in that idea, that black holes just 'eat up' its content. It may
look like, but it would violate a few basic principles I.e. second law of
thermodynamics, the conservation energy, charge or angular monentum. So
there should be something happening 'inside'.
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
> ...
>> Hawking radiation is somehow doubtful because is uses
>> particals as primordial entities (particle antiparticle pairs)
>
> GR does not define "primordial entities", only "bodies". A particle can
> be treated like a body in general relativity, with the understanding that
> Reality will be significantly different unless a huge population of such
> particles is treated statistically.
>
>> and gives no hint, why only the antiparticles fall into the
>> black holes.
>
> They don't have to. We even see antimatter sraying out of one of the
> poles of the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
>
effect in total. Some radiation as a net result of this. So the balance of
those pairs of particles has to be disturbed. But how could that be done??
Where is there any mechanism??? If its gravitation, statistically the both
type of particles are attracted in same propability. That gains a net result
of zero. So, where does the radiation come from????
And: What are those particles?? Photones do not have antiphotons. There must
something else, maybe electrons and positrons. Those are both: rare and
anyhow not heavy enough. And how does this cause radiation?
...dubious thing...
Thomas Heger
Greg Neill
> I actually dont see, how Hawking radiation works. It should be a
> measurable effect in total. Some radiation as a net result of this.
> So the balance of those pairs of particles has to be disturbed. But
> how could that be done?? Where is there any mechanism??? If its
> gravitation, statistically the both type of particles are attracted
> in same propability. That gains a net result of zero. So, where does
> the radiation come from????
> And: What are those particles?? Photones do not have antiphotons.
> There must something else, maybe electrons and positrons. Those are
> both: rare and anyhow not heavy enough. And how does this cause
> radiation?
Equal numbers of particles and antiparticles are created
(they come into existence in pairs). One of the pair
gets captured while the other manages to escape, taking
half of the particle pair creation mass-energy with it.
Statistically, equal numbers of particles and antiparticles
should escape. These can find each other and annihilate
into photon pairs (the photon is its own antiparticle),
or, if some mechanism can keep them separate, go on to
do the things that matter does in the universe.
An interesting question would be whether nature provides
a bias for the escape of particles over antiparticles,
leading to a net excess of normal matter, just as it
is postulated happened in the Big Bang where the residue
from particle-antiparticle annihilation left us with a
preponderance of normal matter.
I don't understand what you mean by electrons and positrons
being rare and not heavy enough. Electrons and positrons
are very commonly and easily created in the lab, and the
signature of their mutual annihilation is commonly observed
in the universe (so they are being created by some
processes out there, too). Enough of anything can add up
to as much you desire.
Thomas Heger
"Greg Neill"
---------------------------
Equal numbers of particles and antiparticles are created
(they come into existence in pairs). One of the pair
gets captured while the other manages to escape, taking
half of the particle pair creation mass-energy with it.
Statistically, equal numbers of particles and antiparticles
should escape. These can find each other and annihilate
into photon pairs (the photon is its own antiparticle),
or, if some mechanism can keep them separate, go on to
do the things that matter does in the universe.
An interesting question would be whether nature provides
a bias for the escape of particles over antiparticles,
leading to a net excess of normal matter, just as it
is postulated happened in the Big Bang where the residue
from particle-antiparticle annihilation left us with a
preponderance of normal matter.
I don't understand what you mean by electrons and positrons
being rare and not heavy enough. Electrons and positrons
are very commonly and easily created in the lab, and the
signature of their mutual annihilation is commonly observed
in the universe (so they are being created by some
processes out there, too). Enough of anything can add up
to as much you desire.
TH
---------------------------
virtual particles should be something like photons, wich dont have
antiparticles. The more heavy a particle is, the less likely its pair
creations should be. Electron-positron pairs are possible but not quite
often. Heavier particles should be less often.
The anihilation of virtual electrons and positrons shouldnt gain a net
result. Otherwise we would experience that all the time. The deviation
through a black holes gains no net energetic effect neither. How could that
possibly be??
In fact I tried to find out what hawking radiation is and what S. Hawking
said about it. But I found only some vage speculations. Can you tell me, how
this radiation is assumned to function?
Thomas Heger
Greg Neill
> virtual particles should be something like photons, wich dont have
> antiparticles.
A virtual particle pair can be any type of particle/antiparticle
pair. All that is required is that enough energy be available
for "borrowing" for the time they are in existence.
> The more heavy a particle is, the less likely its pair
> creations should be. Electron-positron pairs are possible but not
> quite often. Heavier particles should be less often.
Better to say "more massive" than heavier. Yes, more
mass requires more energy, so more massive particles
are created less frequently than less massive ones. It
turns out that the particles that can be created and the
most frequently created ones depends upon the available
energy in the environment. It's a statistical curve.
Smaller black holes are "hotter", the space around them
more curved (more stress-energy) so they produce more
and larger particle pairs in their environs.
> The anihilation of virtual electrons and positrons shouldnt gain a net
> result.
It does if they annihilate *outside* of the event horizon
and the photons thus created escape -- they carry away
energy from the black hole.
> Otherwise we would experience that all the time. The deviation
> through a black holes gains no net energetic effect neither. How
> could that possibly be??
Every virtual particle that becomes real by "losing"
its partner to the black hole has the potential to
carry mass-energy away from the black hole.
> In fact I tried to find out what hawking radiation is and what S.
> Hawking said about it. But I found only some vage speculations. Can
> you tell me, how this radiation is assumned to function?
It's particles, of any type or size, that have come into
being by sequestering half of a virtual particle pair
inside the event horizon and thus allowing the other to
remain in existence. Half the energy "borrowed" to form the
virtual pair is not returned to the lender (the stress-energy
in the space in which the black hole is sitting).
Thomas Heger
"Greg Neill" <
> The anihilation of virtual electrons and positrons shouldnt gain a net
> result.
It does if they annihilate *outside* of the event horizon
and the photons thus created escape -- they carry away
energy from the black hole.
> Otherwise we would experience that all the time. The deviation
> through a black holes gains no net energetic effect neither. How
> could that possibly be??
Every virtual particle that becomes real by "losing"
its partner to the black hole has the potential to
carry mass-energy away from the black hole.
> In fact I tried to find out what hawking radiation is and what S.
> Hawking said about it. But I found only some vage speculations. Can
> you tell me, how this radiation is assumned to function?
It's particles, of any type or size, that have come into
being by sequestering half of a virtual particle pair
inside the event horizon and thus allowing the other to
remain in existence. Half the energy "borrowed" to form the
virtual pair is not returned to the lender (the stress-energy
in the space in which the black hole is sitting).
TH
----------------------
I totally agree. But how can there be pairs of photons created, wether
virtual or not. Case there are virtual photon-pairs, you would only need a
pocket mirror to gain infinit energy. (Just hold it into the darkness). The
mirror is than something like a black hole. That process would violate the
conservation of energy law.
Second: light is moving along geodesics. Why should a photon fall into the
black hole?
Thomas Heger
john
Sequestering! Word!
But one word does not paint a pretty picture.
How it is.
The 'black hole' is a center of extreme spin which
pulls neutral matter in by gravitation, splits the
charges by spinning them, and expels them out
opposite poles- the jets- later to be *sequestered* into stars when
swept up by the disc.
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
The Galaxy Model for the Atom
Greg Neill
> virtual or not. Case there are virtual photon-pairs, you would only
> need a pocket mirror to gain infinit energy. (Just hold it into the
> darkness). The mirror is than something like a black hole. That
> process would violate the conservation of energy law.
> Second: light is moving along geodesics. Why should a photon fall
> into the black hole?
The energy comes from the stress-energy in the space
surrounding the black hole, so it's not infinite.
Effectively, the mass of the black hole is converted
to radiated particles.
A mirror won't do it because virtual particle pairs
in relatively flat spacetime cannot be separated
quickly enough to avoid mutual annihilation. It
takes a true event horizon (one way only!) and
enough available stress-energy to permit relatively
long-lived virtual pairs to make the scenario work.
BradGuth
I totally agree, and what's to say that a BH isn't a sufficient core/
mass of antimatter.
Doesn't antimatter represent gravity?
In supercomputer simulations, what's the interaction of antimatter
with photons or gravitons?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> The Galaxy Model for the Atom
What's wrong with a BH core of antimatter?
. - Brad Guth
Thomas Heger
"Greg Neill"
--------------------------
The energy comes from the stress-energy in the space
surrounding the black hole, so it's not infinite.
Effectively, the mass of the black hole is converted
to radiated particles.
A mirror won't do it because virtual particle pairs
in relatively flat spacetime cannot be separated
quickly enough to avoid mutual annihilation. It
takes a true event horizon (one way only!) and
enough available stress-energy to permit relatively
long-lived virtual pairs to make the scenario work.
TH
-----------------------------
I wanted to adress the point, that virtual photons shouldn't come in pairs,
cause photons have no antiparticle.
As far as I understand, there is a false application of the uncertainty
principle. Imagin empty space, say a cubicmile. The uncertainty principle
assignes now the impulse of (allmost) zero to an uncertainty of allmost a
mile in location. But Hawking assigned some energy to that. This is wrong,
cause energy is conjugated to time and not to momentum or distance. So where
does the energy come from?
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
>>
>> Neutron is spelled "neutron".
>
> but dotore, read your foken shit dotore
>
> you said foken nuetrons many places
>
> what a foken shameless mothofaka, comin here
> with dr. preambling his name
good question. Maybe that helps
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=Dr.+Mary+J.+Ruwart&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=
http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/dr-mary-ruwart-announces-presidential-candidacy/
or an very impressive cv
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/july2001_cover_ruwart_curriculum.html
Greg Neill
> --------------------------
> The energy comes from the stress-energy in the space
> surrounding the black hole, so it's not infinite.
> Effectively, the mass of the black hole is converted
> to radiated particles.
>
> A mirror won't do it because virtual particle pairs
> in relatively flat spacetime cannot be separated
> quickly enough to avoid mutual annihilation. It
> takes a true event horizon (one way only!) and
> enough available stress-energy to permit relatively
> long-lived virtual pairs to make the scenario work.
>
> TH
> -----------------------------
> I wanted to adress the point, that virtual photons shouldn't come in
> pairs, cause photons have no antiparticle.
The photon is its own antiparticle. They get created
in pairs that separate in opposite directions (to
conserve total momentum, of course).
> As far as I understand, there is a false application of the
> uncertainty principle. Imagin empty space, say a cubicmile. The
> uncertainty principle assignes now the impulse of (allmost) zero to
> an uncertainty of allmost a mile in location. But Hawking assigned
> some energy to that. This is wrong, cause energy is conjugated to
> time and not to momentum or distance. So where does the energy come
> from?
Even in a nearly perfectly flat space-time energy can
be "borrowed" if it's give back in sufficiently short
time that the universe doesn't notice ("behind the
teacher's back"). It's okay for the background to
run a deficit so long as DE*DT < h.
Personally, I favor the idea that space has some
intrinsic energy associated with it. After all,
why would the initial Big Bang event have to be
100% efficient in converting all the initial dose
of energy into matter, fields, and motion of same?
After all, it didn't do so hot on balancing the
matter/antimatter equation. Maybe the background
energy is what's left of all the antimatter that
Nature forgot to provide in a timely fashion!
Tom Roberts
> What's wrong with a BH core of antimatter?
Black holes formed by the collapse of a star won't have any.
Perhaps you should learn what the words you use actually mean.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
[...]
> What's wrong with a BH core of antimatter?
> . - Brad Guth
...because it makes no goddamn sense in any conceivable way?