Oh no, they're going to end existence hehehe

[Ram From Hell]

The LHC has been constructed to accelerate protons.

You're absolutely right. I misspoke. I musta been thinking about Olivia Neutron Bomb (that's Olivia Newton-John for all you whippersnappers) at the time.

 

[TheSickness]

I am so confused

 

[CarolinaSRT10]

I was hoping someone had some insight into my questions..........

I need to know.........

Lee

 

[TheSickness]

I was hoping someone had some insight into my questions..........

I need to know.........

Lee

Please refer to my previous post...

 

[jelms]

You're absolutely right. I misspoke. I musta been thinking about Olivia Neutron Bomb (that's Olivia Newton-John for all you whippersnappers) at the time.

Olivia Newton-John. Now that is a bomb for sure Always thought she was hot and still is today, IMHO....

 

[Black1]

Olivia Newton-John. Now that is a bomb for sure Always thought she was hot and still is today, IMHO....

Yep! ..... SMOKIN'!!!

 

[Ram From Hell]

OK..........By definition, a black hole is black (lack of color) due to the inability of light to escape it's gravitational pull. That would IMO take a tremendous gravitational pull to stop light even on a microscopic level. I don't know of any discoveries of any microscopic black holes around us on earth up to this point. So I would deduce that even the gravitational pull of the earth is not enough to create a microscopic black hole. So I would again deduce that inside that microscopic black hole was a mass greater than that of the earth.

How's that for "off the wall"? And where would that mass be generated from, when it itself was created from sub-atomic particles?

My head hurts..........

Lee

First off, it is a virtual certainty that the LHC cannot create a black hole. Principally due to the lack of mass of the particles that are in play. Mass would not be generated either. The collision of particles is generating smaller material with even less mass. How the doomsayers could believe that it could be possible is beyond me.

I just found this clip from Discovery:

If (and that remains a big "if") the LHC creates a black hole it will be extremely tiny, much smaller than a single atom, said Wilzcek. Its mass will be the same as the two protons that created it. Its range will be small -- only a few times the diameter of the two protons.

According to Wilczek, that's too small for the baby black hole to eat enough particles to grow to any real size. With no food, the black hole will simply wink out of existence in a fraction of a second.

To create a stable black hole, one capable of consuming the Earth, the black hole would have to be several hundred tons. A LHC-generated black hole would weigh a tiny fraction of a gram.


Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

 

[jelms]

OK..........By definition, a black hole is black (lack of color) due to the inability of light to escape it's gravitational pull. That would IMO take a tremendous gravitational pull to stop light even on a microscopic level. I don't know of any discoveries of any microscopic black holes around us on earth up to this point. So I would deduce that even the gravitational pull of the earth is not enough to create a microscopic black hole. So I would again deduce that inside that microscopic black hole was a mass greater than that of the earth.

How's that for "off the wall"? And where would that mass be generated from, when it itself was created from sub-atomic particles?

My head hurts..........

Lee

Lee,

I can try to take a stab at an answer, but I transferred out of Physics after my electricity and magnetism class which was just before the QM series of classes. Maybe someone else out there has progressed further than my basic physics knowledge.

One thing to note is that the black holes under question at the LHC are not the "classic" black holes that form under gravitational collapse of a star greater than three solar masses. We are talking about Quantum Mechanics which is always at best abstract and hard to understand without the proper instruction, or a gift to understand this stuff.

Ok, here is my best effort...

According to the Planck mass the smallest black hole can have a mass of 2 x 10 to the -8 kg. (sorry no keys for the proper display) Much less than you would think, but we are taking about particles. This mass is much larger than the mass of a proton and anti-proton but try to remember we are dealing with extremely high energy and E=MC2. Mass and energy are convertible. Plus we are dealing with very high temps.

The Schwarzschild radius is the defined gravitational radius for every mass. For a black hole it is the event horizon. So if we take Planck's mass and plug it into Schwarzchild's radius equation we get an event horizon which is larger than a proton and anti-proton. Make sense so far if we remember that very high energy is going to create some mass....

Here is where I start to struggle because we start to deal with the Uncertainty Principle which is a foundation on QM. But at higher energies the uncertainty principle (up) starts to decline because the UP uses waves in it definition and at very high energy the wave get very compressed. Therefore scaling back the size of the proton and anti-proton.

Now if we can get a proton and anti-proton with in the Schwarzchild radius with the amount of energy, which the LHC could supply, we could over come the uncertainty principle and since we have supplied the mass and energy needed within the Schwarzchild radius we would create a micro black hole.

Now how simple is that

So according to Planck we don't really need a lot of mass and combine that with Schwarzschild radius which is really small according to Planck, and all the energy we are pumping into the LHC, and Einstein's great equation we should be able to pull off some micro black holes.

Well I've spent about four hours really trying to brush up on my very basic QM skills and I have a huge headache. For those that might back Hawking's radiation according to his theory micro black holes would evaporate in micro seconds. So if they are created the man that predicted them says they will evaporate very soon, so no worries....

-jeff

 

[jelms]

Yep! ..... SMOKIN'!!!

Jake,

Glad to see you keeping up on the thread

xanadu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tYWMO3HLgU

She is still one fine woman....

-jeff

 

[jelms]

First off, it is a virtual certainty that the LHC cannot create a black hole. Principally due to the lack of mass of the particles that are in play. Mass would not be generated either. The collision of particles is generating smaller material with even less mass. How the doomsayers could believe that it could be possible is beyond me.

I just found this clip from Discovery:

If (and that remains a big "if") the LHC creates a black hole it will be extremely tiny, much smaller than a single atom, said Wilzcek. Its mass will be the same as the two protons that created it. Its range will be small -- only a few times the diameter of the two protons.

According to Wilczek, that's too small for the baby black hole to eat enough particles to grow to any real size. With no food, the black hole will simply wink out of existence in a fraction of a second.

To create a stable black hole, one capable of consuming the Earth, the black hole would have to be several hundred tons. A LHC-generated black hole would weigh a tiny fraction of a gram.


Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

One thing to note RFH, If the LHC could create a micro black hole according to Hawkin's radiation it would evaporate almost instantly.

You are very correct in your statement about the size of a black hole that it would take to consume the earth. We have nothing to worry about.

Fire it up, and discover what we don't understand now. I for one am very excited about the LHC potential. This device will open up a new frontier of particle physics that we can only theories about now.

-jeff

 

[CarolinaSRT10]

Ram from Hell and jelms,

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Much appreciated.......

My common sense and little bit of research that I have done tells me that you guys are correct, and I agree with you that the masses we are talking about are just too small and volatile to be a danger.

My thoughts were based on my agreement with the "Big Bang" theory. So with that in mind........all the universe as we know it came from an infinitesimal dot. Therin lies the rub.

I know the energy potential from the LHC is minute compared to the energy released at the time of the "Big Bang", but it still makes me wonder what the results would be if the LHC tapped into that, even on a much smaller scale.

Food for thought........my thoughts anyway.

Lee

 

[OCBob]

The Big Bang was different. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, just as energy cannot be created or destroyed. There are some times when mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. At least I think that is correct, I haven't done any research on it, and haven't read up on it in a long, long time.

So in effect, all mass and all energy present in the universe was at one time squeezed into an infinitesimally small area. The pressures were too great and something gave and there was a huge explosion of this energy which released everything into the universe. At some point this will be reversed.

I have a theory of my own that this isn't the first time this has happened. Sort of like a giant yo-yo that just keeps going and going.

 

[Ram From Hell]

Fire it up, and discover what we don't understand now. I for one am very excited about the LHC potential. This device will open up a new frontier of particle physics that we can only theories about now.

-jeff

It may open up a new frontier of PP, but it is more likely the case that the results will help simply steer the theoretical aspects of PP by possibly proving or disproving current models and theories. Some theoretical physicists may find that they've been wandering in the desert, having lacked concrete observations to keep them pointed in the right direction. Whatever the case may be, it is unlikely that we can advance our knowledge of the most elemental aspects of physical existence and its beginnings without the aid of more and more sophisticated instruments like the LHC.

In many ways, man is still little more than a band of monkeys poking sticks at the monolith for all that we don't understand. Dark matter and dark energy for example are believed to make up as much as 90% of the cosmos. So named because they cannot be seen and measured only by their effects, known only because there is a massively unbalanced equation with respect to known mass and gravity (far more gravity than discernible mass). Gaining an understanding of this alone would be a gigantic leap forward.

Here's some basic explanations of the current theories on them:

http://www.answers.com/topic/dark-matter

 

[CarolinaSRT10]

The Big Bang was different. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, just as energy cannot be created or destroyed. There are some times when mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. At least I think that is correct, I haven't done any research on it, and haven't read up on it in a long, long time.

So in effect, all mass and all energy present in the universe was at one time squeezed into an infinitesimally small area. The pressures were too great and something gave and there was a huge explosion of this energy which released everything into the universe. At some point this will be reversed.

I have a theory of my own that this isn't the first time this has happened. Sort of like a giant yo-yo that just keeps going and going.

Yes, Bob,

I have thought the same thing myself, about your yo-yo theory..........and it may not only keep going and going, but has always been going and going.

To postulate on what you were saying.........does energy have weight or can you measure the mass of energy? If not..........then it makes the possibility of enough energy inside these muons and gouons (sp) that are being split off from these particles to actually develop large masses even more thought provoking.......

Lee

 

[Ram From Hell]

The Big Bang was different. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, just as energy cannot be created or destroyed. There are some times when mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. At least I think that is correct, I haven't done any research on it, and haven't read up on it in a long, long time.

So in effect, all mass and all energy present in the universe was at one time squeezed into an infinitesimally small area. The pressures were too great and something gave and there was a huge explosion of this energy which released everything into the universe. At some point this will be reversed.

I have a theory of my own that this isn't the first time this has happened. Sort of like a giant yo-yo that just keeps going and going.

According to Einstein's formula, energy and matter should always be interchangeable. As I recall, it was matter and antimatter that somehow became imbalanced at the moment of the beginning (probably over simplifying here). I'm inclined to think that the universe will simply continue to expand.

The motions of galaxies indicate that the universe has continued to expand after the initial impulse of the big bang, but it is not known whether this expansion will continue. The situation is complicated by the possible presence of an additional cosmological force, predicted by general relativity, which has the opposite effect from gravitational mass. This cosmological constant, represented by Λ, pushes outward instead of pulling inward like gravity, adding an acceleration term to the expansion of the universe. Interest in Λ has revived in recent years in an attempt to explain deviations in redshift velocities of some very distant galaxies. If Λ > 0, as some researchers now think, then this would make an infinite expansion more likely, even with significant amounts of dark matter.

 

[OCBob]

I don't think that energy has mass, it can be converted to mass, but once that happens it is no longer energy.

 

[Black1]

This shit's WAY above my pay-grade.

 

[OCBob]

According to Einstein's formula, energy and matter should always be interchangeable. As I recall, it was matter and antimatter that somehow became imbalanced at the moment of the beginning (probably over simplifying here). I'm inclined to think that the universe will simply continue to expand.

The motions of galaxies indicate that the universe has continued to expand after the initial impulse of the big bang, but it is not known whether this expansion will continue. The situation is complicated by the possible presence of an additional cosmological force, predicted by general relativity, which has the opposite effect from gravitational mass. This cosmological constant, represented by Λ, pushes outward instead of pulling inward like gravity, adding an acceleration term to the expansion of the universe. Interest in Λ has revived in recent years in an attempt to explain deviations in redshift velocities of some very distant galaxies. If Λ > 0, as some researchers now think, then this would make an infinite expansion more likely, even with significant amounts of dark matter.

Been a long time since I've read any new physics stuff, and I'm sure even longer since I understood any hehehe. Apparently I need to find an up to date book to crack open.

I for one really appreciate all your input on this thread. It's cool stuff when you can get your head wrapped around it.

 

[Ram From Hell]

I don't think that energy has mass, it can be converted to mass, but once that happens it is no longer energy.

Well, yeah. It can only be one or the other. Not both. However, according to Einstein, it is still interchangeable.

Einstein determined that matter could be thought of as a form of energy and that there would be a quantity called "rest energy" which would be the amount of energy that composed a piece of matter. This rest energy can be determined by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 where m is the mass at rest. This equation not only says that mass and energy are equivalent to each other with the speed of light as a conversion factor, but that energy and mass are interchangeable between each other. In other words, mass is a form of energy. We can also add this form of energy to the kinetic energy described above to find the total energy of an object. The result of this is KE + mc^2 or equivalently, the product of gamma, mass and c squared.

 

[Ram From Hell]

Been a long time since I've read any new physics stuff, and I'm sure even longer since I understood any hehehe. Apparently I need to find an up to date book to crack open.

I for one really appreciate all your input on this thread. It's cool stuff when you can get your head wrapped around it.

Thanks. This is something that I really enjoy, and try to absorb.

I kind of feel sorry for people too wrapped up in their daily existences to bother thinking about the world around them, which they simply take for granted. Perhaps the majority of people are already overwhelmed by the way knowledge and information are increasing in volume and velocity. But hey, some people are happy driving ordinary vehicles and some will always thirst for more performance. So too will some choose to want to understand more.