Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Something else to worry about ... perhaps

dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 9:59:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


No, that is not even "perhaps" something to worry about.

The premise is wildly speculative and certainly incorrect. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level is dubious at best and the ability for the LHC to create one is complete fantasy. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level contradicts the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which is the very theory the existence of black holes is based on, and even if all those ridiculous, self-contradicting presuppositions were accurate, the mini black hole would not last long enough to have any effect whatsoever.

For the LHC to be able to create one, you have to accept all of those initial presumptions for no reason at all, add that there are extra dimensions, which is another contradiction of the GTR, and for no reason at all assume that one property of extra dimensions is that 3 dimensional gravity flows into those extra dimensions, and then presume, for no reason at all, that when gravity flows into those extra dimensions that for some unknown reason that causes a dramatic reduction in the energy required for the production mini black holes. You also have to make all of those absurd assumptions while choosing ridiculously contrived free functions of the theories you are basing these assumptions on, and again, while assuming those theories it is based on are wrong.

There is one and only one reason to contrive such assumptions, because the press loves stories about the end of the universe and when you get coverage you get to let all the other kids from high school know you went on to be physicist while being confident that none of them understands what they read.

If that is something you can bring yourself to worry about, then you are worrying about the wrong thing anyway, instead you should worry about getting in to see a shrink to find out why anxiety pops up out of thin air for no reason and learn what you can take for that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 12:57:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 9:59:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


No, that is not even "perhaps" something to worry about.

The premise is wildly speculative and certainly incorrect. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level is dubious at best and the ability for the LHC to create one is complete fantasy. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level contradicts the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which is the very theory the existence of black holes is based on, and even if all those ridiculous, self-contradicting presuppositions were accurate, the mini black hole would not last long enough to have any effect whatsoever.

For the LHC to be able to create one, you have to accept all of those initial presumptions for no reason at all, add that there are extra dimensions, which is another contradiction of the GTR, and for no reason at all assume that one property of extra dimensions is that 3 dimensional gravity flows into those extra dimensions, and then presume, for no reason at all, that when gravity flows into those extra dimensions that for some unknown reason that causes a dramatic reduction in the energy required for the production mini black holes. You also have to make all of those absurd assumptions while choosing ridiculously contrived free functions of the theories you are basing these assumptions on, and again, while assuming those theories it is based on are wrong.

There is one and only one reason to contrive such assumptions, because the press loves stories about the end of the universe and when you get coverage you get to let all the other kids from high school know you went on to be physicist while being confident that none of them understands what they read.

If that is something you can bring yourself to worry about, then you are worrying about the wrong thing anyway, instead you should worry about getting in to see a shrink to find out why anxiety pops up out of thin air for no reason and learn what you can take for that.

That's a rather hostile response there, Side. I was going to ask questions to determine where your assertions were coming from, but on second thought, I don't think I'll bother. You don't seem to be here to discuss but to have a good bitch and moan. Got it out of your system? Good boy. I'm off to see my shrink. Thanks for the advice. Will you be off for your anger management counseling session?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 2:57:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:57:22 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/9/2015 9:59:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


No, that is not even "perhaps" something to worry about.

The premise is wildly speculative and certainly incorrect. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level is dubious at best and the ability for the LHC to create one is complete fantasy. The existence of mini black holes at any energy level contradicts the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which is the very theory the existence of black holes is based on, and even if all those ridiculous, self-contradicting presuppositions were accurate, the mini black hole would not last long enough to have any effect whatsoever.

For the LHC to be able to create one, you have to accept all of those initial presumptions for no reason at all, add that there are extra dimensions, which is another contradiction of the GTR, and for no reason at all assume that one property of extra dimensions is that 3 dimensional gravity flows into those extra dimensions, and then presume, for no reason at all, that when gravity flows into those extra dimensions that for some unknown reason that causes a dramatic reduction in the energy required for the production mini black holes. You also have to make all of those absurd assumptions while choosing ridiculously contrived free functions of the theories you are basing these assumptions on, and again, while assuming those theories it is based on are wrong.

There is one and only one reason to contrive such assumptions, because the press loves stories about the end of the universe and when you get coverage you get to let all the other kids from high school know you went on to be physicist while being confident that none of them understands what they read.

If that is something you can bring yourself to worry about, then you are worrying about the wrong thing anyway, instead you should worry about getting in to see a shrink to find out why anxiety pops up out of thin air for no reason and learn what you can take for that.

That's a rather hostile response there, Side. I was going to ask questions to determine where your assertions were coming from, but on second thought, I don't think I'll bother. You don't seem to be here to discuss but to have a good bitch and moan. Got it out of your system? Good boy. I'm off to see my shrink. Thanks for the advice. Will you be off for your anger management counseling session?

Sorry, certainly didn't mean it as hostile towards you, it's sensationalized junk physics that I'm hostile towards.

This so called "theory" epitomizes the problem that's crippling the progress of physics today, these kinds of inane theories get all the press and most of the funding to squeeze out legitimate avenue's of research. I like science fiction as much as the next guy, I just don't like to see it passed off as science.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 9:33:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


OK so as I understand it the LHC is a super collider in Switzerland that smashes atoms together, right? to see what their made of? at speeds close to the speed of light. its like breaking open something with a sledgehammer to see whats inside it. smashing it down to dust, to ite primal ingredients? and I thought that when they do this they take pictures of the result of the debris? and that the debris only lasts for less than like a millionth of a second? this all seems way too small to cause a black hole. the power in a black hole exceeds all that is here on our planet. let alone a couple of atmos being colllided. I just dont get it. even with the e = mc sqared formula at work. just not enough fuel for an explosion that big, right? please explain to me where Im wrong or missing something on this. Im interested in partacle phsyics but most of its over my head. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 1:14:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 9:33:56 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


OK so as I understand it the LHC is a super collider in Switzerland that smashes atoms together, right?

Not atoms, they smash subatomic particles called protons.

Atoms are made of three subatomic particles, electrons, protons and neutrons, electrons are fundamental, but protons and neutrons are made up of even smaller particles called quarks. The higher the energy level the closer we get to simulating conditions of the early universe.

to see what their made of?

Yes, sort of, they are looking for subatomic particle characteristics at certain very high energy levels, the faster the particles go the higher the kinetic energy they carry, the higher the energy the more we can mimic certain aspects of the early universe to learn what went on back then.

at speeds close to the speed of light.

Yes, the particles are moving at close to light speed and in opposite directions when they collide.

its like breaking open something with a sledgehammer to see whats inside it. smashing it down to dust, to ite primal ingredients? and I thought that when they do this they take pictures of the result of the debris? and that the debris only lasts for less than like a millionth of a second?

Yeah, it's kind of like that, but rather than cameras, they are using particle detectors to "take pictures" of the event.

this all seems way too small to cause a black hole. the power in a black hole exceeds all that is here on our planet. let alone a couple of atmos being colllided. I just dont get it. even with the e = mc sqared formula at work. just not enough fuel for an explosion that big, right? please explain to me where Im wrong or missing something on this. Im interested in partacle phsyics but most of its over my head. God Bless.

Well, a black hole isn't an explosion, it's more like an implosion, but yeah, there is no real reason to think that a micro black hole can exist, the wildly speculative theories that try to predict them are self-contradicting, and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to think one could be created at the energy levels we can produce at the LHC. The planet is constantly bombarded with cosmic rays that have over ten times the kinetic energy that we can create in the LHC, there are trillions and trillions of cosmic ray collisions every moment of every day, and nobody worries about what happens when they collide with other particles.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 1:20:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 1:14:58 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/9/2015 9:33:56 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


OK so as I understand it the LHC is a super collider in Switzerland that smashes atoms together, right?

Not atoms, they smash subatomic particles called protons.

Atoms are made of three subatomic particles, electrons, protons and neutrons, electrons are fundamental, but protons and neutrons are made up of even smaller particles called quarks. The higher the energy level the closer we get to simulating conditions of the early universe.

to see what their made of?

Yes, sort of, they are looking for subatomic particle characteristics at certain very high energy levels, the faster the particles go the higher the kinetic energy they carry, the higher the energy the more we can mimic certain aspects of the early universe to learn what went on back then.

at speeds close to the speed of light.

Yes, the particles are moving at close to light speed and in opposite directions when they collide.

its like breaking open something with a sledgehammer to see whats inside it. smashing it down to dust, to ite primal ingredients? and I thought that when they do this they take pictures of the result of the debris? and that the debris only lasts for less than like a millionth of a second?

Yeah, it's kind of like that, but rather than cameras, they are using particle detectors to "take pictures" of the event.

this all seems way too small to cause a black hole. the power in a black hole exceeds all that is here on our planet. let alone a couple of atmos being colllided. I just dont get it. even with the e = mc sqared formula at work. just not enough fuel for an explosion that big, right? please explain to me where Im wrong or missing something on this. Im interested in partacle phsyics but most of its over my head. God Bless.

Well, a black hole isn't an explosion, it's more like an implosion, but yeah, there is no real reason to think that a micro black hole can exist, the wildly speculative theories that try to predict them are self-contradicting, and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to think one could be created at the energy levels we can produce at the LHC. The planet is constantly bombarded with cosmic rays that have over ten times the kinetic energy that we can create in the LHC, there are trillions and trillions of cosmic ray collisions every moment of every day, and nobody worries about what happens when they collide with other particles.

thanks SideWalker! yeah I knew about how the protons and nuetrons make up the nucleus of the atom. and then you have the quawks inside the protons, right? and thats good to know about the cosmic rays are more powerful then what the atom smasher can do. so I guess it was another case of science often being wrong for that article about a possible black hole from the LHC. Im not surpised. like I said before in many ways science id learnng they know now that they dont know. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 10:46:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 9:33:56 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/6/2015 1:33:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
If the LHC creates mini black holes it could trigger the collapse of the universe according to theorists in physics. That's the bad news. The good news is that if it was going to happen, it should already have happened. Something we don't yet understand is keeping the universe stable in a false vacuum state.

http://news.sciencemag.org...

But now, Moss and theoretical physicists Philipp Burda and Ruth Gregory of Durham University in the United Kingdom contend that argument falls apart when you mix in mini black holes --- microscopic regions of space where gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. That's because a mini black hole acts like a "seed" that can trigger formation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum, just as a bit of grit can trigger the formation of a bubble of steam in boiling water, as they explain in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
"
Without such a seed, a bubble of true vacuum would inevitably shrink. That's because, even though the vacuum within the bubble has lower energy than the vacuum outside the bubble, the bubble wall at which the two meet has very high energy. So the bubble can lower its total energy by growing smaller and disappearing. For a bubble with a tiny black hole inside, however, it's a different story. The black hole's gravity can shift the energy balance, Moss explains, so that any bubble beyond a certain very small size could instead lower its energy by growing. Within a fraction of a second, the bubble would then expand to consume the entire visible universe, Moss says.

Those black holes have to be small, Moss and colleagues argue, and they could conceivably come from two sources. They could be "primordial" black holes lingering since the birth of the universe. Or they could be microscopic black holes created within particle collisions such as those at the LHC.


OK so as I understand it the LHC is a super collider in Switzerland that smashes atoms together, right? to see what their made of? at speeds close to the speed of light. its like breaking open something with a sledgehammer to see whats inside it. smashing it down to dust, to ite primal ingredients? and I thought that when they do this they take pictures of the result of the debris? and that the debris only lasts for less than like a millionth of a second? this all seems way too small to cause a black hole. the power in a black hole exceeds all that is here on our planet. let alone a couple of atmos being colllided. I just dont get it. even with the e = mc sqared formula at work. just not enough fuel for an explosion that big, right? please explain to me where Im wrong or missing something on this. Im interested in partacle phsyics but most of its over my head. God Bless.

A black hole is made when an amount of mass is dense enough in area that it's surface escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. This is called the Schwarzschild radius.

The idea is a micro black hole can form if an amount of mass was compressed to such a radius. But it is not universe sucking potential. For one you have to think a black hole with the energy of a bawling bowl is universe ending while the super colossal one at the center of the galaxy is not.

Second, Hawking radiation would have the black hole evaporate in a few plank seconds.