Any black holes generated by the Large Hadron Collider would be too tiny to matter

NOT SO BLACKIf the Large Hadron Collider does generate black holes, they would be too tiny and short-lived to cause any damage.Image from NASA modified by Bob Gray
Any black holes created at a new particle accelerator near Geneva will not make Swiss
cheese of the nearby countryside. Nor will they gobble up Earth.
That’s the consensus of two new reports, including a safety
review released June 20 by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or
CERN, the group that oversees the Large Hadron Collider (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3414).
Scheduled to start this September, the collider will be the
most powerful particle accelerator in the world. Protons in the accelerator
will reach energies of 7 trillion electron volts and smash into each other at
nearly the speed of light, briefly re-creating the extreme densities and
energies existing a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
Some people, including a group based in Hawaii that has filed a lawsuit against CERN,
worry that those collisions could somehow generate stable black holes that
might swallow the planet.
In fact, it is possible that the LHC, according to one
theory, could be a veritable factory of mini-black holes — no larger than a
thousandth of the diameter of a proton.
That theory proposes that gravity is weak, compared to the
other forces in nature, because some of it leaks out into other, hidden
dimensions folded up into sizes as small as 10-17 centimeters, a tiny
fraction of the diameter of a hydrogen atom.
At the high energies and small scales probed by the LHC, gravity
would become much stronger than it is in ordinary three-dimensional space. Gravity
could then cram enough matter together to form microscopic black holes as often
as once a second.
However, such black holes, according to research first reported
by Stephen Hawking in the 1970s, ought to rapidly radiate away their energy and
evaporate in an instant, before doing any harm. But even if Hawking is wrong,
and tiny black holes linger, they still would not pose a danger, according to
the new studies.
Study member John Ellis of CERN noted that the CERN safety report
was independently reviewed by a group of 20 scientists outside CERN, including
Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft, an expert on black hole theory.
The report also relies on a separate study, by Steve
Giddings of the University of California, Santa
Barbara and Michelangelo Mangano of CERN, set to
appear in an upcoming Physical Review D.
Both studies reaffirm the findings of a 2003 CERN report
that the high-energy collisions
generated at the LHC would pose no danger to Earth.
The studies note that cosmic rays — charged particles from
outer space that have energies far greater than those generated at the LHC — have
pummeled Earth for billions of years. These collisions could have generated as
many black holes as a million LHC experiments, yet the planet still exists.
Cosmic rays also bombard dense stars — white dwarfs and neutron stars — yet those
bodies endure despite the fact that any encounter with a black hole would
consume these objects much more rapidly than they would Earth, notes Ellis.
The possibility of even creating tiny black holes at the LHC
is “quite a long shot,” notes Giddings. But he’s hoping that long shot comes
through.
“Not only would we learn things about gravity and the fabric
of space-time, but we would apparently have direct evidence for extra
dimensions of space,” Giddings says. It might also serve to unify gravity with
the other forces in nature.
Found in: Atom & Cosmos
CERN should not be turned ON, ever. Encase it in concrete as a testimony to human greed, curiosity, trials, tribulations and errors, cought in time to correct. So we loose a few billion dollars. Still much better than loosing the Earth. Earth, our nurturing mother, is beyond any $ or Euro value.
Denying the mini black holes creation used to be the CERN?s and supporters? tactic. This is no longer the case. At CERN at least, they are now talking about the benefits of studying their MBHs, as if they were tamed monkeys. Their safety explanations are getting more bizarre with time. Now, they compare this Earth experiment to white dwarfs and neutron stars, and on other sites to mosquitoes. Read the interview with one of the authors of CERN?s latest safety report: cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180976.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage , or this: cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199. There is censorship of well reasoned, opposing voices on many science sites. I am all for science, it is fascinating, but it has to serve mankind, be safe and responsible. Rolling a dice with human existence at stake and censorship are neither of those.
The 2008 LSAG Safety Report argues that the planet will not be destroyed by micro black holes based on empirical evidence from neutron stars that relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos, that the SPC Committee validates as highly probably but requires confirmation.
Are Enrique Fernandez and Fabio Zwirner arguing that the properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos prove safety from micro black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider, but are only highly probable and require confirmation with respect to micro black holes created from higher energy colliders?
Is the argument that the Large Hadron Collider will prove safety from micro black holes when it begins operations and nothing bad happens, but that future higher energy colliders will not have empirically proven safety yet?
I would prefer that confirmation of safety happen prior to operation of the Large Hadron Collier.
Thank you,
James Tankersley Jr
Co-Admin, LHCFacts.org
The 2008 LSAG Safety Report argues that the planet will not be destroyed by micro black holes based on empirical evidence from neutron stars that relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos, that the SPC Committee validates as highly probably but requires confirmation.
Are Enrique Fernandez and Fabio Zwirner arguing that the properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos prove safety from micro black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider, but are only highly probable and require confirmation with respect to micro black holes created from higher energy colliders?
Is the argument that the Large Hadron Collider will prove safety from micro black holes when it begins operations and nothing bad happens, but that future higher energy colliders will not have empirically proven safety yet?
I would prefer that confirmation of safety happen prior to operation of the Large Hadron Collier.
Thank you,
James Tankersley Jr
Co-Admin, LHCFacts.org
I know enough to know that a singularity that is below the sub-atomic level is not likely to do much of anything, however if it is created, we would learn some much about extra-dimensional physics, that it would give our civilizations leaps and bounds into the cosmos. I am reminded of a book by Dr. Arthur C Clark, "The Light of Other Day". Rather than a "Black Hole" we might get a "Worm Hole"
Wookie0
You accuse James Tankersley of "false and misleading statements"? Your whole report is a false and misleading rubber-stamp cover-up starting with the first sentence claiming "independent opinion".
Who cares about a Higgs Boson particle or some quark gluon soup except a handful of frustrated geeks who have run out of ideas and have to experiment with forces they don't even understand. These freaking physicists waste money and energy time and time again building atom smasher after atom smasher and end up with more questions, not answers. Now they've built one so powerful they say themselves it will create mini black holes at the rate of one per second! Which would change your life more; knowing they found some particle or getting crushed and sucked into a black hole along with everyone and every thing you ever cared about?
That sound like a good risk vs. benefit to you?!? Just because you can't wrap your mind around it does not mean it can't happen.
See for yourself;
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm
http://www.LHCDefense.org/
http://www.LHCFacts.org
http://www.SaneScience.org/
Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"
The conclusions of the SPC report on the LHC are quite clear: "To summarize, we fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC."
Enrique Fernandez
chair of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee
Fabio Zwirner
member of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee
and coordinator of the SPC review panel
"this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation"
The stamp of approval report is here: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=35065
Unfortunately there is not a single irrefutable argument for the safety of creating micro black holes with velocities too slow to escape Earth. Not one.
Three strongly disputed assumptions… Micro Black holes are created or not, decay or not, grow slowly or not.
I hope I'm miscalculating, but I fear this might be a bit like playing Russian Roulette and not knowing how many cylinders are loaded, none, all?
LHCFacts.org
(Don't miss this funny music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4)
Please login or register to participate.