Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UM-Bot

Physicists plan 'Very' Large Hadron Collider

30 posts in this topic

With the discovery of the Higgs Boson, attentions have been turned towards a future successor to the LHC.

When the $5 billion Large Hadron Collider was first turned on in 2008, the massive particle accelerator was the biggest the world had ever seen. At the time, some people found it so intimidating that they even believed it could bring about the destruction of the planet by producing black holes that would suck us all out of existence.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/257960/physicists-plan-very-large-hadron-collider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can inform me, but I never saw the danger in creating such tiny black holes even if they were produced. They would promptly sink to the center of the Earth and sit there, absorbing an atom now and then, but not having a large enough surface area (event horizon) to do any real damage over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be more to this construction than what they let on. I just don't see how they justify the amount of money and resources for this kind of thing. Then again i'm probably not intelligent enough to understand the long term gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be more to this construction than what they let on. I just don't see how they justify the amount of money and resources for this kind of thing. Then again i'm probably not intelligent enough to understand the long term gains.

The long term gain is unknowable, and maybe nothing. Then, again, maybe the technology to extract unlimited energy from empty space (which is not really empty but full of stuff we know not).
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can inform me, but I never saw the danger in creating such tiny black holes even if they were produced. They would promptly sink to the center of the Earth and sit there, absorbing an atom now and then, but not having a large enough surface area (event horizon) to do any real damage over time.

I understood they would evaporate not long after their formation.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood they would evaporate not long after their formation.

Yea that is now under debate. I thought about mentioning that, but recall that it is speculated that when a black hole reaches a certain minimum size the evaporation stops. If they did evaporate it would be with a bit of a bang, but I have no idea how big for something that small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fear was due to a lack of understanding by the general public. It is hard to quantify the value of this research though I would prefer to see money spent on this than in building more tanks and warplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea that is now under debate. I thought about mentioning that, but recall that it is speculated that when a black hole reaches a certain minimum size the evaporation stops. If they did evaporate it would be with a bit of a bang, but I have no idea how big for something that small.

I thought when it reached the minimum size (planck mass) it was no longer a black hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought when it reached the minimum size (planck mass) it was no longer a black hole.

The event horizon increases not the black hole itself (I think)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought when it reached the minimum size (planck mass) it was no longer a black hole.

I am aware that it was first thought that a black hole would evaporate faster and faster as it got smaller until it went out in a rather large explosion. Thinking about it that wouldn't apply here since you are not starting with a largish object to do that. Now I hear that at some point as it evaporated the evaporation pressure balances something else and the process stops. Obviously you are right about Plank mass being the minimum size, but I was talking about a different minimum where this balance happens.

Oh well I'm only an astronomer wannabe, so I'm sure others will straighten this out tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can inform me, but I never saw the danger in creating such tiny black holes even if they were produced. They would promptly sink to the center of the Earth and sit there, absorbing an atom now and then, but not having a large enough surface area (event horizon) to do any real damage over time.

You are correct.

IF a sufficiently large gravitational mass density can beat the Pauli exclusion principle, and IF Hawking radiation doesn't happen, or stops happening for objects below a certain size threshold, THEN every significant astronomical object (planet, star, etc.) probably has quite a few nanoscale black holes floating around its centre of mass.

As spacecowboy342 points, the public is scared because ZOMG BLACK HOLES!!1!!!

Do you know where your children are? Check on them right now, because a black hole could be eating them!

You might note that ``the public'' is also more afraid of trace amounts of radioactive iodine from Fukushima than it is about inhaling grams of smog particulate from coal powerplants.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have enough energy on Earth to create a black hole that would be big enough to 'stay alive'. For instance if they build a massive massive collider that went around the entire globe and we stored up all the energy in the world to be released in one go, do you think we would create a black hole that would destroy the whole solar system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have enough energy on Earth to create a black hole that would be big enough to 'stay alive'. For instance if they build a massive massive collider that went around the entire globe and we stored up all the energy in the world to be released in one go, do you think we would create a black hole that would destroy the whole solar system?

Interesting experiment, though possibly not repeatable.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discovery with the of the Higgs boson with the Large Hadron Collider is great but beyond that.. nothing!

The Higgs Boson was predicted by the standard models of physics however. So far, there is no clues or no validation of a new physic models. No supersymmetry particles found (SUSY) despite 30 years or more of theoritical research, no strings either. Of course, this doesn't refute in any way the String theory but we haven't seen anything conclusive thus far.

We have not seen any black holes either with the Hadron. if that could be done with a new supercollider, that could be evidence of extra dimensions as well.

The (Very) Large Hadron Supercollider is necesserey, because theoritical physics is now facing an impass. The technology is not there to confirm or refute the theory.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It show`s just how much politics are in the world. When they shut down the Texas Collider and all the scientist shook there heads ,wondering why then the LHC in Cern was off and running . Well THe Texas LCH would of done it by now too ! What a waist ! All about the Money !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually when the black hole is produced it will happen at speeds close to the speed of light. Very Very high energies. There is no mechanism to or plans to try and contain it. It essentially zings off into outer space maybe passing through the earth or even harmlessly through someone's forehead. Remember this is subatomic sized entity, even if it picks up some mass along the way, it still is going to be traveling at speeds much greater than even the galactic escape velocity, chances are it wont even remain in our galaxy. It is detected for a brief moment, then gone. That's while it might be decaying because of hawking's radiation. But that is what they are trying to prove or disprove.

subatomic sized black holes are a candidate for dark matter by the way..Though a weak one.

Also remember that black holes are a relativistic phenomenon. So far relativity makes no sense on the quantum level. If they cannot produce one, it might be evidence that there really is a major obstacle in the way of unification.

Edited by White Crane Feather
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our sun were to become a black hole, its event horizen would be no bigger than the sun is now. It,s mass would also be the same. All crammed to the point of a needle or smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think our sun is nearly massive enough to become a black hole, at least in the normal life cycle of a star. I think it requires at least 3 solar masses. These micro black holes are a different story and I'm not sure if anyone knows for sure if they actually are possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are then must be able to form outside the lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compress anything enough and it can become a black hole. The thing is normal stars have no evolution that leads to that end: only really large ones.

What makes something a black whole is its escape velocity, which is determined by mass and distance from the center of gravity squared. A small mass in a very, very small space can therefore be a black whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our sun were to become a black hole, its event horizen would be no bigger than the sun is now. It,s mass would also be the same. All crammed to the point of a needle or smaller.

The event horizon would be much smaller, around 3km.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right, which is why tremendous energy and momentum is required to try to produce them in the supercollider. The question in my mind is if there is a natural process for them to form in nature. I saw a Lawrence Krauss video a while back where he said that small pocket universes might also be formed in the collider but to us they would appear to be tiny black holes. I confess I don't really understand this but it fascinates me to no end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right, which is why tremendous energy and momentum is required to try to produce them in the supercollider. The question in my mind is if there is a natural process for them to form in nature.

Cosmic rays can be quite a bit more energetic than the particles in the LHC.

http://www.universetoday.com/86490/astronomy-without-a-telescope-oh-my-god-particles/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosmic rays can be quite a bit more energetic than the particles in the LHC.

http://www.universet...-god-particles/

Good point. Excellent link. Thanks. I wonder then if the universe could be loaded with microscopic black holes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets wait and see then i will comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.