Don't go in there, there is a black hole in that room!

[DRZion]

If you really need something, just go and avoid the furthest left corner by the cyclotron. Thats where it is.


This is a response to 'the LHC can destroy the earth' argument.

So lets say the LHC makes a tiny black hole. What happens next?

-it might evaporate if Hawking is right

-it might not evaporate if there is no Hawking radiation

Lets suppose that there is no Hawking radiation, what happens then?
Well, the mass of this black hole will initially be very small and its radius far smaller than protons.

At the scale at which this thing would exist, gravity is practically meaningless; the pull of this tiny black hole would be insignificant even on the macro-scale where there is no strong or even weak nuclear force. With a mass of 100 nuclei it's gravitational pull wouldn't be even one trillionth the strength of even electrostatic forces.

It would most likely just fall towards the center of the earth and there, maybe, very very slowly accumulate mass.. I say this is a good thing, this way people no longer have the option of staying on earth for ever

Still, it just doesn't seem like tiny black holes are any threat whether or not they evaporate.

 

[Lawson's Criterion]

Hello DRZion

Can you please tell me if micro-black holes have hair?

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

-it might evaporate if Hawking is right

That's not why it would evaporate.

-it might not evaporate if there is no Hawking radiation

Incorrect. It would 100% evaporate because it lacks the energy to sustain itself.

Still, it just doesn't seem like tiny black holes are any threat whether or not they evaporate.

Incorrect of course.

 

[DRZion]

LC
I don't think that there is any form of matter small enough to make hair outside of a micro black hole. Matter is made up of protons and electrons, while these black holes are far smaller than protons.

CC
What else would cause evaporation? Why is any energy required to sustain a black hole??

The black holes produced by colliding particles will have minuscule masses and by definition of black holes an incredibly tiny radius. The gravitational pull exerted by these tiny black holes will be equal to that exerted by hydrogen atoms - negligible.

The fact that they will evaporate and the fact that they are harmless defeats any case against the LHC.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

LC
What else would cause evaporation?

Not enough energy required to sustain a black hole.

Why is any energy required to sustain a black hole??

It takes energy to warp space-time like that. It takes a huge amount of energy to sustain the warping (even for the tiniest black hole). I don't even think our own sun has enough energy to sustain a tiny black hole. Think about it like this. Get a large piece of foam that is used in mattresses. Punch it. That dent is the black hole. The dent goes away because the punch lacks the energy to sustain it.

The fact that they will evaporate and the fact that they are harmless defeats any case against the LHC.

Correct, and that's really the point.

 

[DRZion]

Not enough energy required to sustain a black hole.

It takes energy to warp space-time like that. It takes a huge amount of energy to sustain the warping (even for the tiniest black hole). I don't even think our own sun has enough energy to sustain a tiny black hole. Think about it like this. Get a large piece of foam that is used in mattresses. Punch it. That dent is the black hole. The dent goes away because the punch lacks the energy to sustain it.

Hmm.. I don't know anything about this. I thought the only way black holes expelled energy is through hawking radiation, thats the mainstream consensus at least.

Where does this 'upkeep' energy go ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hmm.. I don't know anything about this. I thought the only way black holes expelled energy is through hawking radiation, thats the mainstream consensus at least.

That's correct. At the same time if a black hole is formed without adequate energy then it simply evaporates (i.e. the warped space simply un-warps).

Where does this 'upkeep' energy go ?

The upkeep energy is in the form of mass at the black holes center. Specifically it's gravitational energy. Take the foam anaology again. If you punch it then it dents and the dent goes away in a moment. If you put a weight on the foam then it dents and stays dented. Any black holes made by the LHC are the equivalent of punches.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If you really need something, just go and avoid the furthest left corner by the cyclotron. Thats where it is.


This is a response to 'the LHC can destroy the earth' argument.

So lets say the LHC makes a tiny black hole. What happens next?

-it might evaporate if Hawking is right

-it might not evaporate if there is no Hawking radiation

Lets suppose that there is no Hawking radiation, what happens then?
Well, the mass of this black hole will initially be very small and its radius far smaller than protons.

At the scale at which this thing would exist, gravity is practically meaningless; the pull of this tiny black hole would be insignificant even on the macro-scale where there is no strong or even weak nuclear force. With a mass of 100 nuclei it's gravitational pull wouldn't be even one trillionth the strength of even electrostatic forces.

It would most likely just fall towards the center of the earth and there, maybe, very very slowly accumulate mass.. I say this is a good thing, this way people no longer have the option of staying on earth for ever

Still, it just doesn't seem like tiny black holes are any threat whether or not they evaporate.

Your partly right, but there are billions of them.

 

[Stryder]

Hmm.. I don't know anything about this. I thought the only way black holes expelled energy is through hawking radiation, thats the mainstream consensus at least.

Where does this 'upkeep' energy go ?

I wouldn't agree that "energy is expelled" from a blackhole, my own hypothesis is that the make of the universe doesn't completely distort into a blackhole, it infact generates a paradox where it's not all pulled in and becomes intangible to being pulled in. This would give the appearance of energy escaping what otherwise is suggested to be unescapable. Of course my own personal theory would require people to look and reason about it, I don't intend to start harping on about my "grand[father] theory of everything" though.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I wouldn't agree that "energy is expelled" from a blackhole, my own hypothesis is that the make of the universe doesn't completely distort into a blackhole, it infact generates a paradox where it's not all pulled in and becomes intangible to being pulled in. This would give the appearance of energy escaping what otherwise is suggested to be unescapable. Of course my own personal theory would require people to look and reason about it, I don't intend to start harping on about my "grand[father] theory of everything" though.

I promised not to mention my theory in other threads. So I can't really add to what you just said.