Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experimentation
 
Look look he's saying it again!

*runs round screaming and pulling hair out* The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Make him stop!
 
KmGuru: I read the NY times article. It was interesting. I suspect the odds of a catastrophe are less than implied by the article.

I buy the NY Times every Tuesday due to the Science News Section. It usually has at least one interesting article. I recommend it to all of my friends, although I have occassionally felt that an article was misleading or silly. I think semantic content is sometimes lost when a News Paper rewrite editor translates & dumbs down what some scientist has written or told him.

If they create a mini black hole, I hope the Hawking theory about rapid evaporation is valid.

20-30 years ago, there was an interesting SciFi story about a communication device found on Mars by the first manned mission. The device contained a miniture charged black hole. Gravitaional waves were induced by oscillating the black hole using electromagnetic forces. Cute concept, but probably not feasible.

In the story, the astronauts tinkered and released the Black hole which sunk into Mars and yo-yoed back & forth, eventually turning all of Mars into a Black hole.

If a mini black hole does not evaporate, I suspect that the story's description of the yo-yo effect would be valid. It was impled that had the Black hole been released at a pole, it would take much longer to eat Mars. It would first create a tunnel from pole to pole as it yo-yoed. Not having been released at a pole, the rotation of Mars as it yo-yoed caused a lot of small curved tunnels, allowing the black hole to eat Mars at an exponentially increasing rate.

I wonder how dangerous a mini black hole would be. A ton or so of mass at black hole density would probably be smaller than a large atom, with a gravitational force overwhelmed by electromagnetic & nuclear forces. The inverse square law for the gravitational force would result in a very weak force on nearby atoms. I wonder if a mini black hole in the middle of a crystal lattice could pull atoms loose from the lattice.
 
Dinosaur said:
I wonder how dangerous a mini black hole would be. A ton or so of mass at black hole density would probably be smaller than a large atom, with a gravitational force overwhelmed by electromagnetic & nuclear forces.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't even be close to the size of an atom. If you plug 1000 kg into the Schwarzschild equation, you get a black hole with a radius of 1.5E-24 meters.
The inverse square law for the gravitational force would result in a very weak force on nearby atoms. I wonder if a mini black hole in the middle of a crystal lattice could pull atoms loose from the lattice.
Click to expand...
I don't think it could. If you work out the force of gravitational attraction for a 1 metric ton black hole that's sitting 0.2 nm away from a lead atom in a crystal, you get about 3E-13 Newtons. The force needed to break molecular bonds is usually measured in nano Newtons, so the gravitational force would be about 4 orders of magnitude too low (assuming I'm doing the math right).

It is indeed interesting to think about whether or not such a small black hole could suck in matter, and how quickly it could grow (assuming no evaporation) under even optimal conditions. Even if we feed our black hole 20 billion protons/second, it would still take about 1 billion years for it to gain 1 kg of mass. How many atoms would such a black hole reasonably be able to suck in in a second, especially since the force of its gravity would be so small that it would basically have to hit an atom dead-on before it could capture it? There wouldn't really be any "sucking in," just random collisions.
 
Nasor: Thanx for the info.

I slept late and woke in a bleary-eyed state. I read your number as 1.5 meters and thought you must have made a mistake. After breakfast including coffee, I reread your post prior to posting a remark about your being way off.

Even my faulty intuition is good enough to know that 1.5 meters is way too large.

When I noticed the E-24, I was surprised at how small such a black hole would be. My intuition has often been wrong. I would have guessed a size between the size of a nucleus with 10-20 nucleons & the radius of such an atom. 10[sup]-24[/sup] is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a single nucleon.
 
I would expect a black hole created in a particle accelerator would have a mass much less than a kiloton.
 
draqon said:
If a nano black hole did form, would it be stable enough to continue its existence?
Click to expand...


No, according to theory it would evaporate within fractions of a second :

blackhole1ca5.jpg


That means , that a black hole with the mass of 2,28 kg x 10^5 kg , would last exactly 1 second ...... the black holes in CERN will be much, much smaller .....
No risk for gravitational effects and dissapearing instantly ......
The only problem is to measure the radiation and prove their existence ....
NO risk whatsoever for the earth to be eaten by a black hole ..... which is probably also why Paul W. Dixon and Walter L. Wagner , seems to be backing off - and now seems to concentrate on a "theoretically" type Ia Supernova .....:rolleyes:

blackhole2wo9.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dinosaur said:
When I noticed the E-24, I was surprised at how small such a black hole would be.
Click to expand...
Yes, you really need a lot of mass to have a black hole of respectable size. Even if you turned the earth into a black hole, the earth's 6E24 kg of mass only gets you a black hole 8.9 mm across. The sun's 2E30 kg gets you a more respectable 3000 km.
10[sup]-24[/sup] is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a single nucleon.
Click to expand...
Yes...trying to think about what would actually hapen can get confusing pretty fast, especially since the event horizon of such a small black hole would be much much smaller than the de broglei wavelength of whatever atom it was trying to suck in.

There's also the fact that our mini black hole would still have a huge mass, even if it was tiny. Could a 1000 kg object that was smaller than an atomic nucleus even really interact with normal matter? I can't imagine it sitting in a crystal, for example. I suspect it would probably just go whereever gravity wanted to take it, and suck in any particles that it happened to run directly into.
 
draqon said:
If a nano black hole did form, would it be stable enough to continue its existence?
Click to expand...
Truth is that no one is sure that Hawkins’s radiation is real. If it is not, then yes it is more than stable - it is rapidly growing, I think, if man-made.

Dinosaur & Nasor may not have read my post 12 at thread "CERN ... What is your take" Here is part showing that they are calmed by considering the wrong force: Gravity instead of Coulomb force:

"If the man-made tiny black hole does not almost instantly radiate away, I think there is very good chance it would "eat" 100% of the Earth in about the time it would take a brick to fall from one earth diameter away to the center point of a one Earth mass black hole. I.e. little pieces of Earth that once were China would fall about that far into the rapidly-growing nearly Earth mass Black hole as the last piece of old Earth.

What you are forgetting is that the man-made black hole must evaporate before it drifts a distance probably about the radius of an atom. (Does anyone know the time between collision of beam particles and atoms in the high vacuum of the LHC? or perhaps more importantly, how long at the speed of light is it to get from the beam on a tangential straight path into something solid (assuming the starting point is where the beams collide and not on the slowing curving 27Km diameter arc)? It will at least eat the orbiting electrons of that nearest atom, become negatively charged, and then the huge (by comparison) Coulomb force will pull that positively charged ion and its much more massive nucleus in at near the speed of light. Even if the micro-black hole forms in a high vacuum, it is highly likely to be traveling much faster than any race car. It will not be long before it "eats" its first electron. You can then forget about gravitational force limits. This quick transition to an electric force may scare the S - - - out of you (Probably should.), but it is rather reassuring to me.

I am again too lazy to do the calculations, but think this realization blows a huge hole in Walter's counter argument against my cosmic ray argument, which I posted in Paul's thread year or two ago. I.e. Even at the speed of light the micro-black holes produced by cosmic rays cannot traverse the Earth and "pop out" harmlessly on the far side, having eaten by their gravity forces along the way only an atom or two. ...

I think it was my post 14's footnote there that also noted many solid materials are ionic, but even if they were not, that after "eating" its first electron as "an appetizer" from the outer shell "electron cloud" surrounding some nucleus, the Coulomb force between the now negative black hole and the positive ion it got the electron from almost instantly delivers that "main course" with a convergence rate approximately that of the speed of light as the "main course" crosses the event horizon of the black hole.

Somewhere I also noted that if the solid the black hole is in (perhaps iron) is an electrical conductor, then it does not matter much even if the black hole is traveling very fast when it eats it first "electron appetizer." - The idea that black hole's high speed and atomic scale separation from the positive nucleus would deny it of its "main course" is probably wrong. This has to do with mobility in conductors of the pseudo positive particle (the "electron hole"). I.e. they "main course" the black hole "eats" may be 100s of lattice constants distant from the now again "neutral" point that supplied the "electron appetizer" as the electron hole "flies after the moving negative black hole, slowing it and accelerating the hole, via their Coulomb attraction.


SUMMARY: If LNC can make a micro-black hole, the fate of Earth as we know it probably does depend on Hawkins’s radiation being real. Perhaps we should wait the run the LHC until either:

(1) Hawkins’s radiation is confirmed by observation as being real.

OR

(2) Humanity has a large, mainly female, (but much larger male sperm bank in Liquid N2) number of astronauts in a self sustaining "closed ship" that can continue in orbit around the Earth-mass black hole as its largest satellite except the moon or more probably as part of the moon, insides the moon, for thermal reasons.

As the black hole would not exert any significant torque on the moon, perhaps "despin" of the moon to a period of one year instead of one month over a period of few millennia is the ultimate new home. Then womankind* lives on the "sunny side of life" in surface enclosures.)
----
*Any society that can despin the moon to that lower once-per-year RPM will surely have dispensed with men, via parthenogenesis. Surely if that happens, ladies will thank God they are done with the stupid men and never convert the moon to a black hole also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
Truth is that no one is sure that Hawkins’s radiation is real. If it is not, then yes it is more than stable - it is rapidly growing, I think, if man-made.

Dinosaur & Nasor may not have read my post 12 at thread "CERN ... What is your take" Here is part showing that they are calmed by considering the wrong force: Gravity instead of Coulomb force...
Click to expand...
Yes, that occured to me too - if the black hole eats a charged particle, coulombic interaction will dominate its interaction with other particles instead of gravity. Which means you can store it in a magnetic trap, if you like.

But like I said in my previous post, such a small black hole would have to collide directly with an atom (or electron, or whatever) before it could capture it. If you calculate the time needed for it to grow in mass to any sort of threatening size, you will probably get a time much larger than the age of the universe.
 
Followup: let's take the most extreme possible growth for such a black hole. Assume that the black hole is constantly moving at the speed of light and sucking in 1 atom (average mass 12 amu) every angstrom it travels. At that rate, it will consume about 9.5E25 atoms/year. If these atoms are the mass of carbon, that will be about 1.9 kg/year that the black hole could suck in. So over 1 billion years, it could consume about 0.000000000000003% of the earth's mass. So I think we're safe. And again, that was for the black hole sucking in matter as fast as it possibly could; traveling at the speed of light through atoms that were only 1 angstrom apart, sucking in every one it passed.
 
Nasor said:
Followup: let's take the most extreme possible growth for such a black hole. Assume that the black hole is constantly moving at the speed of light and sucking in 1 atom (average mass 12 amu) every angstrom it travels. At that rate, it will consume about 9.5E25 atoms/year. If these atoms are the mass of carbon, that will be about 1.9 kg/year that the black hole could suck in. So over 1 billion years, it could consume about 0.000000000000003% of the earth's mass. So I think we're safe. And again, that was for the black hole sucking in matter as fast as it possibly could; traveling at the speed of light through atoms that were only 1 angstrom apart, sucking in every one it passed.
Click to expand...
Interesting and informative correction to intution but I think badly wrong conclusion. I certainly agree there is very little mass in a tube thru Earth only 2 angstroms in diameter. So perhaps I am wrong to be "reasured" that Water's counter to my cosmic ray arguement is wrong. I.e. he is correct that cosmic ray made black holes would just go thru the Earth unnoticed.

But the LHC's black holes are to be made by coliding beams, I think. If that is true, then the intitial velocity of the man-made black hole is at most 0.1c I would think. I do not know what intitial mass it would have, but if it is not greater than the mass of the first nucleus it "eats" then it losses at least 50%of its initial speed and has greater chance to eat another, etc.

Even if it does "pop out" the other side of the Earth, much heavier, it will fall back for the next "meal" unless it has not been slowed to speed below Earth's escape velocity.

The black hole will probably be able to eat many millions more electrons than nuclei. But despite there mutual repulsion, once a captured electron is inside the event horizon (which I admit may be changed slightly by accumulating charge) I think their mutual repulsion will not throw any out. The accumulated negative charage will facilate/increase the rate at which theycan eat positive nuclei, but more improtantly, I think, their "capture cross-sestion" far beyound the initial ~3.14anstrom^2 you assoumed.

I hope you are not too lazy to redo with initial speed = 0.1c and with intial rate of electron capture area = 3.14Anstrom^2 in dense material, say iron. to see how far the black hole of 1amu needs to travel to to acquire electonic charge of "n" electron charges. Then with its slowed speed assume these n negative charges acting only a few + charges (the ions of an ionic crystal or the only partically "shielded" nuclear charge of Iron nucleus) have strong enough Coulomb force to capture that "few + nucleus" before the slowed black hole can travel an iron atom radius further. - Or something like that which interest you.

Point I am trying to make is that I intutively think that the black hole will rapidly get many electrons as it "flies" thru the outer electronic shell clouds of ANY solid, then if it happen to enter an ionic crystal (say a salt deposit 1000meters thick.) eat perhaps n/2 of those ions before leaving the band of salt. This slowing it much more etc. so it does not have escape velocity as it punches out the other side of the Earth.



I am too lazy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
draqon said:
I have started a get-together Sciforums thread gathering before this May black hole event will happen so that we can discuss some of the joyful and sad moments we shared here together...and before Sciforums goes down with the rest of the world:



http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79919
Click to expand...

Fuck that!, We need to party these last days away, preferably an orgy, no need for protection we are all going to die soon anyway!
 
Billy T said:
But the LHC's black holes are to be made by coliding beams, I think. If that is true, then the intitial velocity of the man-made black hole is at most 0.1c I would think. I do not know what intitial mass it would have, but if it is not greater than the mass of the first nucleus it "eats" then it losses at least 50%of its initial speed and has greater chance to eat another, etc.
...
The black hole will probably be able to eat many millions more electrons than nuclei. But despite there mutual repulsion, once a captured electron is inside the event horizon (which I admit may be changed slightly by accumulating charge) I think their mutual repulsion will not throw any out. The accumulated negative charage will facilate/increase the rate at which theycan eat positive nuclei, but more improtantly, I think, their "capture cross-sestion" far beyound the initial ~3.14anstrom you assoumed.

I hope you are not too lazy to redo with initial speed = 0.1c and with intial rate of electron capture radius = 3.14Anstrom in dense material, say iron.
Click to expand...
I think you might have missed my point. A black hole this size basically has a "capture size" of zero, because its mass is so small. It would have to actually strike an atom (or electron, or whatever) in order to eat it. Because of that, it's more dangerous as it moves faster because the faster it moves the more often it will collide with a particle and eat it. If I redo the calculations for the black hole moving slower, it will take it even longer to grow. The 1-2 angstrom spacing that I mentioned is the spacing between the atoms that the black hole is eating. I was assuming that the black hole was traveling at the speed of light, and eating one atom every time it traveled 1 angstrom.

Like I said, you need a HUGE amount of matter before the size gets very large. Even after 1 billion years when the hypothetical black hole from my calculations has consumed about 200 million kg of matter (which like I said, would still be such a small fraction of the earth's mass that no one would notice) it would still only be 2.8E-18 meters across; so small that it would still only be able to eat something by striking it directly, and could only eat one atom at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top