Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

[chriwi]

@Shadowdraxx:

their explaination is that the cosmic particles are very fast and the moon and the earth are rather at rest, so if black holes are created they have a momentum, will disappear in space and starve. Since the LHC produces headoncollisions of protons with aproximately the same speed the momentum of the postulated black hole is rather small and thereby might be cought by earths gravity and drawn to the center of the earth where it gets enough food until it grows to a large and dangerouse monster.

beye

Christian

[Shadowdraxx]

yeah for black mBH production i understand this, however for Ivan's theory (which I just cant understand because its all claim counter claim and doesnt add up), he states earth destruction within varied references, so it seems a possiblity to me that the earth or moon could have collected said thoerised particles, yet we are still here, just wanna know his take on why they still exist and why 99.99999999999999999% of the universe still looks like it does, (note i removed your system from the percentage Ivan).

[Stephen]

He'll say something about supernovas and particle showers.

[CharmQuark]

More than likely

[MagneticTrap]

Here is a magnetic hole.



It can be created (A) at Collider; and (B) at upper layers of Earth atmosphere as a result of collision of cosmic and atmospheric protons.
A-hole has almost zero velocity relatively surrounding protons;
B-hole has many-TeV velocity, and vice verse, – atmospheric protons bombard the B-hole with energy, which is much larger than the binding energy of its x-bosons.

A-hole will capture and ruin surrounding protons and will grow. Result: planet explodes.

B-hole will be ruined by TeV-protons of atmosphere. As a result, physicists will register a shower of secondary cosmic particles.

Analogy: slowly moving neutron can be captured by average nucleus, as a result the nucleus becomes bigger; TeV neutron will not be captured by average nucleus, but instead it will knock out one or more nucleons from the nucleus.

Look here, please:

If velocity v is quite small, the particle will be captured by the energy pit. The number of particles of pit will become bigger per 1.

If velocity v is great, the particle will not be captured by the energy pit, but it can knock out some other particles from the pit. The total number of particles of pit will become smaller per n.

[photino]

That diagram of a "magnetic hole" is bizarre. If you had electrons and positrons on the same orbit, they would annihilate. Quite apart from the question of what is supposed to cause those orbits (and worse, the lattice-like arrangement) in the first place.

[Tau]

Ivan,
I still don't get the "I made it up, so it must be true" reasoning.
I had a discussion like this with my little niece about monsters under her bed, and, just like you, there was no way of convincing her.

[MagneticTrap]

That diagram of a "magnetic hole" is bizarre. If you had electrons and positrons on the same orbit, they would annihilate. Quite apart from the question of what is supposed to cause those orbits (and worse, the lattice-like arrangement) in the first place.

Now I have read a Russian article “Extreme conditions of matter on Earth and in space”, written by V.E. Fortov. http://ufn.ru/media/ufn90/video/8fortov.pdf

Here are two sentences from that article, translated by me:

“Now one more mechanism of black holes creation is discussed. It is connected with so-called magnetic tunnels…”

“Atoms of positronium become stabile at magnetic field which is more than 10^24 G. They are spontaneously born in vacuum and fill all medium.”

The first sentence corresponds to my thought of “Kaluza-Klein black-holes”, which are, in fact, are magnetic holes.

The second sentence answers at your question about “the cause of that orbits” and “lattice arrangement” of x-bosons in a magnetic hole.
Note: My computation gives 10^16 T or 10^20 G, which is 10000 smaller than the quoted value, 10^24 G. This difference can be hidden in the fact that x-boson is not the electron-positron pair, but it only looks like the pair. (Earlier I wrote some other links to articles with analogues results and with almost coinciding values of needed collision-energy and critical magnetic field.)

I had a discussion like this with my little niece about monsters under her bed, and, just like you, there was no way of convincing her.

The monster LHC is much more real. It can switch on the process, which could not be stopped. The probability of the global catastrophe is extremely high.

[Tau]

For who can't read russian, this is the translation of Fortov's article in English:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1063-7869 ... 966a961552

The article says in the conclusion:
"...the constantly broadening and newly emerging opportunities in experimental high-enery-denstity physics give hope for reproducing in laboratory conditions ultraextreme substance states..."

He doesn't appear worried to me.

[photino]

Here is the English translation of Fortov's introductory review article:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1063-7869 ... 966a961552

I note that in this article, Fortov is very positive about the LHC!

The relevant passage Ivan cited is on page 25. The connection of the (highly speculative) primordial wormholes, and the possible positronium production within them, to what can happen at the LHC remains entirely unclear to me. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a doomsday scenario there.

Ivan, if you have indeed worked out a complete model with calculations, I would suggest you write it up and post it on the physics arxiv. For this you do not need to be a member of a university. That would be much better (and much easier to understand) than snippets posted to a forum.

[March_Hare]

their explaination is that the cosmic particles are very fast and the moon and the earth are rather at rest, so if black holes are created they have a momentum, will disappear in space and starve. Since the LHC produces headoncollisions of protons with aproximately the same speed the momentum of the postulated black hole is rather small and thereby might be cought by earths gravity and drawn to the center of the earth where it gets enough food until it grows to a large and dangerouse monster.

Something has been bugging me about this kind of reasoning, in fact several somethings:
1. Why would a mini-BH upon creation after a collision be at rest in the LHC? Everything else flies away with incredible energies (two 20 TeV muons were spotted in a candidate collision at CMS if I am not mistaken) while the mini-BH just sits there?

And why would this be drastically different when the collision takes place in the atmosphere?

Isn't this whole scare about mini-BHs based on a wrong understanding of what actually does happen in collider experiments?


2. IF that could happen, here's another one. How is it possible that in the 4e9 years the Earth has existed, there NEVER was even ONE collision between a high-energy cosmic ray and another particle in Earth's atmosphere where...
a. A mini-BH was created
b. The mini-BH was somehow (through other collisions, or perhaps through the specific nature of the event that created it) left with insufficient velocity to escape from Earth.

Notice: 4e9 years is a long time. If we assume that only 1 mini-BH gets created per year in Earth's atmosphere, we are talking about 4e9 mini-black holes since the Earth was formed. If it's 1 per century it's still a lot: 40 million mini-BHs... And somehow NONE of those mini-BHs would have ended up with a reduced velocity during their attempts to escape from Earth?

Consider also ... there probably is no reason why the mini-BHs would be scattered in a specific direction. Meaning that a significant portion of them (for simplicity's sake let's say 50%, but that's a bit too high) would travel at least some distance through the Earth... with ample opportunities to hit something (or "eat" something) and have their velocity reduced so that they cannot escape any longer... etc.

[photino]

March_Hare, even if a mini-BH was at rest it would be no danger because its temperature would be extremely high (for an uncharged black hole, it would be inversely proportional to the mass, and the mass is tiny). It will therefore radiate and lose energy, hence lose mass. This means it gets hotter! A runaway process. That's why Hawking called his famous paper "Black hole explosions" It would not sit there and "eat and grow consuming the planet" - it can't absorb matter fast enough. I am sure all this in much more detail can be found in the CERN safety report on black hole production.

[Stephen]

But you can't use this argument while having a safety discussion, because the Hawking radiation has never been seen and therefore is not a fact.

[photino]

Stephen, if you don't believe in Hawking radiation, there are other chains of reasoning - for instance based on astrophysical evidence. You can find the papers linked from the following wikipedia page (they are not that hard to read, at least if only you want to get the gist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_ ... n_Collider

However, I completely disagree with you that the Hawking radiation argument is invalid, for the following reason. You are right that it has not been observed (otherwise Hawking would have a nobel prize). But Hawking is famous for a reason. There is a huge amount of experimental evidence for general relativity and for quantum mechanics. Given this evidence, Hawking's deduction of Hawking radiation seems incredibly solid. It is not a "new theory", but just putting the two well-proven theories together in a regime where both have been separately well-tested (that's what's so clever about Hawking's reasoning - it avoids the singularity at the center of the black hole where the theory will break down). It is very hard to see how it could fail, given known verified physics. Since any safety assessment must necessarily be carried out using known physical theories, I do not think the argument is invalid.

[Stephen]

I've read all the safety reports hundreds of times and I agree with their conclusions. I just said using Hawking radiation to determine weather or not everyone in the world will die is a bad idea, since it's still theoretical (despite having a good background).