backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by freeagle.. on Apr 14 at 12:30 PM

No Earth-imploding black holes at LHC this decade. Probably.

While (some of) the world watched the Large Hadron Collider power up, fault, power up again and ultimately land its first 7 TeV collisions, others may have gripped their armchairs tightly, waiting for the planet-destroying black hole that some claim the LHC is capable of creating. As one might be inclined to notice, the Earth has made it through the ordeal just fine.

However, whether these doomsday black hole concerns are credible or not, a pair of scientists from Princeton University and the University of British Columbia at Vancouver have been delving into the relativistic physics calculations just to see what might really happen. Matthew Choptuik from UBCV and Frans Pretorius from Princeton have done the grunt work to solve field equations related to soliton collisions at specific energies.

"Our calculation produced results that most were expecting, but no one had done the calculation before. People were just sort of assuming that it would work out. Now that these simulations have been done, some scientists will have a better idea of what to look for in terms of trying to see if black holes are formed in LHC collisions," explained Choptuik.

Based on string theory and its extra dimensions, Choptuik and Pretorious concluded that high-energy collisions at the LHC could indeed form black holes -- but the chances of them destroying the world are pale even in comparison to the chance that they would actually be detected by LHC equipment while they exist.

Of the events, Choptuik says, "Some are already taking this very seriously. However, I don’t think that we are likely to actually see any black holes at the LHC, even if it is possible."

Rather than directly observing such a formation, he explains that to confirm the existence of the fleeting matter-energy magnet, LHC scientists will have to study the debris from the collision rather than the particles that instantaneously exist and then disappear. A typical collision would leave jets of debris while the short-lived black hole would produce a more spherical pattern.

The duo's findings have been published in the journal 
Physical Review Letters, titled "Ultrarelativistic Particle Collisions."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Black Holes
By TSS on 4/7/2010 10:43:21 AM , Rating: 0
in the beginning, their giant stars many times more massive then our own sun that collapse under their own weight in a spectacular supernova. And not the small kind, either.

Its this reason the black holes, if they come into existance, aren't considered any threat because there's no initall mass to support the hole to expand.

I guess it's like a fire. We are trying to start a fire with enough air, one giant spark, but no firewood. it's likely the spark'll ignite something.. but it won't burn for very long.

IMO it's funny they used relavistic theory for this since that same theory predicts a singulairity at the center of a black hole, the very thing their now so worried about comming into existance. And a singulairity means: infinity, the science doesn't add up, the theory is wrong. it might be close but not close enough.


RE: Black Holes
By Goty on 4/7/2010 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that without general relativity that you don't have black holes in the first place, right? You also realize that the big bang is also a singularity and that both black holes and the big bang are completely accepted by modern science, right?

I swear, we need to find some way to check that people have at least a basic knowledge of physics before they're allowed to post in threads like this.


RE: Black Holes
By freeagle on 4/7/2010 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 4
Black holes can also be described by quantum mechanics, but both quantum mechanics and general relativity are not enough to describe them completely. Singularity is just something, where these theories break, because all the calculations produce infinities. This is a problem. If a theory produces an infinity at some point, the theory itself is not complete. We may not know at the moment what the singularity really is, but in reality, it most probably has no infinite property.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki