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 Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2010 7:42:47 PM , Rating: -1
Ok Blastman lol.

quote:
As mentioned above, a large fraction of the energy released by the gas as it falls onto the black hole is converted into X-rays.


From : http://www.astro.umd.edu/~chris/Research/X-rays_an...

Google had over 500k hits for "black hole x-ray emissions".

quote:
As the gas slowly spirals through the accretion disk towards the black hole, it releases a large amount of energy


Hmmm energy, that sounds familiar. OH YEAH, that's exactly what I said happened.

Now as far as black holes "growing".... From Daily Techs beloved Wikipedia itself..

quote:
Because the black hole eventually achieves a stable state with only three parameters, there is no way to avoid losing information about the initial conditions: The gravitational and electric fields of the black hole give very little information about what went in. The information that is lost includes every quantity that cannot be measured far away from the black hole horizon, including the total baryon number, lepton number, and all the other nearly conserved pseudo-charges of particle physics. This behavior is so puzzling, that it has been called the black hole information loss paradox.


This phenomenon makes it impossible to determine, as you so surely state, weather or not a Black Hole grows or even what happens inside of it. Or even if there IS an "inside" as we would perceive it.

So give it up. You get on your soapbox and act like we have Black Holes all figured out and that you know what the hell you are talking about. You don't. So much of this is theoretical it's not even funny.

quote:
Define energy. I think you are terribly confused. Energy takes many states, and, through the conversion of matter, could take the form of radiation as you suggest. Unfortunately, most of this radiation would be x-rays, gamma rays and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, which, can not escape from the event horizon; except as mentioned above in the form of hawking radiation which deals with thermal and black body radiation through quantum effects. Visible light can not escape a black hole--what do you think it is? It is visible electromagnetic radiation.


Yeah I think you are confused. Light is made up of particles, which cannot escape black holes. Massive bursts of x-ray and other forms of radiation can and DO escape, which is why we can observe this happen. Or do you REALLY think 500k+ hits are all wrong. Oh that's right, I forgot, you're a scientist yourself apparently...

quote:
Unfortunately, the amount of this radiation to be released is so small, it has never been observed from a black hole in deep space.


Again, lie lie LIE.


RE: Black Holes
By freeagle on 4/7/2010 8:13:43 PM , Rating: 4
Dude, from the article you quote yourself, just a little bit more
quote:
As mentioned above, a large fraction of the energy released by the gas as it falls onto the black hole is converted into X-rays. It is thought that the X-rays come from material that is very close to the black hole (i.e. at distances of just a few times the event horizon size) . Observations with X-ray telescopes allow astronomers to test and measure the conditions in this very interesting region of space.


They clearly state those are X-rays from the matter outside of the event horizon, not from the inside. The x-rays do not escape from the inside of a black hole. They are just far enough from the black hole that their speed of light ( because they are light, with a different wavelength ) allows them to go out of the gravitational pull.

X-rays are made of the same thing as light - electromagnetic wave with different wavelenghts, which is, in the standard model, also represented by a photon particle ( as you can surely find, they can act and do act as both ).

No, he is not lying. The radiation he is referring to is Hawkings radiation, which is not the X-rays you are talking about

By the way, since when is google hit meter a valid argument?!


RE: Black Holes
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Black Holes
By ChronoReverse on 4/8/2010 1:58:06 AM , Rating: 4
Are you some kind of moron? This level of black hole knowledge isn't even college level physics. Not only are you going off of Google, but you even fail reading comprehension of the very information you're sourcing.

First off, light is radiation. The particle-wave duality is effect here. The entire electromagnetic spectrum from gamma rays to radio waves are all the same save for energy level. This is highschool level physics.

Second, when we refer to the "inside", it means the inside of the event horizon. By definition, the event horizon is the boundary where nothing can escape due to the intense gravity.

In fact, it doesn't matter if it's particles or waves because when you pass the event horizon, space itself is distorted so much that no matter which way you go (that is, at any velocity) there's no path that will lead out. Nothing escapes; not directly anyway.

Third, the radiation emitted from the accretion disc outside the event horizon only accounts for a small portion of the total mass. Much of it still crosses the event horizon never to be seen again.

Fourth, energy mass equivalence. I knew about this in elementary school. It boggles the mind that you'd dare to correct people without even knowing this basic principle.

Fifth, Hawking radiation is not the same thing as the xrays emitted from the accretion disc. This one is a bit tougher to understand but that's why it's named after a very smart man who theorized them.

Sixth, while there's not too much information we can get about the inside of the black hole knowing the mass (and thus the size) is trivial. The gravity well of a black hole is obviously there and easily measured. Knowing the gravity means you know the mass and thus the size.


RE: Black Holes
By freeagle on 4/8/2010 7:07:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
When did I differentiate between the inside and outside ?

quote:
Except energy like radiation is NOT effected by gravity and escapes the event horizon


I'd say here. Especially when you started to differentiate x-rays and light. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but the fact that at least 3? of us understood it the way we did means, that at the very least your explanation was not clear.


RE: Black Holes
By porkpie on 4/12/2010 12:08:56 AM , Rating: 3
"The simple fact is THEY are able to escape the Black Holes pull while all other matter cannot."

You managed to pack two separate errors into one short sentence. I salute you.

First, outside the event horizon, ANYTHING can escape a black hole. Matter, energy, EM radiation, your mother's dirty socks, you name it. You are technically "under the pull" of every black hole in the universe right now. Gravitational pull never declines to zero, no matter how far away you are. But you're outside the event horizon, so it doesn't matter.

INSIDE the event horizon, nothing can escape (excluding Hawking radiation, that is). Again, it doesn't matter whether its matter, x-rays or any other form of light, or anything else.


RE: Black Holes
By MrBlastman on 4/7/2010 11:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As the gas slowly spirals through the accretion disk towards the black hole, it releases a large amount of energy


Thank you for quoting what I said in my previous post--a different way. ;) The accretion disk is NOT the black hole itself, it is swirl of matter that is facing ultimate demise by the black hole, waiting to be gobbled up. Large is only subjective, for that matter (get the pun), as it is just a fraction of the total mass.

The hole ultimately wins gaining the lions share of the mass.

quote:
This phenomenon makes it impossible to determine, as you so surely state, weather or not a Black Hole grows or even what happens inside of it. Or even if there IS an "inside" as we would perceive


Your logic buffer has overflowed finally. ;) Normally it is functioning okay but right now it is not. Why then, if black holes do not grow as you put it, or, better yet, are unable to be determined if they grow (which we have some pretty good theory backing up that they do), are there many different sizes of black holes--and there is a direct relationship between the size of the event horizon (your black hole) and the mass it contains within.

Once mass goes in, the _only_ way we know it can go out, is through Hawking Radiation. Not x-rays. We can detect the x-rays that are potentially released prior to entry, but that is all.

quote:
Light is made up of particles, which cannot escape black holes. Massive bursts of x-ray and other forms of radiation can and DO escape, which is why we can observe this happen.


Light is both a particle _and_ a wave. This packet of energy is commonly referred to as a photon. A photon is electromagnetic radiation. The same electromagnetic radiation that makes up the electromagnetic spectrum. This is the same spectrum that contains radio waves, infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays. The reason we can only see visible light is the wavelength of that wave (or photon, or, as you put it, packet of energy).

As such, no photons, no matter their wavelength, can escape once passing through the event horizon, which, is the black hole itself. Matter that crushes after that point, might be come energy, but it is energy that is stuck.

quote:
Unfortunately, the amount of this radiation to be released is so small, it has never been observed from a black hole in deep space. Again, lie lie LIE.


Here you misunderstood me again. The radiation I speak of in the quote above is Hawking Radiation. If you don't believe me, look it up, it has been documented in many places. I'm not lying here at all. Read up some more on all of it. It is mostly theory, nonetheless, but it is fascinating for sure.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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