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 9:07:56 PM , Rating: -1
When did I differentiate between the inside and outside ?? The simple fact is THEY are able to escape the Black Holes pull while all other matter cannot.

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

Please, like everyone isn't getting these arguments from Google ? Yeah I'm so sure Daily Tech is just chocked full of molecular physicist and space experts. I mean, honestly, look at the stuff these guys are posting. I'm so sure they just pulled it right off the top of their heads lol.

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
When did I differentiate between the inside and outside ?

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.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki