tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6200117079592194938..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Black Holes at the LHC - What can happen?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46444662120155368642010-01-21T19:50:48.271-05:002010-01-21T19:50:48.271-05:00Very informative post but itfails to address one i...Very informative post but itfails to address one issue. What would happen if Chuck Norries entered a Black Hole?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47642577718276908582009-06-13T01:31:08.156-04:002009-06-13T01:31:08.156-04:00Although better judgment tells me that indeed the ...Although better judgment tells me that indeed the majority is correct in concluding that our civilization will probably not be destroyed by an artificial black hole, logic dictates that creating one must be possible. It is given that black holes exist, and it is also given that all existing black holes were produced at some point in the past. <br />We can identify the naturally occuring 'Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18055630211713694201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73812988561283683932009-05-26T18:03:24.257-04:002009-05-26T18:03:24.257-04:00Creating a mini black hole is impossible. Even if ...Creating a mini black hole is impossible. Even if we do it, we won't know it. I'm curious to know what the long-term effects will be, though.Ares Vistahttp://www.ares.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64814843178254504812009-05-21T13:09:46.341-04:002009-05-21T13:09:46.341-04:00Stefan and Bee,
I read your post and the relevant...Stefan and Bee,<br /><br />I read your post and the relevant comments with some apprehension. A stated above, only 1 in 100,000 mini black holes created is expected to have a velocity less than escape velocity. Using other date from the blog, this equates to an expectation of one black hole which will be captured by earth’s gravity being produced every 28 operational hours. <br /><br />You TRYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00331103766892593029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63664471531013758772009-03-05T10:17:00.000-05:002009-03-05T10:17:00.000-05:00This is great information! Thank you for writing ...This is great information! Thank you for writing it; now I'm not scared to go to sleep at night. I was afraid the LHC would create black holes that would swallow the earth. Your explanation helped me understand there probably won't be many black holes, and if there are, they'll either shoot off into space or disintegrate. Thank you! --Jonathan, age 8 (typed by his mom)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39511525651948850762009-02-18T08:48:00.000-05:002009-02-18T08:48:00.000-05:00Robert: There is no updated story, if anything the...Robert: There is no updated story, if anything the number of expected black holes has been falling with more accurate studies, and Hawking radiation is not a pipe dream. You seem to have misunderstood almost everything I write. There is no consistent theory WITHOUT Hawking radiation. If anything, then the absence of Hawking radiation is a 'pipe dream'.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64489655610975947472009-02-18T08:33:00.000-05:002009-02-18T08:33:00.000-05:00if a black hole acquires a quark every 400 miles o...if a black hole acquires a quark every 400 miles of journey and hawking radiation is a pipe dream, the black hole will grow, correct? if one such black hole is created per second, how long will it take a black hole or a collection of black holes to acquire enough mass to swallow a planet. i suspect that the answer isn't infinity. if it's greater than five billion years, then we will have more GabbyHayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16308011741351803677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69584288585946307022008-12-02T21:58:00.000-05:002008-12-02T21:58:00.000-05:00the obvious problem to me is not wether or not the...the obvious problem to me is not wether or not the LHC will destroy the earth via a spew of mini stable black holes eating the earth from within (which IS albeit VERY VERY unlikely, a possibility) but if the LHC provides militaries new toys to play with. How about a single bomb that can wipe out europe and leave no trace of radiation? Science doesn't exsist in a vacuum as much as scientists wish Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83054485281146952122008-11-20T19:16:00.000-05:002008-11-20T19:16:00.000-05:00In my opinion, the biggest danger would be that so...In my opinion, the biggest danger would be that some reactions would occur undetected and would keep happening over an unknown duration. For example, until somewhat recently neutrino's were a theoretical particle until a method was discovered (based upon the assumption that they did exist) to detect them.<BR/><BR/>The very nature of the tests that will be performed at the LHC defines that the Danny Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116648489388284412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2703469953839658732008-10-11T13:03:00.000-04:002008-10-11T13:03:00.000-04:00It is my understanding that although many black ho...It is my understanding that although many black holes might be produced in the LHC, they will generally be so small they will immediately evaporate (and/or escape the earth's gravitational field). I read somewhere that a stable black hole would have to weigh on the order of 10 micrograms. Is that a number you would agree with?<BR/><BR/>If so, that would mean that the particles involved in the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52512978566539384972008-09-30T00:31:00.000-04:002008-09-30T00:31:00.000-04:00"This is not simply a matter of investment,"No it ..."This is not simply a matter of investment,"<BR/><BR/>No it is not "simply" a matter of investment but that does not make investment irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>" yet more so planning, proper management and most importantly a sense of urgency and willingness of the people so affected to change."<BR/><BR/>Is that stuff "free" (i.e. no monetary cost?)? As if not then why is the money better spent on mike3https://www.blogger.com/profile/15516648613972933636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62878632529218414372008-09-30T00:26:00.000-04:002008-09-30T00:26:00.000-04:00"This is one of the most overused and wrong headed..."This is one of the most overused and wrong headed reasons for not doing something which is so often brought up. The problems that the people you mention never were to any large extent created by some sort of conspired unbalanced distribution of wealth, yet rather the lack of a plan to create wealth in the areas of the world you mention.<BR/><BR/>The real solutions are many and complex that beginmike3https://www.blogger.com/profile/15516648613972933636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15439477415833811402008-09-11T09:35:00.000-04:002008-09-11T09:35:00.000-04:00anybody remember the krell?anybody remember the krell?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4928457616607656972008-09-10T23:01:00.000-04:002008-09-10T23:01:00.000-04:00Hi Sam,“The billions of dollars that were spent on...Hi Sam,<BR/><BR/>“The billions of dollars that were spent on LHC would have been better spent helping those people. Am I missing something?”<BR/><BR/>This is one of the most overused and wrong headed reasons for not doing something which is so often brought up. The problems that the people you mention never were to any large extent created by some sort of conspired unbalanced distribution of Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77203699055501281372008-09-10T18:55:00.000-04:002008-09-10T18:55:00.000-04:00Hi Nowayride,You are barking up completely the wro...Hi Nowayride,<BR/><BR/>You are barking up completely the wrong tree. Who you should blame for scaring the public are money-hungry news-reporters who have no qualms publishing irresponsible stories about catastrophe scenarios that have no scientific backup whatsoever without ever clarifying that what they are writing is pure fantasy. If you blame that on science and ask, based upon such behavior, Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6986278539757796622008-09-10T18:41:00.000-04:002008-09-10T18:41:00.000-04:00Hi Sam,The question you are asking is a good one, ...Hi Sam,<BR/><BR/>The question you are asking is a good one, I've asked it myself <A HREF="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/02/worlds-largest-microscope.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. It is a huge political question. There certainly has to be a balance between driving progress in the richer countries and helping progress in the less rich countries, and where it is is a matter of discussion Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11885091880101258592008-09-10T16:11:00.000-04:002008-09-10T16:11:00.000-04:00I've been reading the postings on this page, and m...I've been reading the postings on this page, and many others on the internet, and having trouble getting my head around the logic that supporters of LHC have used. Analysis of risk is typically made in direct proportion to the size of risk, and it typically involves a sense of personal choice. For example, I choose to fly on airplanes. There is generally a one in 15 million chance of being in a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75651540102606908642008-09-09T23:49:00.000-04:002008-09-09T23:49:00.000-04:00I have common knowledge about physics, aka I reall...I have common knowledge about physics, aka I really would have no idea what I'm talking about as far as proofs go. But.. talking as a human being, I find it HIGHLY unethical to proceed with a project that has so much worry in the public's eye. Granted, media inflates these dangers too outrageous proportions, there should be much more assurance that there is no cause for concern. The project nowayridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02054785839345258388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18526797214748580112008-09-09T15:47:00.000-04:002008-09-09T15:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for the information on Black Holes and ther...Thanks for the information on Black Holes and there properties. Media disruppted life, about LHC.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01144335640433575292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28073508959692663762008-09-09T12:22:00.000-04:002008-09-09T12:22:00.000-04:00u dumb niggas why u try 2 go 2 whole another demen...u dumb niggas why u try 2 go 2 whole another demension.....u niggas is dumb is a box of rocksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40807092696025133042008-09-03T09:02:00.000-04:002008-09-03T09:02:00.000-04:00Thanks for posting such a comprehensive reasoning ...Thanks for posting such a comprehensive reasoning and scientific explanation for this "black-hole creation" problem. This is an explanation that a layman can understand. I have NO knowledge of particle physics. I'd be a Luddite in terms of physics ability. But this knowledge "a black hole has to have significant mass to do damage". In otherwords unless the gravitational pull of the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85406815730190779192008-05-03T12:36:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:36:00.000-04:00http://thelargehadroncollider.googlepages.com/http...http://thelargehadroncollider.googlepages.com/<BR/><BR/>http://explosivedevice.googlepages.com/index<BR/><BR/>http://explosivedevice.googlepages.com/suicidebomberinyourhouse<BR/><BR/>5.CERN says: "THE COLLISIONS HAVE LESS ENERGY THAN A FEW FLYING MOSQUITOS, so must be safe."<BR/>False analogy. The energy of the neutrons (mosquitos) that triggered the exponential process (E=mc2) in the TRINITY Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32396134559826148982008-04-28T17:50:00.000-04:002008-04-28T17:50:00.000-04:00I was just re-reading some of these articles, and ...I was just re-reading some of these articles, and there is one point that I find esp. confusing, namely the argument that the black holes at the LHC would be more dangerous than those from cosmic rays because they are less fast. Besides that Stefan explained above very nicely that the typical product of high energy collision has a velocity considerably above the earth's escape velocity, I don't Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9781195446745202082008-04-18T15:17:00.000-04:002008-04-18T15:17:00.000-04:00Hi BeeThanks for your large-minded reply. You wrot...Hi Bee<BR/>Thanks for your large-minded reply. You wrote:<BR/>“You are of course right that people working on a topic run in danger to have a biased opinion, in the sense that nobody wants to see a shortage for his/her own research topics. It is however highly implausible to me that thousands of physicists would agree on a matter on the risk of causing the end of the world. I do not think that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13115187673772456092008-04-18T14:22:00.000-04:002008-04-18T14:22:00.000-04:00LW,I think you completely misunderstood the point ...LW,<BR/><BR/>I think you completely misunderstood the point with the valley crossers. This is about finding alternative approaches (different hills), which possibly requires you to go through a low (the valley). I don't see what this has to do with the risk estimate for the LHC. You are of course right that people working on a topic run in danger to have a biased opinion, in the sense that nobodySabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com