NASA animation
Several weeks ago I wrote an article about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. To summarize, the LHC is located in a tunnel 27 kilometers (17 miles) in circumference 175 meters beneath the Swiss-French border near the city of Geneva Switzerland.
On September 10, 2008, a beam of protons were successfully launch in the main ring of the LHC but due to problems with two superconducting bending magnets, the Collider was shut down on September 19th. It is anticipated that the problems will be resolved and this massive machine will be switched back on in October of this year.
Following the publication of an earlier article on "Finding the 'God Particle'..", I received several comments questioning the safety of the experiments that are to be undertaken once the Collider is back on line.
Make no mistake about it, this is one powerful machine. When it finally gets going at full power, trillions of protons will be set in motion along the magnetic track and set racing in opposite direction at speeds exceeding 99.999999 percent the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) while engaging in more than 500,000 head-on collisions each second.
The collision of these highly accelerated protons at breathtaking speeds will provide a momentary burst of a phenomenal reservoir of energy and, according to Albert Einstein's famous formula (E=mc2), that reservoir of energy will quickly be converted into a broad variety of more elementary particles.
With all this energy created below the Swiss-French border, one of the several safety concerns involves the possible creation of Micro Black Holes. In this article, I will try to address the possible effects of a man made mini Black Holes popping into existence beneath the City of Geneva.
What is a Black Hole?
Simply put, as originally conceived, a Black Hole is a object so massive and dense that its gravitational field traps anything and everything that gets too close and where nothing can escape its gravity. Since not even light can escape a Black Hole, the term "Black Hole" was born.
While it has been confirmed that massive Black Holes permeate the universe; closer to home, a super massive Black Hole rests (and grows) the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy. In reality however, a Black Hole can have any mass. Think of the ordinary apple that tempted Adam and Eve and motivated Newton to discover the laws of gravity. Take that apple and squeeze it to an almost infinitely small size (about a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a meter across) and you'd have a mini black hole - with the mass of an apple.
From the LHC's conception, physicists realized that the proton-proton collisions might pack so much energy into such a small volume of space that microscopic black holes, holes even lighter than the one created by the apple, may form.
So the question is, since a Black Hole has such a ravenous appetite, wouldn't a mini Black Hole created by the massive Collider pose a problem? If a Black Hole is created near Geneva could it proceed to swallow Switzerland on a journey that will inevitably devour the planet?
While there may be other concerns related to the LHC, the fear that a Black Hole will devour Switzerland is unwarranted. Here's Why:
Steven Hawking, the great English physicist, established that a tiny Black Hole on a microscopic level; the kind that may be created beneath the streets of Geneva, would disintegrate in a tiny fraction of a second. Long enough to be identified and studied but short enough to avoid growing into anything larger. According Dr. Hawking, "Black Holes Aren't Completely Black" since they actually emit a stream of what is now referred to as Hawking radiation which will eventually lead to the evaporation of all Black Holes. Given enough time, even a massive black hole will vanish.
But how do we know that Dr. Hawking is correct when he postulates that any Black Hole which may be created at the LHC will disintegrate instead of growing and devouring the Earth. Are we willing to bet the fate of our plant on an untested theory? If the Collider does contain enough energy to create a mini black hole, is there any real proof that the LHC will only create black holes that will instantaneously evaporate? Well, fortunately, the answer is yes! That answer can been found in the life cycle of "Cosmic rays".
Cosmic rays are high energy particles that constantly rain down on Earth with energies that are far in excess of those attainable by the LHC. When an extremely energetic cosmic particle hits a proton or neutron in the atmosphere with sufficient force, a cosmic ray could create a tiny black hole. Since these cosmic events, which have been occurring since almost the beginning of time, haven't resulted in the end of times; the LHC's comparatively tame energy collisions most assuredly won't either.
Of course, if all the scientists are wrong, they won't be around to say they're sorry.
Comments
Love the last line: "Of course, if all the scientists are wrong, they won't be around to say they're sorry."
I've read a dozen articles like this one by now. It's getting rather tiresome. Has nobody told them that Hawking radiation has never been observed and that there are credible theories that suggest it may not exist? Has nobody told them that a black hole created by impact with cosmic rays will have escape velocity and go right through both the earth and sun? Has nobody told them that the big difference is that two percent of black holes created at LHC will have a velocity below earth escape velocity? At half a million collisions per second, that could be up to 10,000 black holes at rest per second created at LHC.
It's unethical for the LHC to begin operations before a proper safety review has been performed. What the LHC has been calling a safety review is an interest conflicted whitewash.
Your article is factually inaccurate for a number of other reasons, too. Early on, it was ridiculed by Nobel physicists that the LHC might create microblackholes, because the total mass involved was believed to be too small. This was highlighted in a Scientific American article in July, 1999 in which Franck Wilczek lalbasted the idea that a collider could create a black hole. The LHC was on the drawing board at the time, with start of construction imminent.
Later, well after LHC construction had started, theoretical physics caught up with my suggestion in that Scientific American article that micro black holes might be creatable, and predicted a good chance that such might occur. CERN then began playing up that idea, claiming it would be a good thing.
But Hawking Radiation remains merely an unproven theory, with supporting predictions not coming true. Such as, Hawking predicted that the GLAST [aka FERMI] satellite would find evaporating black holes in our galactic halo. Not
The physics of colliding protons with the relativistic mass of uranium is not that well understood… let alone at a rate of half a million collisions per second. That is the rational for the expense of the experiment. Then to turn around to the public and pontificate on the safety of doing so because the physics is known well enough to assuage any safety concerns is arrogant hypocrisy! What the LHC proponents are really saying is that they believe the RISK of anything bad happening is outweighed by the benefit of their personal advancement….
This is an experiment that is best do off planet rather than on the only human occupied planet. But not to worry, there is only a million to one chance of turning the world into a white hot raisin… It would be like winning the lottery... wait people do win the lottery!
We scoff at terrorists who kill for their cause.
What about those who may potentially kill off life. Science is a wonderful thing, but the risks must be weighed. And to say that previous examples of fear proved wrong is proof science is right is NOT SCIENCE, just hindsight. I agree, there is not enough testing to prove this thing is even remotely safe.
You quote Hawking as proof, yet nothing is proven. How is that proof?
I think the great question is this:
What say/rights do citizens of the world have regarding this project. If a poll proved people were deeply concerned about safety, do these people not have a right to stop the project. Given the severity of the outcome, and the absurdity of presenting this issue in a legal setting, are violent measures now the only choice in haulting this machine?
We preemptively strike """terrorists."""
Food for thought.
Im not one for silly mysticism, but heres another one for chewing on; kinda bugs me deep down.
Lots of supposed 'bs' about the 2012 Dec 21 Mayan calender date.
Yet from every estimate Ive read, it is toward the end of 2012 that a potential black hole would grow large enough to be truly devastating.
Now....heres the thing. If youre fortune cookie says:
"dont go to work tommorrow, you may be shot in the head by a stray bullet"
....do you laugh it off, play some parcheesi, and hit the sack....or would you stay up and wonder why the hell a fortune ""cookie"" would say something like that.
Arent cookies supposed to be good things?
I have one question, I hope some math genius can give a calculated answer.
The above article states that the sun propels particles faster than the LHC and I have no qualms with that. However doesn't the LHC propel two particles in opposite directions?
When the particles from the sun hit our atmosphere it hits particles which stationary. So the math question I have is, how much energy does the particle from the sun hitting a stationary atmospheric particle generate and how much does the particle propeled my the LHC against another particle propelled in the opposite direction generate.
By laymans logic(my own) I would compare this to a car travelling at 50mph into a parked car and a different car travelling at 40mph into another car travelling at 30mph head on.
Doesn't the head on collision create far greater damage?
I hope there are quantum laws which makes the collision incomparable to larger objects.
If light can't escape from a black hole then will whatever near enough it be swallowed faster than the speed of light before the cosmic rays hit it? Aren't cosmic rays about the same speed of light?
Sir ,
I am Indian . I would like to do something regarding scientific research . But a big problem with me is my medium that is Hindi & my academic qualification is not eligible for it .I have many thoughts of black hole & many experimental work on it . A team of intellectual people is required .My name is Manish Kumar Sharma.I am a resident of Ajmer (Rajasthan). I run a small photostudio whose name is " MOHINI STUDIO" . I am not highly qualified . My shop phone no. is 0145-2683192.& my mob. no. is 9982163104. My D.O.B. is 28-05-1974.
My application may not be conserned to you . but please forward it to other conserned people .
Thanks
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!