Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

yeah well I cant party with anyone I want...some deny me that, by associating themselves with lesbians.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am nearly sure you are wrong on this. that is why I have been speaking of an "electron cloud" (in the outer shell mainly). Let be be more specific: the electron is not some little point, but a smear. It is everywhere and no where, classically. In the black hole's traverse of EACH AND EVERY atom there is a small but non zero (and reasonable easy to calculate) probably it will be inside the event horizon even if there were zero gravitational attraction towards the black hole.

Think of shooting a bb into a jug of jello, if you must think classically - that bb is small but will get jello on it, even though it has zero attraction for jello.

Once the black hole has a few hundred electron charges, even it it takes travel thru half the Earth to get them, it will eat many more ions from much father away than one Angstrom, I think. The slowing helps in this phase by giving the ions time to move towards it under the Coulomb force. If it were stationary it would attract ions from centimetes away. (Probably by a complex charge transfer from the ion to another neutral atom, that then is the ion etc. and only one say 10 microns away, which was intially uncharged, is the one that it "eats.") I think this gain of mass will be an exponential process, so would not be surprised if the last mile of solid Earth doubles its already very significantly increased mass. I.e. as I see or imagine it, the black hole will 'bore a cone" thru the Earth, not a tube. The diameter of the cone will be larger than "microscopic" (size of a Penny?) as it leaves the Earth WITH LESS THAN THE ESCAPE VELOCITY.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not know it to be fact, but the tiny fraction of the wave function that is inside the event horizon may accumulate. I.e. the event horizon may be sort of a "one way door" that "condenses" the electron inside. If this is true, perhaps the black hole is highly negatively charged before it travels thru one of the magnets of the LHC? And eating ions at a significant rate after the first mile of travel in the Earth as it has slowed enough for them to come to it under the huge* Coulomb force of small separations.
-----------
*In one of my earlier posts somewhere, I guessed that the electron one hydrogen radius from only one proton might have more force acting on it than a railroad locomotive can make. (Perhaps I need n electrons and the charge of an iron nucleus for that to be true?)

I am more confident that ions and electrons will be closing at nearly the speed of light as they cross the EH since energy must be conserved and fall in a point gravitational field is dropping into an infinitely deep well with unlimited energy available CLASSICALLY. (But not correct I am sure as is not a classical solution.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey an orgy will be all out, everyone on everyone, no limits, you in?

On a side note, no black holes will form, or at least last, if they did we would have been eaten by cosmic ray formed ones eons ago.

 

The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
The Sky Is Falling
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

Exactly what I argued more than a year ago in Paul's thread, for more than 6 months, but now I understand the problem better I realize that a tiny cosmic ray black hole (or any other tiny one) traveling at 99.99+ speed of light will eat very few nano-grams of mass before popping out the other side of the Earth with thousands of times the Earth escape velocity. That is very different from a slower one that pops out the other side with less than the escape velocity, and falls back into the Earth repeatedly to eat more until there is no Earth left.

If Hawkins is wrong and the tiny black hole does not essentially instantly evaporate and it initially pops out on the far side of the Earth with less than the escape velocity (highly likely if made by colliding beams) then it only a question of time before it grows to and Earth mass black hole for the moon to orbit still.*
-----------
*Not that the moon actually orbits the Earth - but that is another story: Briefly the moon co-orbits the sun with the Earth also in a nearly circular orbit. I.e. in an orbit that is ALWAYS concave towards the sun. - That too I was mistaken about for many years until Janus58 posted here several proofs that the moon only appears to orbit the Earth from an Earth POV.

PS a strange thought just occured to me:

Perhaps Hawkins has a death wish. (That would be understandable given his current circumstances.) How could he kill himself? Answer: with his brilliant mind. He could say that his "Calculation show that a tiny black holes radiates rapidly away. That there is no danger in "firing up" the LHC."

Very few if any would be albe to prove his analysis and predictions wrong. No one pays much attention to those who do say those predictions are wrong.

 

The problem is that a collision with a cosmic ray does not mean the produced black hole will retain the vector of the cosmic ray, it may in fact be slowed down enough, so still over the eons a black hole would have been produced at a vector relative to earth to devour the planet, if it was possible, it has not happened, so it is not possible.

 

Billy: Three things here.

1. Once the black hole has a few (maybe even just one) electrons in it, it will repell any other electrons that it comes near. Electrons in the earth's material would be knocked out of the way long before they came near the event horizon of the black hole. The repulsive charge force would be much, much stronger than the gravitational force.

2. Also, the black hole is not going to capture an electron just because it passes through a region on an electron's wave function around an atom.

3. You can't fit atoms much closer together than about 1 angstrom. Even if the black hole had a huge negative charge and was sitting in a sea of positive nuclei that didn't have any electrons, there would still be major limits on how quickly it could suck in matter. It would be like if you had a huge crowd of people that were all trying to jump into a 1-meter hole in the floor. It doesn't matter if there are a million people waiting to jump in - they will still only be able to fit a few at a time in because of the space limitations as people crowd around it. This isn't a problem for a "regular" black hole because it has a large event horizon, but the event horizon for these things would be much much smaller than an atom. So small that atoms would bump into each other and get in each other's way if many tried to rush in at once.

If you redo the calculations with the black hole siting stationary and atoms rushing toward it at the speed of light from all sides, I think you are still going to need a very very long time before it mass becomes large enough to pose a problem.

 

Here one: considering the suns mass, size and inner density a cosmic ray would have hit the sun, formed a black hole that would have been stop by the suns awesome size and that black hole would have grown and devoured the sun long long ago.

 

While your statement is not completely false, essentially it is. The trajectory of the black hole would be within a few degrees identical to that the cosmic ray had and exactly the same, if the BH happens to be the only product produced by the collision. (Momentum must be conserved.)

If many other particles are produced by the primary cosmic ray's collison with the nucleus of an atmosphereic molecule, then all products would also be with "forward trajectories" confined inside a very narrow cone. I will not formally prove this, but now outline the proof:

Switch the Center of Mass, CoM, frame of the collision. (That frame is still moving at 99.9999+% of c for the cosmic rays with energies of interest for black hole formation even if the collision is with the most massive nucleus to be found in the air. - Argon's)
In that CoM frame, the collision will be a "splat" with particles flying off in all different directions. Now transform back to the frame in which the Earth is stationary and you find that the "splat" of all those very different directions in the CoM frame are ALL trajectories inside a very narrow cone in the Earth's frame. (You do the frame transforms if you need to see this is true.)

I.e. The black hole formed by the cosmic ray, with all the other particles produced by that enormous energy (relative to the nucleus of the atmospheric atom it hits) would continue to have exactly the same total momentum vector the cosmic ray had prior to the collision. None would have any significant momentum orthogonal to the original trajectory.

Yes, it is conceptually possible that in the vastness of the universe there are thousands (millions?) of tiny black holes as any instant that have velocity with respect to Earth of say 0.1c or less. I think this is likely either with or w/o Hawkins Radiation being real.

If it (HR) is real then this distribution of tiny BH masses are in their last minutes of life as mass but as they evaporate, they will be replaced by others in sort of a steady state population of "dying BHs."

If HR is NOT real, then BHs can only grow and merge. The "tiny BHs" will still be disappearing as they get eaten by larger BHs. Occasional a tiny BH may "get Lucky" and be captured by some foolish star's gravity field as it wanders thru space and very rapidly transformed into a stellar mass BH. All BHs will slowly be eating cosmic gasses between these rare "mass steps" that dramatically increase the BH's mass.

Fortunately for us, our sun has not been "foolish" enough to eat one of these wandering cosmic BHs. There probably are extremely few of the Jupiter or smaller BHs still around after 13+ billion years. Probably very few BHs still exist with even one solar mass, either with or w/o HK being real.

SUMMARY: The reason it has "not happened" to Earth or our sun was slightly "luck" and now the fact that space is so big and there are so few, if any tiny BHs, for it to happen.

I suggest you go to the web site under my name and there you will see that I assumed as the central idea of my book, Dark.Visitor, that a 2.2 solar mass BH did wander by our solar system. Space is very empty but even our solar system is 99.9999% without concentrated mass, so the passing BH hits nothing, just passes rapidly thru the solar system, missing Earth by 11 AU. (11 times the distance to the sun.)

However, during the few weeks it takes to come and leave our solar system, it gives a gravitational impulse to the Earth that slight slightly changes Earth's orbit. The new year is 378 days long. The eccentricity is increased to 0.0836, but that is less than Mar's currently has; none-the-less the apogee, which occurs in the summer of the Northern Hemisphere is 11% farther and the perigee 6% closer to the sun.

This makes the US summers last couple of months longer and be cooler. It makes the winters slightly shorter and milder. - Superficially that sounds nicer, but in fact it is the worst disaster in human history. Heavy snow falls always come in mild cold weather, which after the BH passes is most of the winter, not just a few weeks near the start of spring. Washington DC gets a total snow fall of approximately 100 feet. Some may think that closing DC down is also a blessing, but in the cooler summer that follows not all that snow melts. Snow is accumulating at all latitudes from about 45N or greater even the first year after the BH has passed. Snow accumulates more rapidly and further south the second year as the snow cover reduces absorption of sunlight. In a decade the ocean levels have dropped about 10 meters and none of the existing ports function. In 100 years DC is under ice and snow 100 feet thick and only the tip of Florida is still ice free.

The change in orbit was calculated with a "finite time-step" program as it is a non-analytic "3-body" problem. Two chapters explain the climate controlling factors, and some simple thermal balance models were used to estimate the snow fall etc. The New and permanent Ice Age occurs in part because of the self accelerating effects of the high albedo of snow covered Earth.

We remain ice free in the Southern Hemisphere and as most of the surface here is ocean it evaporates, more rapidly in our summer, up to 6% closer to the sun. Most of the Earth is thus cloud covered and that is where the water for 100 feet of snow in DC etc. comes from. Here in the S.H. we have torrential rains every summer eve. Rio and most other coastal cities are washed into the sea, but at least we can grow rice and survive. Essentially all in the N.H. are dead in a couple of decades, not including those killed much sooner in the food riots etc. - I did not have any reliable models for those type of things and wanted to keep everything in the book consistent with physics.

 

So on what day is the world scheduled to be swallowed by this dark hole?

 

I don't get it Bill, if you have a particle standing still and you hit it with another particle the resulting particles will have a vector that is the combination of the two, so the cosmic ray's products will have less energy. More so if a blackhole is formed and it is absorbing matter it will lose it speed quickly as it passes through the earth and it could fall back. You did not get the sun analogy right: take the sun, a cosmic ray collision directly towards to core of the sun, producing a blackhole would be hard to fly though the sun and not get stuck.

 

I wrote book a several years ago, back when I thought it might still be possible to avoid economic disaster. It is presented in the style of a true report from an astronomer, but written by his history professor friend (who presents the physic in easy to understand terms.)* The astronomer has been studying the fine irregularities in Pluto's orbit - How he detected the approaching BH. I wanted to scare some bright pre-law* etc. undergraduates - to get them interested to know if the report's indication that they were about to die could be true. Perhaps become science students and help US not lose the scientific learership of world as it already has lost the technology leadership position to Asia. Never thought I would make any difference, but wanted to at least try.

It could be true, as we would have little warning of the approach of a solar size BH, certainly not by reflected light, but this fictional black hole passed solar system last year. Who knows if one will pass next year? Note that an undetectable 100 solar mass BH hole can even pass near Pluto and kill us all whereas the standard "comet hits Earth" disaster has a very small target to do the same.

The book is really a physic course disguised as a horror story - a cosmic disaster that could happen. All of Kepler's laws are illustrated in numerical analysis, but never named as that would be "conventional teaching" and scare my target reader away. Non-technical readers will learn a lot about physic without realizing they are being taught. - Two chapters discuss the mechanisms of climate, one chapter tells about several different sources of BHs and a few other objects that could be the approaching, but undetected, "dark visitor" just starting to perturb Pluto. - For example, the big bang should have made magnetic monopoles, but they have much stronger mutual attraction than gravity and may have merged. They may be many orders of magnitude heavier than protons - some believe only two (an "N" and an "S") would merge and become a BH thereby explaining why magnetic monopoles do not exist or are extremely dense, undetectable, but finite objects normally "lost in space" as "dark matter" - the approaching "dark visitor, being an exception.
------------------
*Astronomer was too busy looking for gravitational lens effects to refine the cruder trajectory the perturbation of Pluto gave.

 

Yes, less energy, but the same total momentum, which is a vector in the original direction of the cosmic ray's travel. Energy is not a vector, but a scalar. Are you confused? If so, I will be glad to help.

If the rapidly moving wrt Earth BH "eats pieces" (one electron or one nucleus at a time) of Earth, then it will slow, again to conserve momentum. I am not sure you were stating that it would form in dense matter, but to be clear, it will not. Not high in the atmosphere where all primary cosmic ray "dies" and "convert to secondaries" and certainly not in the extremely high vacuum where the LHC's beams collide. In both cases, we are concerned with what happens AFTER the BH is formed and does enter dense matter. Nasor in the post made just after yours I am replying to has 3 points but tends to think much too classically about the electron as if it had a location, can get Knocked around etc. He thinks that a fast tiny BH would pass thru the Earth with little mass gain (assuming that it does not "evaporate" by H.R.), and I tend to agree, with both his points 1 & 2 but not for the same reasons. What he may not realize is the at the E H of the tiny BH, the gravitational gradient is extreme - much, much larger than if it were a big black hole. I do not assert that matter such as a proton would be destroyed, broken into its three constituent "quarks," but only because I am in doubt about how quickly that is possible, but even that doubt has doubts as from the proton's POV it takes "forever" to fall in. I.e. I readily admit this is all way beyond me. None the less, I am pretty sure his idea that the matter cannot much squeeze thru the tiny surface of EH is much too classical a POV.

I do not know, but think if energetic enough it (the BH) can still easily come out the other side.

The solar volume is 1.3e6 times greater than Earth's and it mass is only 0.33e6 times greater than Earth. This gives an average density less than Earth's average 5.5g/cc! I.e. the sun is only 1.4 times as dense as water whereas Earth is more like iron's density. None the less a cylinder passing thru the center of the sun (1,390e3Km long) is 109 times longer than one thru the Earth's center (12,757Km long) so the total mass in the sun's "diameter passing" cylinder is less than 28 times greater.

Surely the "stopping power" of the sun is greater, but not by so much that we can be sure it is significantly harder for the cosmic ray's BH to "punch thru" - probably just means that slightly slower ones that just make it thru the Earth's center will not make it thru the sun's center. But of course the escape velocity from the sun must be much greater and it is true, at least last time I could see it (it is night as I write) the sun is still there.

Perhaps what we should conclude from this is that all cosmic rays that are energetic enough to make BHs* give these BHs so much forward momentum that they can pass thru the sun and emerge on the far side with more than the escape velocity. I think it not save to conclude as you do that fact sun (or Earth) is not yet a BH, implies anything about the BHs that the LHC can make as they will not have much momentum wrt the Earth. They may eat it if after their first pass thru they have less than the escape velocity.

Again, I note that if Hawking is correct about LHC's tiny BHs quickly dying by radiation / "evaporating," they may not even be able to make it to the walls of the vacuum chamber. I.e. live so short a life that it almost nonsense to say they were ever there. How confident are knowledgeable physicists that H.R. is real and as rapid as computed - that is the real concern / question, IMHO.
------------
*I think it is harder for a cosmic ray to make a BH in collision with sun's proton (hydrogen nucleus) than with oxygen or nitrogen nucleus of the atmosphere but ignore that here.

 

Quantum vs. classical treatments don’t matter here. The de Broglie wavelength of an atom is virtually always going to be much smaller than the radius of the electrostatic forces that will cause it to repel other atoms. I stand by my statement that even if there was a strong electrostatic force trying to pull in many atoms at once, only a few (or one) at a time could actually be sucked in.

Remember, the radius of this black hole is going to be so small that you can think of it like a dimensionless point. You are dealing with a scenario where matter is being attracted to a point, and when it reaches that point it disappears. Only one atom at a time can actually occupy that point, because the size of the point is much smaller than the size of a single atom. So only one atom at a time will be able to enter the black hole. It doesn’t matter if there is a strong electrostatic force that’s trying to pull the atoms in – they just won’t all fit. And again, I’ll reiterate that a classical vs. quantum treatment doesn’t matter here since the repulsive forces between atomic nuclei act over much larger distances than the ordinary wavelength of a nucleus. And as I already pointed out, there even if atoms were entering it at the speed of light and packed as close as they possibly could be, it would take forever for it to gain any noticeable mass.

 

From your POV, not one atom would "fit" inside* the EH of the tiny BH, and I agree IF one could assume the atom were neither ripped apart by the extreme gradient in the distortion of space near the EH nor in some way "stretched" into an object of length much greater than radius. I am not asserting any of this would happen as I do not know, but do assert that the things true where space is not so extremely distorted probably do not apply near the EH of a tiny black hole, including the Broglie wavelengths, sizes of things, etc..

As far as electrons are concerned, it seems very reasonable to think that some small fraction of their wave function is inside the EH of the BH as there is essentially no point in the general region of the "orbitals" which is free of the wave function, even before the HB arrives in that part of space. I tried to express this in earlier post by saying: the electron is "everywhere and nowhere." I do not know what it means to have part of a wave function "inside the EH" - I am not speaking of it being attracted there by Coulomb force – If expressed classically, the electron is just a "smear of negative charge and mass in space" and the BH can pass thru that same part of space - i.e. as the BH traverses the electron smear that space is highly distorted and some of the electron's wave function is inside the EH. - If it cannot get out of the EH, perhaps if forces a complete "localization" inside the EH? My point is that this is an extremely complex question - essentially nothing you are expressing about sizes etc. makes any sense. I do not know what happens, only that your arguments do not apply.

In the case of a proton or nucleus I am inclined to think they are destroyed by the spatial gradients - probable first their quarks are separated by that gradient and then I have no idea how the quarks are further processed to become a point mass. I also am not completely convenience that a BH is a point mass, but think it would have no sense to assign a definite radius to it. My POV is there is nothing that is describable here in the terms you are using. That is what I was referring to by saying you were thinking too much in classical terms. I was not saying you need to think in quantum mechanical terms.

As I cannot tell you what would happen and think you are trying to tell me in what would and why in meaningless terms, we will just need to agree to drop the question, unresolved.
---------------
*If the bold of your text really does refer to the POINT of a BH, then it would not matter if that POINT had the mass of the entire galaxy. You are arguing that not one atom would fit inside! - This is a silly POV as BHs "eat" whole stars. Surely, they can eat one atom, even if it is not a point. This vividly illustrates that your logic / argument does not apply.

 

Gaaaa! And STILL you don't seem to understand the basic point that I have been trying to communicate to you!

When I talk about the tiny black hole as being a "point," I am talking about the size of the area in space where the gravitational effects of the black hole have any significant effect on matter around it, the area that a particle would have to enter before it "noticed" that there was a black hole next to it. A tiny black hole can only "eat" a single atom at a time. This is because atoms will repel each other when they get too close together. The "repulsive radius" of a single atom is much larger than the "capture radius" of a tiny black hole. Only one atom at a time will be able to enter the black hole, because only one atom at a time can be close enough to the black hole to be captured. Once an atom is so close to the black hole that it might be captured, it will be very strongly repelling any other atoms in the area. The black hole will have to finish eating its current atom before a new atoms can come in and fill the void. The question, then, is how quickly could atoms move into the black hole? I already did that calculation for you. Adding an electrostatic attraction between the black hole and the atoms around it doesn't matter - you still can't get more than one atom close enough to the black hole at a time to be eaten.

Large black holes that eat huge stars don't have this problem because they are large enough to eat lots of matter at once along different parts of its surface. A large black hole can eat two atoms at the same time (or a billion atoms at the same time) because they are large enough that more than one atom can approach within its capture radius.

Edit: Here are some actual numbers. Assume your black hole has a mass of 1 mg. That's much larger than anything that the LHC could ever make, but what the heck, let's be conservative. That black hole would have an even horizon about 10^-31 meters in radius. Before there would be any significant gravitational effect, you would have to get within at least 10^-20 meters. But it's impossible to get atoms even 10^-11 meters from each other, unless some sort of extrodinary force is being applied to crush them together. What force will do that? Certainly not the force of the black hole, because that won’t kick in until you get within 10^-20 meters, and the second atom will be repeled long before it gets that close. So, by the time one atom is 10^-20 meters from the black hole and is starting to notice something, there's no way any other atom could also be close enough to be eaten at the same time, because it can't get within 10^-11 meters of the black hole (due to the presence of the first atom).

 

Agreed. I have never suggested “eating two or more at a time" - this is your straw man.

Lets back up for new start as you are diverting the discussion with this “eat two at a time” straw man:

What I have as a concern is that a BH made by colliding beams may be moving much more slowly than those created by cosmic rays. (Perhaps even slower than a race car.) If its mass is comparable with one atom (and Hawking's radiation is only math, not real) then its velocity will drop to about half with the first atom it “eats”, giving it longer to transit the remainder of the path thru Earth. If it can then eat two more it has roughly 25% of the original speed, so even if it has already gone 3/4 of way thru Earth, it will probably eat several more before it punches out the other side of the Earth, WITH LESS THAN THE ESCAPE VELOCITY, so it only is a question of how many more passes thru the Earth before there is Earth falling into a much more massive BH and finally how much longer before all of the Earth is gone?

I admit the initial BH with mass of an atom has a very tiny gravitational "capture cross section" but I am first focused on the fact that "zillions of electrons" will have part of their wave function in its path every mile of its path. I think it possible that one of the “zillions” will give its negative charge to the BH and that there will be some positive ions, especially in the hot core of the Earth that happen to be sort of “co-moving” (just due to their random thermal velocity) with the now negative BH as it drifts past their general location. I.e. the small size of the BH's EH and inability of the associated gravitational field to "capture atoms" is like the inability to "eat two at a time" – just another "straw man" - not my concern.

My concern, as often stated, is with the Coulomb attraction between these + and – charged objects with very tiny separations. (Surely less than 0.001 Angstrom occasionally.) I have twice now guessed that the force of attraction between them is greater than any locomotive can produce, but never calculated it. I have also guessed that because of this large force on such low mass objects that they are closing on each other at essentially the speed of light as one crosses the EH of the BH. I.e. if roughly co-moving and oppositely charged, like a negative BH and a chlorine ion*, I think there is a chance this huge force will close the tiny separation and slow the HB down.

If you disagree, OK, but at least discuss the fact that the "electron is everywhere and nowhere" and the Coulomb attraction, not the tiny gravitational cross section of the EH. If you have any ideas about what happens when part of the electron wave function is inside the EH, as it will be "zillions of times" with each mile of HB travel, that would be an interesting comment. That part was not attracted there –the BH just goes thru the “electron wave function smear.”

*In the case of Chlorine, once the BH is inside even only the seven outer shell electrons there will be the seven positive charges attracting at least one negative charge, but a reasonable chance that the BH is also with multiple atomic charges as it may “eat several electrons before eating its first nucleus. Please do not talk more about “electrons repelling each other makes this impossible” as on this sub atomic scale, the electron is “everywhere" and "nowhere," not the “tiny billiard ball" you seem to have in mind.

EDIT: In your edit you state: "Assume your black hole has a mass of 1 mg. That's much larger than anything that the LHC could ever make, but what the heck, let's be conservative. ..." As you admit, that is wildly too massive, but worse: That is NOT "conservative" (unless you are falsely focused on the gravitational attraction). Assuming it has only 0.001 the mass of an atom would be more reasonable and "conservative" as then it would essentially come to rest when it eats a few electrons or its first nucleus.

 

So what is the date they go to 7TeV?