babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Black hole in the laboratory?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Black hole in the laboratory?
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

A fireball created in a US particle accelerator has the characteristics of a black hole, a physicist has said.

It was generated at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, US, which smashes beams of gold nuclei together at near light speeds.

Horatiu Nastase says his calculations show that the core of the fireball has a striking similarity to a black hole.



Here. Fortunately, black holes that size will evaporate before they get the chance to accrete more matter. Or at least this one did... I always wonder about these things, whether there's any chance of something like this getting out of control. How big would it have to be before the accretion rate exceeds the evaporation rate?

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or the mass of this planet and all humanity on it.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's what I mean. Presumably a black hole that small (the mass of an atomic nucleus) would not produce enough gravity to pull more stuff in before it evaporated, since small ones evaporate much faster than large ones... but how big would they have to be to reach the danger point?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 March 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suspect that this is where half my socks have been going.


And, Skdadl, maybe what you have worried about has already happened...... Late at night, when no one's watching, I have the very determined feeling that I was at one time a female that looks exactly like Mae West.

Maybe I was? Will be?

Is that an alternate universe in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We are definitely the stupidest species yet to inhabit this planet.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, maybe. I'm still waiting for someone who knows about these things to say where the danger point would be.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 18 March 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank God they didn't set up their lab in Toronto; it already sucks big time.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 March 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you don't like the joke, fine, but to condemn the whole human species for my twisted wit goes a little too far.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 18 March 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this the kind of thing they're doing at the new Sask. facility? [forget it's name]
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy, I'm sorry: we cross-posted.

Contrarian: go to your room.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 March 2005 05:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ixnay on the oss postingay.

You said it was our secret.....


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do not wish to float in space. The very idea makes me dizzy. The opening credits of Star Wars make me dizzy. My old screen-saver used to make me dizzy. Thinking about being de-materialized makes me really dizzy. I don't like this project.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I do not wish to float in space. The very idea makes me dizzy. The opening credits of Star Wars make me dizzy. My old screen-saver used to make me dizzy. Thinking about being de-materialized makes me really dizzy. I don't like this project.

No question- it's just a matter of whether there's any chance of it happening.

Here's the situation. The black hole will evaporate in a given time (very small). If it runs into more matter before that, its lifetime will increase slightly. Whether or not this is a problem depends on what its initial lifetime is. If there's no chance that it will swallow something before it evaporates, no problem. If there's a slight chance of this happening, the next question is whether that will increase its life by enough to increase the likelyhood of it swallowing something else. If it does, we could be in for a problem. Unfortunately I don't know enough about quantum mechanics and the like to answer this; maybe DrC does. I'm inclined to guess that it's not a problem, since apparently cosmic ray collisions with the upper atmosphere involve more energy than any particle accelerator, and yet the Earth is still here. I'd like some reassurance on this, though.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 March 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is some poetry to assuage your fears, skdadl:

quote:
A vector theory of electromagnetism and gravitation has indicated a possible equivalence of gravitational energy and electric charge. If true, the resulting electromagnetic and gravitational forces within a stationary, gravitationally collapsed body of radius GM/c squared are everywhere in balance within the body, if it has a radial mass density distribution proportional to I/r squared. In addition, radial perturbation of such a body will result in a force imbalance which is restorative. Hence, the equilibrium is stable.

Clearly, there is no danger. I think. I hope!


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 05:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Briguy, does that mean that I should gain weight or lose weight?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mike, I think you might enjoy -- well, let me rephrase that -- you might want? need? to read this review of two recent books about Doomsday from a recent edition of the NY Review of Books.

I think that it is the Posner book that raises just the peril you warn us of here. Posner seems to take it seriously.

Luckily, our reviewer, Clifford Geertz, who seems a lovely thinker and writer, does not seem to take Mr Posner all that seriously.

(I believe that Mr Posner is a flaming neo-lib/con of the legalistic persuasion.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 18 March 2005 05:41 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Space-tearing Conifolds

There is lots of information on this subject throughtout thread supplied. Also reference to Steve Giddings and other issues in regards to blackholes.

Just like Numb3rs show, there is going to be a show based on Blackholes as well.

[ 18 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 18 March 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nister:
Is this the kind of thing they're doing at the new Sask. facility? [forget it's name]

Emphatic no. The Sask. facility is a synchroton: it accelerates electrons to produce intense x-rays. No need to slam electrons against a target to do this, since accelerating them is enough to produce x-rays. The x-rays are then used to investigate all kinds of things. I won't go into the details...

It's called the Canadian Light Source by the way.

http://www.lightsource.ca/

[ 18 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

I think that it is the Posner book that raises just the peril you warn us of here. Posner seems to take it seriously.

Luckily, our reviewer, Clifford Geertz, who seems a lovely thinker and writer, does not seem to take Mr Posner all that seriously.

(I believe that Mr Posner is a flaming neo-lib/con of the legalistic persuasion.)



Hmm. I looked at the review and it looks like Posner (who, incidentally, is a judge rather than a scientist by profession) is referring to the possibility of the formation of a stable "strangelet", creating a similar problem to the black hole problem. For what it's worth, physicists are less concerned:
quote:

We discuss speculative disaster scenarios inspired by hypothetical new fundamental processes that might occur in high energy relativistic heavy ion collisions. We estimate the parameters relevant to black hole production; we find that they are absurdly small. We show that other accelerator and (especially) cosmic ray environments have already provided far more auspicious opportunities for transition to a new vacuum state, so that existing observations provide stringent bounds. We discuss in most detail the possibility of producing a dangerous strangelet. We argue that four separate requirements are necessary for this to occur: existence of large stable strangelets, metastability of intermediate size strangelets, negative charge for strangelets along the stability line, and production of intermediate size strangelets in the heavy ion environment. We discuss both theoretical and experimental reasons why each of these appears unlikely; in particular, we know of no plausible suggestion for why the third or especially the fourth might be true. Given minimal physical assumptions the continued existence of the Moon, in the form we know it, despite billions of years of cosmic ray exposure, provides powerful empirical evidence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production.


What they're claiming is that if these effects could occur in the RHIC, they'd have occurred already from cosmic rays striking the Moon. The Moon is still there, ergo no problem. Of course, future particle accelerators, more powerful than the RHIC, might pose a problem... but they don't exist yet, and probably won't unless and until we're able to afford the energy to run them.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 18 March 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Large Hadron Collider will be online sometime in the next two or three years, and it will be the mots powerful accelerator ever built.

I'm not particularly worried about these things though... I'm more worried about genetic engineering getting out of hand, global warming, nuclear holocausts, those kinds of things. They seem more probable...

[ 18 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 March 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah. The last two are especially scary, though misguided genetic engineering could do significant damage too.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In one of Kurt Vonnegut's books he postulates the discovery of something called Ice-9.

It has the property of making everything it touches freeze.

Interesting book.

Jeez, Skdadl - all that dizziness...you're not blonde, are you? oops, i never said that. icon


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 March 2005 08:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: Black Hole Collapse Rates

I don't have the math for it, but I do know that Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes leak energy ("Hawking radiation") and as a result, lose mass. The smaller the black hole, the faster it'll lose mass. Thus, "quantum black holes" would last for probably a microsecond or less and then go blip.

I would not worry. The opportunity to gain mass and sustain a black hole only comes when the black hole is very large, which lengthens the inevitable leakage of Hawking radiation for some time, and allows the black hole to begin absorbing mass in its vicinity. There's a black hole, or several, at the center of our own galaxy, for example. This is shown by the spray of X-rays and radio waves that come off from the center, but even so they are no danger to us since we're just so far away.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 March 2005 08:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
In one of Kurt Vonnegut's books he postulates the discovery of something called Ice-9.

It has the property of making everything it touches freeze.


Also entirely fictional. Real Ice 9 hasn't this property.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 19 March 2005 08:14 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...John Titor.

Look up the name.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 March 2005 08:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Larf
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 19 March 2005 08:24 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
DrConway. Your laughing has made my horrible cold subside so I can laugh for a bit
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 23 March 2005 09:20 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've remembered something: if they can create black holes in a particle accelerator, that means that gravity gets stronger at small scales. This is something that has been proposed by some people working on modern string theory.

[ 23 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 March 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a rather counterintuitive result, considering that the gravitational interaction is normally too negligible to worry about on subatomic scales. You can even prove how weak it is: Just get a magnet and use it to hold up a paper clip.

All umpteen million tons of Earth is bending spacetime, creating a pathway for that paper clip to fall inexorably towards the center of that distortion, and yet a humble piddly magnet, using the electromagnetic interaction, can halt the fall of that paper clip.

And we know the magnet by itself could not gravitationally compete with the Earth.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 24 March 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I know. But according to Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" book, string theorists argue that the weakness of gravity is due to "seepage" of gravity into other dimensions, roughly speaking. It's damn weird, but they argue that at very small distances, this effect is minimised, and gravity becomes stronger. As you can imagine, this is an effect that is pretty hard to measure... If you can get a hold of that book, read page 394 onwards, he explains it there.

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 24 March 2005 01:18 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, and I read the following on Greene's book: "on October 15, 1991, the Fly's eye cosmic ray detector in the Utah desert, measured a particle streaking across the sky with energy equivalent to 30 billion proton masses. (..) about 100 milions times the size of the particle energies that will be produced by the large Hadron Colider."

It's a mystery what produces these kinds of cosmic rays.

The fact that we're bombarded by them, and that we're still around shows, I think, that we don't have much to worry about particle accelerator experiments.

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 March 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"on October 15, 1991, the Fly's eye cosmic ray detector in the Utah desert, measured a particle streaking across the sky with energy equivalent to 30 billion proton masses.

That's the same day I grew my third eye! Coincidence?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 24 March 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You sure that was an eye?

[ 24 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 24 March 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
testing
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 March 2005 06:24 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Yes, I know. But according to Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" book, string theorists argue that the weakness of gravity is due to "seepage" of gravity into other dimensions, roughly speaking. It's damn weird, but they argue that at very small distances, this effect is minimised, and gravity becomes stronger. As you can imagined, this is an effect that is pretty hard to measure... If you can get a hold of that book, read page 394 onwards, he explains it there.

Got the book, but managed to forget that part.

I did remember the explanation for the weakness of gravity being due to leakage of its mediating particles (assuming we ever find a graviton), though, and rested on that for my explanation above.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca