jump to navigation

Steve Giddings on Black Hole production July 7, 2007

Posted by dorigo in astronomy, news, physics, science.
trackback

The pascos 2007 conference ended in London today, but I have been in the mountains for the last three days already, enjoying the nice weather and pleasant hikes. However, I haven’t forgotten one last duty: I wanted to report on a talk I heard last Tuesday. So here are my notes from the talk by Steve Giddings, who discussed “Black Holes in High Energy Collisions”.

He started by saying that black hole production could be the most spectacular physics at future colliders, and perhaps they will be accessible at the LHC. But even f that is not the case, black hole production raises some very important theoretical issues that we need to address.

In general, at collision energies E>M(Planck) we can form a black hole. That energy regime appears far away from the capabilities of any conceivable accelerator, let alone the LHC. But we have a proposed scenario where gravity becomes strong at a scale of one TeV or in the thereabouts, and consequently the scale of M(Planck) could be that small too.

Models with TeV-scale gravity scenarios include two classes: one is the large extra dimensions (LED) scenario. The other, being more explored these days, is the one involving a large warping of space. LEDs allow gravity field lines to spread out into them, so that in our 4-dimensional world we experience a weak gravity. With a warped volume you can still have the same effect. If we construct a theory with large extra dimensions, we run in trouble with gauge theory unless we have a way to make the gauge world 4-dimensional. Brane worlds have this function, and many such scenarios are being investigated.

After introducing the topic from a general standpoing, Steve focused on model-independent features of black hole production – a good idea, which allowed me to follow better his discussion in the talk without having to fiddle with theoretical details. At high energy there is a “natural” small expansion parameter, which is the ratio between Planck mass and collision energy, M(Planck)/E. There are of course model dependent effects, ones in particular appearing at energy of the order of M(Planck). But one can avoid focusing on what happens for a scattering right at threshold, and indeed Giddings decided to rather discuss the behavior at the high energy limit, which is much more model-independent.

The basic phenomenological scenario is simple: in a brane the two colliding particles will create a black hole, within a trapped surface – a region of density so high no radiation can escape. We have to understand how the black hole decays by describing what happens as a sequence of phases: balding, spindown, Schwarzschild, Planck. Giddings said he would summarize these phases, indicating recent improvements in their understanding, building on original results.

Formation of a black hole comes first. Working in a 1/E expansion, it is basically a classical process: the collision of two high-energy strings of particles is described as shock waves of Aichelburg-Sexl shocks. The things getting close together form a trapped surface even before they collide.

By knowing that there is a trapped surface (something that can be demontrated), even without knowing its exact structure one can compute its size, and from that a cross section and a lower limit on the mass. Recent improvements in computing the size have focused on computing the cross section estimate at parton level, from dimensional grounds and parton distribution functions of the projectiles.

The size of the trapped surface has implications for the mass. The first decay stage is the balding stage. A black hole has no hair: it quickly balds, shedding its multipole moments by emitting gravitational and electromagnetic radiation. That increases its spin. The mass is at least 60% of the available center-of-mass energy at the end, in a dimension 10 scenario.

The next phase after balding is the spindown. The black hole is spinning, and it begins to emit Hawking radiation. Preferentially it sheds angular momentum, on the time scale of t = E^(D-1/D-3). One must thus calculate higher-D Hawking emission rates, which is a hard problem. Some extrapolations were made from 4-dimensions. There is much ongoing work on this. One of the surprises is that spindown and its signatures may be even more prominent than previously estimated. 80% of the mass loss occurs in spindown effects as opposed to 25% estimated in four dimensions. This suggests looking for experimental signatures of that effect, like characteristic dipole patterns.

The third stage occurs once the black hole has shed its angular momentum: it continues to Hawking radiate, which is now the subdominant feature of the decay (20%). One can compute the power spectrum and relative emission rates. This is the better understood Schwarzschild regime. Predictions include approximately thermal multiplicities and a suppression of low-energy gauge bosons. However, what we need is a full study of the evolution through spindown and Schwarzschild phases, to determine the energy spectrum of the produced bodies, the relative multiplicities, and the event shapes, such as angular distributions and other observables.

Then there is a fourth phase: the black hole reaches the Planck scale. Hic sunt leones: here known physics breaks down. We expect a few particles coming out, with energy of that order of magnitude, but we do not really know the details of what we should expect.

Now, what are the experimental expectations at the LHC ? The first question is what energy we need to produce black holes, of course. The threshold is still M(Planck)>=1 TeV. If that is the scale, a rule of thumb is that the mass of the black hole is greater or equal to 5 TeV. The rate for producing such things could optimistically approach 1Hz, though unknown inelasticity could suppress the cross section somewhat. One Hertz is a huge rate of course, given a signature that would be hard to miss.

Signatures of course require event generators. However they at present simulate the decay with just a Schwarzschild phase, without spindown. Assuming spindown dominance is confirmed, that suggests more work is needed for detailed quantitative predictions of the phenomenology one would observe. Nonetheless, striking qualitative signatures can still be inferred.

The signatures include a potentially large cross section (increasing of course with energy), a relatively high sphericity of the event shape, a high multiplicity of primaries, many hard transverse leptons and jets, and a thermally determined ratio of species. Also, angular distributions characterizing spindown are to be expected. Finally, as you make black holes at high rate, you suppress hard jets production rates.

Steve then discussed briefly the possibility of black hole formation in cosmic rays. The center-of-mass energy reached by the highest energy cosmic rays can be up to 100 TeV. In principle their signature could be seen by Auger, Ice cube, Amanda. So a meaningful question for these experiments is, can they rule out the production of black holes at LHC by non observing a signal ? It appears that a non-observation of black hole signatures by Auger for 5 years can push the limit to Mp=2 TeV, but there are uncertainties and theoretical issues that make this a rather vague prediction.

In conclusion, if we are very lucky we will be able to see some hints of black hole production from Auger, otherwise we will have to wait to see what the LHC brings. On the theory side, building detailed Tev-scale gravity models has been very challenging, but much progress is being made. Whether or not black hole production is accessible in the near future, its possibility raises prodfound theoretical questions that can guide the next revolution in quantum gravity.

Comments

1. island - July 7, 2007

I have a little problem with this one, because I know of at least one model that says that tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter increases as the universe expands, so you could, theoretically, get a needle/balloon effect from any little’ simulation of the BB, if this model is depicting the actual case.

Well, this is one very large black hole that you’ve gotten us into this time, “Stan”.

2. Bee - July 7, 2007

Hi Tom,

Thanks for this interesting post! Indeed, I too have found the possibility of black hole production the most exciting scenario for the LHC. Consider how much one could learn from this! Plus, the collapse of matter to a black hole seems to me one of the most general expectations that we have when gravitational attraction becomes strong, so I find (compared to other ‘exotic’ stuff) a fairly well founded scenario (that is to say, I am actually a very conservative person, depite the weird stuff that I’ve worked on).

However, one thing that I’d like to point out is that many of the numerical simulations for the LHC actually crucially rely on the assumptions that are made for the final decay – which is exactly the phase about we know essentially nothing. The reason is that LHC is a hadron collider… so, unfortunately not all of the com energy goes into the parton-parton collisions. If one looks at the differential cross-section, the distribution of black holes over mass (you find it e.g. in this talk or this paper, Fig 7, left) then you’ll see that almost all of the black holes (log plot!) are produced close by the threshold. Which means, they make essentially nothing but the final decay. Most of the signatures usually discussed are for the very rare events of 10 TeV black holes that have a sensible Hawking phase, but one has to keep in mind that these would, even in the most optimistic scenario, would not be produced with 1 Hz (and yes, how about a lepton collider…?)

Also, as to the cut-off in the jet production (which, btw was first mentioned in our 2001 paper, and in more detail in my PhD thesis, sorry for the self-ad) would definitely occur, but probably be very hard to measure since also the pQCD expectation for jets in the TeV range is very small.

For more, see also my post on

Micro Black Holes

Best,

B.

3. Guess Who - July 7, 2007

Meanwhile, Randall has been doing a bit of back-pedaling about the prospects for black holes at the LHC. Check out her slides from Strings 07:

http://gesalerico.ft.uam.es/strings07/040_scientific07_contents/transparences/randall.pdf

Video of the talk, if you have the time and inclination:

[video src="http://blas.ft.uam.es/randall.mp4" /]

The approach of experimental tests seems to have interesting effects.

4. reference checker - July 8, 2007

Bee,

Sorry to kill off your self promotion but didn’t Banks and Fischler point out the jet shutoff more than 2 years before the paper you list in your comment? After all you cite them in the paper you listed in your comment and its only fair to say then that “(which, btw was first mentioned in our 2001 paper,” was a wee bit of an overstatent as to who first mentioned it.

5. Fred - July 8, 2007

Prof. Tommaso,

Sorry to steal your time, but, I was tangentially sent scrambling to understand DIS from the Oxford site due to your few words “parton distribution functions”.
Are the wavelengths associated with electrons predetermined by acceleration before they are allowed to interact with a stationary photon? Are the wavelengths’ properties calculated to achieve particular results?

They also state: “Deep inelastic scattering may be viewed in two ways: as inelastic scattering off a proton because it has constituents inside, or as elastic scattering from one of the constituents inside (ignoring the whole proton and other constituents).”
Can these two views be considered mathematical inversions of themselves?

Gracias, Fred

6. dorigo - July 8, 2007

Hi Fred,

An electron-proton collision is described as “deep inelastic scattering” when the electron has enough energy to interact directly with the proton constituents, rather than scatter off a electric charge cloud perceived as a whole.

The quantities involved in the scattering are the “q-squared” of the interaction, and the inelasticity y. Other quantities can be equally well used to describe the kinematics of the electron side – its final energy and scattering angle, for instance. The overall picture does not change: an electron interacts with an electrically charged constituent inside the target proton via the “mediating” virtual photon. By scattering, the electron “transfers” energy to the target, diminshing its energy and modifying its traveling direction. The target quark receives energy and momentum, and the process allows for the formation of new particles or just results in the quark being “kicked off” the proton, producing a jet.

A whole other class of interactions involve the exchange of vector bosons – indeed, both electrons and quarks couple to W and Z bosons, not by virtue of their electric charge this time (as is the case of photons, the mediators of electromagnetic interactions), but by virtue of their “weak charge” as fermions. In a neutral current Z exchange, the electron behaves more or less as when a photon is exchanged, save for some spin-dependent issues connected with the characteristics of weak interactions. in a charged-current W exchange, instead, the electron becomes a neutrino! and the quark changes flavor.

As for your last question, they are more like two explanations of the same thing, rather than an inversion. From the electron’s point of view, nothing changes: it emits a photon and it changes ts quadrimomentum. From the proton’s point of view, the photon penetrates its belly and kicks its down (or up) quark. Or from the down quark inside the proton, the photon hits it in the face.

Cheers,
T.

7. dorigo - July 9, 2007

Hi Bee,

thank you for your note, and also for reminding me of your excellent post. Interesting thing that yours is the prediction of the high Et jets suppression! I spent some time thinking on that issue after the talk – indeed, if most of the very high-Et collisions are producing black holes, one gets a suppression of QCD. But then, to really determine whether you would have a measurable effect, you need to know how different the signature of BH decay is. Anyway, fascinating stuff.
Cheers,
T.

8. dorigo - July 9, 2007

Hi GW,

“the approach of experimental tests seems to have interesting effects”

I agree! The fear to be disproven beyond doubt has already made theoretical model building sort of fuzzy…

Cheers,
T.

9. Bee - July 9, 2007

Hi Tom,

Reg E_t cutoff: one would expect the cutoff around the new fundamental scale (higher dim. Planck scale in the ADD scenario), that is not below point something TeV. The typical temperature of the black holes is only some hundred GeV (~200, besides depending on M_f it also depends on d). That is, you’d redistribute the jets towards lower energies, and the event would no longer have back-to-back correlation, but look like a multi jet event since the black hole typically would decay into more particles. However, I’ve talked to several experimentalists and they all said the pQCD jet cross-section in the TeV range is already too small to be detected, so the cut-off wouldn’t be a good signature.

If you want some numbers, have a look at my thesis. It’s unfortunately in German, but the relevant figures are p. 122 Fig. 9.5 and 9.6. 9.5 shows the std. pQCD cross-section (don’t ask how long it took to correctly sum up all these contributions) with some data points (just to convince the reader it makes sense), 9.6 shows the same without the data, but with the cut-off for two different values of d and M_f = 1 TeV (the cuf-off slightly shifts because there’s a d-dependent prefactor somewhere).

Best,

B.

10. Bee - July 9, 2007

Ah, sorry, forgot to add, of course sqrt s changes from Fig 9.5 to 9.6. Second figure is for LHC energies (it says so in the caption).

11. Fred - July 9, 2007

T.,

As always, thanks for your consideration and patience.

F.

12. dorigo - July 9, 2007

Bee,

Thanks for the link to your thesis… Unfortunately I don’t read german, but I did understand those figures (I think ?).

So, I am kind of puzzled… We measure jet Et differential cross sections at the Tevatron all the way up to 600 GeV or so, with just one inverse femtobarn. Naively I expect that a factor of 7.1 more will be available at the LHC, so about 4 TeV. Whatever your friends told you, CMS and ATLAS will measure jets all the way down to those high energies, and above. Unless, of course, black holes prevent this.

Cheers,
T.

13. dorigo - July 9, 2007

Fred,

you’re welcome, as always.

Cheers,
T.

14. Paul Stankus - July 9, 2007

Greetings,

It’s great to see all the excitement about micro black holes being produced in high-energy collisions at the LHC. But I’d like to ask for help/advice on a related question, namely the implications for the early universe.

If micro black holes can be produced in TeV-scale parton collisions, then wouldn’t the thermal early universe have been thick with black holes whenever the temperature was above a TeV? In general, how would large extra dimensions influence the evolution of the early universe, and so how can cosmological observations place limits on the existence of large extra dimensions?

I’d appreciate whatever anyone can tell me.

Thanks,

Paul Stankus

15. Guess Who - July 9, 2007

Paul, excellent question. The best answer to date (that I am aware of) is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1111v1

16. Bee - July 10, 2007

Hi Tom,

Hmm, well, thanks for that information. I admit, I never really checked on this. See, we did the calculation, pointed out the effect and several people said (independently) it’s not a good signature, so I basically lost interest. That’s good news, though I am not working on that any more one way or the other.

Also, I recalled there was a paper last year or so by some Swedish guys who re-discovered the effect, let me see whether I find the reference.

Best,

B.

17. Bee - July 10, 2007

Oh, wow, I am SOOO organized, it’s almost unbelievable😉

Here is the reference

hep-ph/0505181

QCD-supression by Black Hole Production at the LHC
Authors: Leif Lonnblad, Malin Sjodahl, Torsten Akesson

Abstract: Possible consequences of the production of small black holes at the LHC for different scenarios with large extra dimensions are investigated. The effects from black hole production on some standard jet observables are examined, concentrating on the reduction of the QCD cross section. It is found that black hole production of partons interacting on a short enough distance indeed seem to generate a drastic drop in the QCD cross section. However from an experimental point of view this will in most cases be camouflaged by energetic radiation from the black holes.

(I recall there was something funny with the 1st version of the paper that I read, not sure what they did about it.)

18. Bee - July 10, 2007

Hmmm, where did my comment go? Can you check the spam filter? Here is a 2nd try:

hep-ph/0505181

QCD-supression by Black Hole Production at the LHC
Authors: Leif Lonnblad, Malin Sjodahl, Torsten Akesson

19. dorigo - July 10, 2007

I may be missing something, but the plots you show in your thesis show a radical drop of the jet cross section (more or less what I expected ,given that black hole production becomes enormously probable once you cross the threshold). Yes, CMS and Atlas have trouble with jet energy scale and resolution at so large energies, but I am confident we will still measure the cross section to at least 2-3 TeV without systematics large enough to make a strong suppression invisible… I do not know what mixture of experimentalists you talked to – but those I talked to today agree with me…

And thanks for the link to the paper. I will give it a look.
Cheers,
T.

20. McGuigan - July 10, 2007

Paul and Guess Who,

The paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1111v1
is very interesting but doesn’t discuss large extra dimension scenarios.
The basic danger is that if it is too easy to produce black holes, the early Universe becomes dense with them
through the Jeans instability.
Usually their production is suppressed
by exp(-mPlanck^2/Temp^2). This factor may be modified in large extra dimension models.

Some primordial black hole models can be made consistent cosmological data. For example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703070
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703250
These don’t discuss TeV scale gravity
although the second one talks about a brane world scenario.

21. Paul Stankus - July 11, 2007

McGuigan —

Thanks very much for the references. As you say, these papers discuss the existence of black holes in a thermal stage of the early universe, possibly created at the end of inflation; but they don’t address micro black holes being created as a result of large extra dimensions (ie as a result of the Planck scale being as low as a TeV). So I’m still looking for an answer to the specific question of large extra dimensions affecting cosmology.

Also, I’m tickled to see these very recent papers drawing a connection between early-time black holes and baryogenesis. In a demonstration that not only do great minds think alike but sometimes mediocre and great think alike as well, I speculated on exactly this point in when posting the same question recently on Cosmic Variance: “… wouldn’t the early universe have been thick with black holes whenever the temperature were above a TeV scale? Does this have any interesting implications for, say, baryogenesis in the thermal phase?” (I didn’t get very much love over at CV, so I appreciate doing a little better here so far.)

Regards,

Paul Stankus

22. dorigo - July 11, 2007

Dear sirs,

thanks for your comments here. I think I need to read some of those references…

Cheers,
T.

23. Bee - July 12, 2007

@Paul: Extra dimensions are a model that has its limitations. One of these is that they need to be stabilized. It is usually just assumed this is the case. There are proposals how to achieve that but the point is that nobody knows anything reliable about the time evolution in these scenarios. If you ask about early universe, you’d expect the extra dimensions to initially have been dynamical as well, to started up like the other dimension, have had an expansion that stopped at some stage, but nobody really knows anything reliable. Every kind of prediction you can make strongly depends on how you envision this process.

There are some general considerations about this, e.g.

Early Inflation and Cosmology in Theories with Sub-Millimeter Dimensions

and

Phenomenology, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Theories with Sub-Millimeter Dimensions and TeV Scale Quantum Gravity

Best,

B.

24. Paul Stankus - July 13, 2007

B. —

Thanks very much! for the straight dope and informative links (after I posted the question here I found these two links in a comment of yours on the micro-black hole page thread on Backreaction).

I’m relieved to hear that the question of how the extra dimensions might evolve cosmologically is unclear, since I had no idea how to guess at it myself. I believe you when you say that any predictions depend strongly on this mechanism, whatever it is. But can I ask the simplest possible question? What effect would extra large, compact dimensions have on early-time cosmology if their size were somehow just fixed? or is this somehow a disallowed possibility?

If the Planck scale were really as low as a few TeV all through the history of the universe, then I’ve got to imagine that it would have severe consequences! For example, you couldn’t have a thermal system of standard model particles with a temperature any higher than that scale, since you’d be creating micro black holes on nearly every collision! between particles and so the temperature becomes set by their evaporation. Try to push the temperature any higher and the micro holes only get bigger and cooler and last longer, which brings the effective temperature down even further!

I’m about to deliver a lecture on Monday in which I will describe how QCD saved the early universe from the “veil” of the old Hagedorn limiting temperature at 170 MeV or so. Now do I have to confront the limiting temperature idea all over again? And at a scale that’s not even that much higher! These would be ironic times, indeed.

Thanks again; best,

Paul

25. Fred - July 13, 2007

Paul,

Sounds like you’re in store for a relaxing weekend but is this lecture something you proposed, was it assigned to you, what is the occasion, and will you revise your presentation based on your recent searches?

Buena suerte,
Fred

26. Paul Stankus - July 13, 2007

Fred —

My talk on Monday will be to show some eager young summer students why our work creating the QGP at RHIC is interesting and so convince them to sign up. The overthrow of the limiting temperature by QCD is an old but neat part of the story. For those who are interested, some very similar material can be found in a talk I gave at an Ohio APS sectional meeting last year, available here:

http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/publish/stankus/Ohio_APS_06/

I don’t think I’ll mention micro black holes, except maybe in passing🙂. Remember, on the Internet no one knows you’re an experimentalist.

Cheers,

Paul

27. dorigo - July 13, 2007

Paul,

best of luck with your talk. Try to convey the excitement of what you do, and you’re half-way to hiring them all. Tell them what makes you proud of participating in the experiment, tell then what you boast about when you talk to your friends.

Cheers,
T.

28. Lisa Randall: Black holes out of reach of LHC « A Quantum Diaries Survivor - August 29, 2007

[…] the end, I myself asked a question. I knew from previous blogging on the issue that when one reaches a quantum gravity regime, the QCD cross section of dijet production has to go […]

29. Walter L. Wagner - September 3, 2007

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at CERN might create numerous different particles that heretofore have only been theorized. Numerous peer-reviewed science articles have been published on each of these, and if you google on the term “LHC” and then the particular particle, you will find hundreds of such articles, including:

1) Higgs boson

2) Magnetic Monopole

3) Strangelet

4) Miniature Black Hole [aka nano black hole or micro black hole]

In 1987 I first theorized that colliders might create miniature black holes, and expressed those concerns to a few individuals. However, Hawking’s formula showed that such a miniature black hole, with a mass of under 10,000,000 a.m.u., would “evaporate” in about 1 E-23 seconds, and thus would not move from its point of creation to the walls of the vacuum chamber [taking about 1 E-11 seconds travelling at 0.9999c] in time to cannibalize matter and grow larger.

In 1999, I was uncertain whether Hawking radiation would work as he proposed. If not, and if a mini black hole were created, it could potentially be disastrous. I wrote a Letter to the Editor to Scientific American [July, 1999] about that issue, and they had Frank Wilczek, who later received a Nobel Prize for his work on quarks, write a response. In the response, Frank wrote that it was not a credible scenario to believe that minature black holes could be created.

Well, since then, numerous theorists have asserted to the contrary. Google on “LHC Black Hole” for a plethora of articles on how the LHC might create miniature black holes, which those theorists believe will be harmless because of their faith in Hawking’s theory of evaporation via quantum tunneling.

The idea that rare ultra-high-energy cosmic rays striking the moon [or other astronomical body] create natural miniature black holes — and therefore it is safe to do so in the laboratory — ignores one very fundamental difference.

In nature, if they are created, they are travelling at about 0.9999c relative to the planet that was struck, and would for example zip through the moon in about 0.1 seconds, very neutrino-like because of their ultra-tiny Schwartzschild radius, and high speed. They would likely not interact at all, or if they did, glom on to perhaps a quark or two, barely decreasing their transit momentum.

At the LHC, however, any such novel particle created would be relatively ‘at rest’, and be captured by Earth’s gravitational field, and would repeatedly orbit through Earth, if stable and not prone to decay. If such miniature black holes don’t rapidly evaporate and are produced in copious abundance [1/second by some theories], there is a much greater probability that they will interact and grow larger, compared to what occurs in nature.

There are a host of other problems with the “cosmic ray argument” posited by those who believe it is safe to create miniature black holes. This continuous oversight of obvious flaws in reasoning certaily should give one pause to consider what other oversights might be present in the theories they seek to test.

I am not without some experience in science.

In 1975 I discovered the tracks of a novel particle on a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector. “Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole”, Price et al., Physical Review Letters, August 25, 1975, Volume 35, Number 8. A magnetic monopole was first theorized in 1931 by Paul A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A 133, 60 (1931), and again in Physics Review 74, 817 (1948). While some pundits claimed that the tracks represented a doubly-fragmenting normal nucleus, the data was so far removed from that possibility that it would have been only a one-in-one-billion chance, compared to a novel particle of unknown type. The data fit perfectly with a Dirac monopole.

While I would very much love to see whether we can create a magnetic monopole in a collider, ethically I cannot support such because of the risks involved.

For more information, go to: http://www.LHCdefense.org

Regards,

Walter L. Wagner

30. Walter L. Wagner - September 3, 2007

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC]at CERN might create numerous different particles that heretofore have only been theorized. Numerous peer-reviewed science articles have been published on each of these, and if you google on the term “LHC” and then the particular particle, you will find hundreds of such articles, including:

1) Higgs boson

2) Magnetic Monopole

3) Strangelet

4) Miniature Black Hole [aka nano black hole]

In 1987 I first theorized that colliders might create miniature black holes, and expressed those concerns to a few individuals. However, Hawking’s formula showed that such a miniature black hole, with a mass of under 10,000,000 a.m.u., would “evaporate” in about 1 E-23 seconds, and thus would not move from its point of creation to the walls of the vacuum chamber [taking about 1 E-11 seconds travelling at 0.9999c] in time to cannibalize matter and grow larger.

In 1999, I was uncertain whether Hawking radiation would work as he proposed. If not, and if a mini black hole were created, it could potentially be disastrous. I wrote a Letter to the Editor to Scientific American [July, 1999] about that issue, and they had Frank Wilczek, who later received a Nobel Prize for his work on quarks, write a response. In the response, Frank wrote that it was not a credible scenario to believe that minature black holes could be created.

Well, since then, numerous theorists have asserted to the contrary. Google on “LHC Black Hole” for a plethora of articles on how the LHC might create miniature black holes, which those theorists believe will be harmless because of their faith in Hawking’s theory of evaporation via quantum tunneling.

The idea that rare ultra-high-energy cosmic rays striking the moon [or other astronomical body] create natural miniature black holes — and therefore it is safe to do so in the laboratory — ignores one very fundamental difference.

In nature, if they are created, they are travelling at about 0.9999c relative to the planet that was struck, and would for example zip through the moon in about 0.1 seconds, very neutrino-like because of their ultra-tiny Schwartzschild radius, and high speed. They would likely not interact at all, or if they did, glom on to perhaps a quark or two, barely decreasing their transit momentum.

At the LHC, however, any such novel particle created would be relatively ‘at rest’, and be captured by Earth’s gravitational field, and would repeatedly orbit through Earth, if stable and not prone to decay. If such miniature black holes don’t rapidly evaporate and are produced in copious abundance [1/second by some theories], there is a much greater probability that they will interact and grow larger, compared to what occurs in nature.

There are a host of other problems with the “cosmic ray argument” posited by those who believe it is safe to create miniature black holes. This continuous oversight of obvious flaws in reasoning certaily should give one pause to consider what other oversights might be present in the theories they seek to test.

I am not without some experience in science.

In 1975 I discovered the tracks of a novel particle on a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector. “Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole”, Price et al., Physical Review Letters, August 25, 1975, Volume 35, Number 8. A magnetic monopole was first theorized in 1931 by Paul A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A 133, 60 (1931), and again in Physics Review 74, 817 (1948). While some pundits claimed that the tracks represented a doubly-fragmenting normal nucleus, the data was so far removed from that possibility that it would have been only a one-in-one-billion chance, compared to a novel particle of unknown type. The data fit perfectly with a Dirac monopole.

While I would very much love to see whether we can create a magnetic monopole in a collider, ethically I cannot support such because of the risks involved.

For more information, go to: http://www.LHCdefense.org

Regards,

Walter L. Wagner

31. Walter L. Wagner - September 3, 2007

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC]at CERN might create numerous different particles that heretofore have only been theorized. Numerous peer-reviewed science articles have been published on each of these, and if you google on the term “LHC” and then the particular particle, you will find hundreds of such articles, including:

1) Higgs boson

2) Magnetic Monopole

3) Strangelet

4) Miniature Black Hole [aka nano black hole]

In 1987 I first theorized that colliders might create miniature black holes, and expressed those concerns to a few individuals. However, Hawking’s formula showed that such a miniature black hole, with a mass of under 10,000,000 a.m.u., would “evaporate” in about 1 E-23 seconds, and thus would not move from its point of creation to the walls of the vacuum chamber [taking about 1 E-11 seconds travelling at 0.9999c] in time to cannibalize matter and grow larger.

In 1999, I was uncertain whether Hawking radiation would work as he proposed. If not, and if a mini black hole were created, it could potentially be disastrous. I wrote a Letter to the Editor to Scientific American [July, 1999] about that issue, and they had Frank Wilczek, who later received a Nobel Prize for his work on quarks, write a response. In the response, Frank wrote that it was not a credible scenario to believe that minature black holes could be created.

Well, since then, numerous theorists have asserted to the contrary. Google on “LHC Black Hole” for a plethora of articles on how the LHC might create miniature black holes, which those theorists believe will be harmless because of their faith in Hawking’s theory of evaporation via quantum tunneling.

The idea that rare ultra-high-energy cosmic rays striking the moon [or other astronomical body] create natural miniature black holes — and therefore it is safe to do so in the laboratory — ignores one very fundamental difference.

In nature, if they are created, they are travelling at about 0.9999c relative to the planet that was struck, and would for example zip through the moon in about 0.1 seconds, very neutrino-like because of their ultra-tiny Schwartzschild radius, and high speed. They would likely not interact at all, or if they did, glom on to perhaps a quark or two, barely decreasing their transit momentum.

At the LHC, however, any such novel particle created would be relatively ‘at rest’, and be captured by Earth’s gravitational field, and would repeatedly orbit through Earth, if stable and not prone to decay. If such miniature black holes don’t rapidly evaporate and are produced in copious abundance [1/second by some theories], there is a much greater probability that they will interact and grow larger, compared to what occurs in nature.

There are a host of other problems with the “cosmic ray argument” posited by those who believe it is safe to create miniature black holes. This continuous oversight of obvious flaws in reasoning certaily should give one pause to consider what other oversights might be present in the theories they seek to test.

I am not without some experience in science.

In 1975 I discovered the tracks of a novel particle on a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector. “Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole”, Price et al., Physical Review Letters, August 25, 1975, Volume 35, Number 8. A magnetic monopole was first theorized in 1931 by Paul A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A 133, 60 (1931), and again in Physics Review 74, 817 (1948). While some pundits claimed that the tracks represented a doubly-fragmenting normal nucleus, the data was so far removed from that possibility that it would have been only a one-in-one-billion chance, compared to a novel particle of unknown type. The data fit perfectly with a Dirac monopole.

While I would very much love to see whether we can create a magnetic monopole in a collider, ethically I cannot support such because of the risks involved.

For more information, go to: http://www.LHCdefense.org

Regards,

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

32. Dark Matter » The most exciting physics at LHC could be the production of Backholes - March 3, 2008

[…] the right circumstances, LHC can produce one blackhole per second, yes thats a very large number […]

33. yet anotherblog » Blog Archive » Δανέζης και LHC - October 1, 2008

[…] ελάχιστοι μπορούν να τα καταλάβουν. Θα συνιστούσα αυτό το όχι και τόσο δύσκολο άρθρο στο μπλογκ Quantum Diaries S…, σε όσους από τους υπόλοιπους θα ήθελαν να πάρουν μια […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: