YES, these high energy particle events happen in nature, on Earth, already. However, when a high energy cosmic ray smashes into the atmosphere, there isn't a multi-ton multi-million dollar chunk of hardware to study the event in detail. That's why scientists potentially could see things at LHC they haven't seen before: Not because the events are novel, but because they would happen where scientists could study them.

Because, as several people have mentioned, some of those particles that hit the atmosphere all the time strike with as high and even higher energies as what the LHC can do. If it was dangerous, we would already know.

dirty_g, I've asked you questions about this repeatedly, and you haven't answered once. Are you actually reading what folks are posting here? It certainly seems this issue has been covered in detail by several people.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Why is this any different to the ATM carousels that get closed down?

Why is it in rthe Conspiracy theory section at all?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

IIRC, the thought was that CERN was hiding the potential dangers from the public; this constituted a conspiracy.

However, you're right, for the thread to remain here, there should be some discussion of this conspiracy.

dirty_g, it's your thread. Is there a conspiracy, or does this discussion belong somewhere else, or would you like to close it?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Could go in ATM. You have indeed asked me questions Van Rijin. I thought I had answered them myself. If you are not satisfied please let me know which questions you asked and I shall most definatly try to re answer my concerns over those questions. It is very much like a merry go round on this thread with you saying the same things and I am answering with things which I think are different. I am VERY aware of particles hitting the Earths atmosphere. Still I thought concerns I addressed have not only been about this. I beleive that the thread should remain open but only for when new information comes to light or genuine new questions and people shoulnt just start posting either A. The same questions over again or B. (My favourites of this whole community) The polite insult when they cant agree. It was seen as dangerous by certain groups e.g one of the first posts I posted http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm which I thought could go into conspiracy theory but if you think it would go better into an ATM or even Q & A thread go ahead. ATM's seem easier to be locked and shut down which is why I think some people want it there. LHC though is an ongoing experiment so I beleive it should be kept open. I will only post if I find new evidence which I beleive has not been covered so as to stop this merry go round of an argument. This should hopefully then stop getting people "Backs Up"

on the note of something new. I post this. It expands on the original post by quite a bit and does not just include MBH's as a cause for concern it also goes into a LOT of detail with fromula etc... Cheers http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon2.htm

Already the very first sentence of that article is wrong.

The fact that heavy particles created by accelerators like RHIC or LHC
Those accelerators do not create particles, they only accelerate them.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

would you do me the honour of reading it though?

I will read it tomorrow.
And I have to admit, that sentence is not wrong, I misunderstood...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Let's try this in General Science for now. I just don't see any conspiracy claims, and I hesitate to place it in ATM; it doesn't seem really Against the Mainstream as much as questioning it.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

My first question on reading the article (I'm less than 1/10 of the way through so far) is how fast "low speed heavy particles" are actually going? Considering that the particles in the accelerator and cosmic rays are moving at virtually c a particle with a velocity of merely a few hundred kilometers a second would definitely count as a "low speed heavy particle" while still going more than fast enough to not pose a significant threat to the planet before it turns into Somebody Else's Problem by heading for interstellar space.

My question to those who know would be the following:
How fast would a microBH created from a cosmic ray and an "almost standig" earth particle be, as it turned all its energy to mass to create the microBH.
As far as I see it, the particles use their mass and turn their motion energy into mass to be capable of creating the BH. So would the upper atmosphere BH move at all, or do I miss something at this moment.
If the incoming particle from outer space would conserve its motion energy and give it to the resulting particle, I would guess the resulting mass would just be the mass of the incoming article + the mass of the impacted particle.
Would this suffice to create a BH?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I would follow your reasoning in this case. A perfect head on crash is almost impossible. So there should always be some motion energy left. And it should be a lot more than the equivalent that is needed to speed the particle up to some cm per hour.
I will look for a possibility to ask somebody at CERN who can answer this question.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I would actually think that after a rather long paper like the one I printed that somebody at CERN would be bothered to print a detailed answer. Would be nice of them. Take your time reading it though it is a touch long isnt it?!!!

dirty_g, I gave up reading the anon2 file as it is unreadable.
Thats not a scientific paper thats a mess.

All I can find are claims that are repeated over and over again.
Never are they backed up with anything.
Just one example:
Somewhere in the text, the author cites other papers (like the CERN risk report that simply says that the production of a BH is possible but thet they see no risk at all), and then messes around with how many dimensions there might be and comes from out of nowhere to the conclusion that the probability of the creation of a BH in LHC is about 80%.
No numbers, nothing to back that up, just that he estimated it to be 40% or 60% or 80%. Then he choose 80% without giving any reason why he did so.
That part is about 10 lines long and it is repeaded a couple of times throughout the text in slightly modified form.


Then, there are these little gems:
Accelerator experiences of shooting high energy particles with opposite speed, gives more energy, but it could mean danger because this kind of collisions is different from natural particles collisions due to cosmic rays.
In which way, I have to ask. Assuming a 10^20GeV particle smashing into a standing particle. The energy involved is still much higher that in an opposite speed collision in LHC or RHIC.

Accelerator experiences of shooting high energy particles on a “speed zero target” is similar to cosmic rays shock on the moon surface and this indicate that there is no danger. In these cases the center of mass of interaction keeps a high speed. This is different from accelerators LHC or RHIC using “opposite speed collision ”. In this case we obtain “heavy particles with very low speed”
And again nothing to back this up. I already asked if someone could tell me how fast those low speed particles would be.

At this very moment particle potentially dangerous ( strange quarks) are produced with opposite speed particles in the accelerator RHIC (USA). If this production of strange quarks has not still given a catastrophic event, what will happen if this production continue during mouth and years ?
So, he admits that we are already doing it. Nothing happend! The RHIC is running and nothing happend! The RHIC is running since the Jear 2000, producing lack Holes, stangele quarks and other freaking stuff. Yet, we are still here. The author askes:"If this production of strange quarks has not still given a catastrophic event, what will happen if this production continue during mouth and years ?"
It already continued over month and years. So what should happen if we continue for some more month and years?

In my opinion the whole file is a piece of junk.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Sorry to be quoting from the initial post, but I couldn't find anything else good to respond to.

I would make a small point here, that doesn't really have to do with the actual facts about the danger. But to a fellow worrier: just think about this way. Suppose that some scientific project goes wrong and does something that creates a giant singularity of some sort that destroys the entire universe. There are two positive things about it. First, being sucked into a black hole is probably the most humane way that one could think of dying. It's being obliterated in a moment. So I'm sure there would be virtually no pain. Secondly, as a positive feature, there would be nobody left behind to grieve. We would all be obliterated together, never knowing what hit us. No regrets. It may sound a bit morbid, but actually it wouldn't be all that bad.

__________________
As above, so below

[QUOTE=Laguna2; SNIPPET

In my opinion the whole file is a piece of junk.

I'll second that, and I have a little particle physics background to reference it from. We won't be disappearing down a mini or a massive black hole from the LHC anytime soon. Pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

To be more precise, I consider it to be a piece of FUD junk.
Because that is what it contains.

Just some might be, could be, and I think that.
Oh, and not to forget a lot of quotes from scientific papers used out of context.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

The big problem is that big science costs big bucks--and have to compete with tax cuts and social programs--whose backers are louder and more shrill.

Isn't it density which causes a black hole to do what it does? If so, then I guess it wouldn't matter how small the black hole is, I guess there'd be every chance that it could suck paint of the walls and more.

Just asking, I'm still learning the basics of this stuff and I'm probably missing the bigger picture.

No, what makes a black hole such a big deal is its gravity. Now, the higher the mass, the more gravity there is. A two particle black hole has a very low mass. Also, it would evaporate extremely quickly due to Hawking radiation. Heck, I'm not even sure you can have such a low mass black hole at all.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

What about a star before it implodes into a black hole? Wouldn't the mass be the same while it's a star? If so, how come it doesn't have as strong a gravitational pull as when it's a black hole?

This is why I've always thought the gravitational pull to be down to the density of an object.

A mass has the same gravity no matter if it's a star, black hole or diffuse nebula, but that gravity field gets concentrated into a smaller area as you increase the density.

A tiny few-particle black hole would probably not long enough to even observe, let alone do any damage.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

So I guess the more concentrated gravity gets the more stronger the pull?

Hmm, depends on how you define "pull". For example, if you could turn the Sun into a black hole, it wouldn't change the orbits of any planets. But close up, having the mass more concentrated allows more of the Sun's gravity to affect you at once, as gravity is diminished by distance.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Yeah that's what I meant, more pull as long as the distance between you and the sun which has turned into a black hole is the same. (So obviously, when the sun has turned into a black hole, to be the same distance from the surface, you'd have to move in closer since the black hole would be smaller than the sun)

It's not the distance to the surface of the mass that matters, it's the distance to the center. Or at least it is so for spherical objects.

So nothing changes from a gravitational point of view if the Sun goes black-hole on us (pretending that this is possible for the sake of argument.)

We're all still the same distance from the centre, and the mass is still the same, so the gravitational effect is exactly the same.

So what's the fuss about black holes then, if everything stays the same?

Well, it stays the same for stuff far away, but something interesting happens as you get close.

Let's say the Sun is still in its current configuration. You're flying closer and closer to it. The gravitational pull gets higher and higher, until you touch the surface. And now you start going into the Sun. (Fortunately for you, your spaceship is made of unobtanium.

Now the gravity gets less as you get closer. Why? Because now that part of the Sun that is above you is pulling you up, partially cancelling out the downward pull of the bit beneath you. Eventually, at the center of the Sun, it will exert no nett gravitational pull at all. You'll be "floating". (Well, you would be, except for the giga-tons per square millimeter of pressure there, but you get the point.)

Now let's try that same excercise around a black-hole Sun. (Starts humming Soundgarden song.)

Everything is exactly the same with gravity,, up until you reach the point where the old surface of the sun was. Now the black hole is still far "beneath" you - The Sun shrank to form the black hole, so it's surface has moved "down" quite a bit. Now gravity doesn't get less as you get closer to the center anymore, it keeps on rising as you get closer and closer to the black hole.

Eventually, even your Unobtainium ship is simultaneously stretched and crushed, and you die. You fool! You should have done this experiment at night!

Seriously: The whole point with a black hole is that you can get closer to the center of the gravitational effect than you could before, so the pull gets higher than it would have before, even though both the mass and the long-range pull are still the same.

Ah right, I get it.

It's instructive to read Larry Niven's famous story Neutron Star. As he points out, it's not so much the gravity that's the problem for travelers near supermassive objects. Free-fall is free-fall, right?

Wrong. It's the tides.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Anything can potentially be a danger.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

While that's true, there is danger like a piece of the apparatus falling of and beaning some unsuspecting worker and DANGER!!! like the woo woos are claiming for the LHC - "it might create a micro black hole that would swallow the Earth".

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson