Black holes want my azaleas
Most things I read in the Times doesn’t scare me. And my beliefs give me a certain confidence that, no matter what gets printed in the Times, my quarterback is really quite superior to the other team’s quarterback. Nevertheless, this article kind of freaked me out. The long and short is, two scientists are trying to stop a bunch of other scientists from smashing protons together in their collider. Because the proton smashing could create a tiny black hole. That would grow. And eat the earth. And what makes it all so scary is that a judge is going to decide whether or not the experiment can go forward.
The new worries are about black holes, which, according to some variants of string theory, could appear at the collider. That possibility, though a long shot, has been widely ballyhooed in many papers and popular articles in the last few years, but would they be dangerous?
According to a paper by the cosmologist Stephen Hawking in 1974, they would rapidly evaporate in a poof of radiation and elementary particles, and thus pose no threat. No one, though, has seen a black hole evaporate.
In other words, yes, they could be dangerous. I don’t like hearing this, mainly because I’m building a picket fence around my house, and I just planted a lot of expensive azaleas and two maple trees. I don’t want my plants, or my family, to get sucked into a black hole. But perhaps we’ll all get sucked into the hole, and then we’ll all come out the other side, all of us and all our shrubs, and none of us will even notice what happened. That would be ideal, I think.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top19 Comments to “Black holes want my azaleas”
Black holes the size of which they are speaking won’t really “suck” you in. Black holes are only as strong as their gravity, so even if it had “swallowed” the entire collider, you’d be able to simply walk away from it, because it would only have the gravitational pull of the facility itself. Granted, it would be smaller than the point of a pin with the mass of the facility, but it’s not enough mass to forcibly tug you into it.
Report comment to moderator
Derek,
I’m trying hard to be consoled by your erudition, I really am. I need your strength.
Harrison
Report comment to moderator
According to Bad Astronomy (A site intended to debunk bad astronomy), there is nothing to worry about.
According to the theory that would let a black hole form, the black hole would evaporate instantly due to Hawking Radiation.
Also, higher speed collisions of particles happen all the time on the moon and the moon hasn’t been destroyed or anything, so there doesn’t seem to be any real danger.
Report comment to moderator
I would at least be standing by with a pail of cold water to throw on it. It is amazing what catastrophies cold water can avert in the nick of galaxy swallowing time.
I am reminded of the physisists that believed the earth, or worse, would be consummed by the explosion of the first atomic bomb.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison,
Remember the all hype and dire predictions by the experts about the speed of sound?
Report comment to moderator
Now if they could just create an azalea-swallowing wormhole…
Report comment to moderator
From Scientific American, May 2005:
“The prospect of producing black holes on Earth may strike some as folly. How do we know that they would safely decay, as Hawking predicted, instead of continuing to grow, eventually consuming the entire planet? At first glance, this seems like a serious concern, especially given that some details of Hawking’s original argument may be incorrect–specifically the claim that information is destroyed in black holes. But it turns out that general quantum reasoning implies that microscopic black holes cannot be stable and therefore are safe. Concentrations of mass energy, such as elementary particles, are stable only if a conservation law forbids their decay; examples include the conservation of electric charge and of baryon number (which, unless it is somehow violated, assures the stability of protons). There is no such conservation law to stabilize a small black hole. In quantum theory, anything not expressly forbidden is compulsory, so small black holes will rapidly decay, in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.”
I think it’s kinda cool, actually.
Report comment to moderator
I missed Rants & Raves last week, but let me tell you, the thought of being immediately converted to energy in null time isn’t sounding all that terrible to me right now.
Report comment to moderator
One day you will be able to, quite safely I might add, create your own parallel universe in your basement. It will be the ‘chemistry set’ for future kids. Yeah, some houses might burn down, without the pail of water mentioned above, but it will be worth it
Report comment to moderator
According to Wikipedia: “The risk of a doomsday scenario was indicated by Sir Martin Rees, with respect to the RHIC, as being a one in fifty million chance, and by Professor Frank Close, with regards to (dangerous) strangelets, that ‘the chance of this happening is like you winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession; the problem is that people believe it is possible to win the lottery 3 weeks in succession’. Accurate assessments of these risks are impossible due to the currently incomplete, or even hypothetically flawed, standard model of particle physics”
I dunno, one in fifty million is a pretty high number when you’re talking about Armageddon!
Report comment to moderator
If we can’t get a realistic answer from Hawkings as to where all the anti-matter went in the alleged big bang, how can we trust his black hole predictions?
Report comment to moderator
Thinking further, I normally despise moral arithmetic, but let’s consider this mathematically. There are 6 billion people on earth. Assume this thing really does have a 1 in 50 million chance of killing all of them together. Let’s say this is morally equivalent to a device that would not necessarily kill everybody TOGETHER, but would instead put each INDIVIDUAL at a 1/50 million risk of being killed. Since 6 billion divided by 50 million equals 120, it’s a pretty good bet that you would actually kill about 120 people. It could be more or less, but you would certainly kill at least a few score. They would be scattered all over the world and you would never know who they were. Would that be morally right? Should the court allow that?
Report comment to moderator
It would be great if I could get a black hole just big enough to dump my trash and yard clippings. Maybe my black hole could expand large enough that I could rent it out to the land fill. That would be great to augment my carbon credits business, which isn’t doing so well.
But I give them equal credance.
Report comment to moderator
AWSTAR,
All the anti matter can be found in parallel anti universes which no doubt contain anti you and me’s being anti social.
Chas,
Not so fast. If you can create a small harmless black hole that disappears, certainly they will market some where the size can be controlled and it will hold your daily grass clippings and garbage. A disposable black hole would be cool. You might have to wait on one the size of a landfill and chances are you won’t be able to afford it.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, I can afford it if I can dispose of nuclear and chemical waste.
My son is a chemical engineer. Several years ago he was working for a company that had to dig up yards of earth from a chemical spill. What to do with it was the problem
Pure fantisy, but can you imagine the possibilities if there was really a place to deposit toxic junk.
Report comment to moderator
I think John M is on to something with his notion that hundreds might disappear across the earth without a trace if this thing doesn’t work as predicted. This may be the mechanism God will use to rapture the faithful.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Ever hear of someone accidentally falling into a wood chipper (and not living to tell about it)? I don’t think I’d want my own black hole; I’m too clumsy. I might trip and fall, or a squirrel might run into it and tempt my dog to chase it. A storm might blow it too close to my house. The possibilities aren’t pretty. I’ll stick with regular trash pickup, but I hope this method works for you.
Report comment to moderator
CERN’s web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.
However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einstein’s highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles can be captured by Earth’s gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay. The LHC Safety Assessment Group has been trying for months to prove safety without success, but it may not be possible.
Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of ‘minimal risk’.
(Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).
JTankers LHCConcerns.com
Report comment to moderator
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth’s gravity (www.golem.de/0802/57477-4.html, translation at http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!