Ridiculing my question by comparing it to a non-related scenario is not an answer. Why do you guys even bother? I was looking for something more explanatory than dismissive.
Do all physicists agree on the science behind this? Other questions come to mind like: Is it easy to detect a mini black hole? Is there a way to suspend it out of harm’s way, if we do ever come across one? Please, just treat this as a theoretical question.
meh, my main will totally pwn them.
That’s interesting, why wouldn’t it? It’d be smaller than the wavefunction of a nucleus?
Again, why would it take thousands of years? Would it take a thousand years to go from completely microscopic to merely tiny, and then a few hours for the rest to cave in?
Edit: or will the angular momentum of the earth get in the way, and things will just go into oribit around it getting sucked in only after their kinetic energy is somehow radiated away. (Ie, like in a quasar.)
In 1945 there was some thought the first atom bomb might ignite the entire atmosphere. Most scientists disagreed and they were obviously correct.
Alright. Assume that the energy density that it takes to make a black hole is far less than theory predicts, and the LHC somehow creates one, and then assume that our theories of quantum physics and gravity are wrong and the black hole doesn’t immediately evaporate like it should.
First thing to consider is that we probably won’t even know the black hole was created until some time later. The LHC detectors create a staggering amount of data, far too much to be analyzed in real-time. The creation of the black hole won’t even be detected until some time later as the banks of supercomputers built just for that purpose crunch enough data to figure out what happened. They don’t have a specific black hole detector at the LHC; it’ll take carefully looking at the data from the detectors to realize what happened.
By that time, the black hole will be long gone. Even if it didn’t evaporate, it won’t stay at the LHC. Since the LHC works by accelerating particles to nearly the speed of light, the hypothetical black hole created will probably be created with a good deal of intrinsic velocity. The walls of the collision chamber, and for that matter the earth around it, will slow the black hole about as much as a fog cloud slows a cannonball. Odds are that by the time the physicists realize what happened, the black hole will be well on its way to interstellar space. Not our problem at that point.
Now, if somehow a black hole is created, and doesn’t immediately evaporate, and isn’t created with high enough intrinsic velocity to escape the planet, it still won’t hang around the LHC. Gravity will pull it downward into an orbit around the core of the planet, where it will do nothing for a long while. The size of black hole created by the LHC would have so little size and gravity that it would have trouble even eating an atom. Ten thousand years from now it might absorb enough mass to become a problem.
In theory, you could hold onto and contain a small black hole. AFAIK it’s possible to give a black hole an electric charge, at which point you can use electric and/or magnetic fields to suspend it. But since the LHC shouldn’t be able to make a black hole, and even if it did that black hole should immediately evaporate, and even if it doesn’t it’ll leave the vicinity before anyone notices and not cause any immediate problem, you can see why having to figure out a way to contain a black hole is about as pressing as figuring out a way to contain vampire elves.
Sounds like it’s time to move into the experimental phase.
One.
Two.
Three. Hi Opal.
Four. The first two was before any wisecracks.
All physicists, don’t agree on anything theoretical. As to the other questions. All physicists, don’t agree on anything theoretical.
Most data from the LHC is not kept, they only store a small amount. I read that if they kept all the data it would fill every hard drive on Earth.
Right, and they only keep what is considered “interesting”. There’s no guarantee that whatever they might detect from a black hole creation event (which their theories are not predicting, so they don’t have any idea what this would be), would fall into the “interesting” category.
How are you defining “data” here?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
From what I read “data” is all the info that is generated whenever they run an experiment.
Trivia- the idea for the World Wide Web was invented at CERN because of their need to store large amounts of data. They knew it would be easier to store it all over the world rather than just at their site.
According to Wikipedia they are generating 10 - 15 PB of “raw” data per year, which is only the “interesting” data, which in turn is about a tenth of a percent of all the data from the detectors
Given some of the other Petabyte-scale data amounts given here, all the data being enough to fill every hard drive seems…
I don’t know.
Maybe?
Youtube and Facebook pwns CERN !!!111
No one is being dismissive. We are trying to educate you as to how far-fetched the result that you propose is. There is often confusion when laymen try to interpret something outside of their expertise. If you ask a scientist working on the LHC “is there a chance that the experiment will create a black hole that will consume the earth,” it is perfectly accurate to answer “yes, there is a non-zero chance that that will happen.” However, virtually any question will have the same question, since quantum theory says that anything that can happen will (okay, it’s not quite that cut & dried, but that’s the essence of it). The trick, of course, is hanging around for an infinite amount of time to see it happening. If, however, you ask the question, “is it likely, even a little likely, that a black hole will be formed by the LHC,” the answer is an unqualified “no.”
Aha, so you admit it! A tiny, tiny black hole might go shooting out the end of the LHC, go into an extreeeeemely eccentric orbit, where it will slowly gain mass by running into interstellar miscellany, and then eventually (say, ten thousand years) come back around and EAT US ALL! And there was something about pineapple sundaes, too, wasn’t there?
“But as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! Who is the real animal?”
-Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth
A lot of the theories described here were already science fiction stories.
I specifically remember one in the 80s where a scientist fired a black hole generating gun in his backyard. Hours later they came out the other side of the world making big holes in the ocean. Later on they went near some alien civilization who sent someone to earth to see wtf was up.
In another story, a small back hole was found orbiting something inside the earth, and it was slowly getting bigger. Some scientist discovered it and it took him time to convince other scientists it was there - they all considered it a wisecrack theory for a while.
I think a lot of the panic people are having is based on letting science fiction stories get to them.
I remember a story called “The Gun That Shot Too Straight” - a kid scientist came up with this device that fired self-sustaining energy balls, about BB sized to begin with. They plinked the target nicely, chewed through the tree the target was tacked to, and disappeared into the ground, still tiny. Hours later, kid and uncle were watching TV when news reports came in of a RAAF fighter being narrowly missed by a mysterious fireball that shot out of the ocean and off into space. Uncle speculated who the thing might end up hitting, and when, and who would be shooting back.
It was published in Dragon and I’m about 90% certain I have that issue in my attic. 
Another problem with the worries about black holes; the LHC doesn’t involve collisions any more powerful than happen in nature all the time from cosmic rays. If such collisions could make black holes, they’d be created on a regular basis - and after billions of years of that there probably wouldn’t be much normal matter left in the universe. It would mostly be black holes by now.
And before you ask, the advantage of the LHC over those natural collisions, is that it can be done in a controlled manner, at a specific time and place surrounded by instrumentation.
Gravity is really weak at the subatomic scale, compared with the other subatomic binding forces. So the only way for a MHC to increase mass is by direct collision with another particle, and (for a subatomic particle) space is really empty, even in the middle of the earth. If you want the math, look here. They argue that since white dwarfs, neutron stars and other super-dense objects exist, stable MHCs do not, as any such object would stop a MHC and be consumed because of the density. Since we see super-dense objects, stable MHCs must not exist. QED.
Because the rate of accretion would be so slow, relying initially (as it would) on subatomic collision, not gravitational accretion. Gravity is really that weak. Star consuming black holes (what everyone imagines a black hole is like) have many multiples of stellar mass - a MHC has a mass less than a proton. The above article calculates that that transition from sub-atomic to atomic effects for a MHC (with a velocity less than earths escape velocity in the earth) is of the order of a hundred billion years. And that is discounting charge effects (a MHC absorbing protons will accumulate a charge that repels other protons, making capture impossible). In a super-dense object (like a white dwarf) this transition time is much less, but we see white dwarfs, so this obviously does not occur. The very existence of observable large mass objects in the universe indicates that stable MHCs do not exist at all.
Si