sci.physics.particle

On Mar 31, 8:29=A0pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:57=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 3:54=A0pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 3:58=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 8:33=A0am, festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On 31 Mar, 06:12, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 30, 8:44=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:39=A0am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:42=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:=

>
> > > > > > > > > Following the current discussion about starting the LHC
>
> > > > > > > > > a few questions should (IMHO) be examined:
>
> > > > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > > is there a minimal critical mass of a black hole
> > > > > > > > > in order that it will survive continuously ??
>
> > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > considering the H bomb explotion =A0 and knowledge-
> > > > > > > > > and experience --
> > > > > > > > > are 'black holes of some magnitude
> > > > > > > > > created there ??
>
> > > > > > > > Questions like this automatically exclude you from the non-d=
ebate.
>
> > > > > > > > > TIA
> > > > > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > > > > --------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > please by pass the
> > > > > > > -little psychopath
>
> > > > > > > Y.P
> > > > > > > ------------------
>
> > > > > > Says the guy who seriously asked if H bombs make black holes.- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Well!!!, considering black holes are found only in the heart of a
> > > > > galaxy. Well will need at least 500 million fusion stars like our =
sun.
> > > > > But we cannot even produce on working stable fusion reactor yet.
> > > > > Ahahahaha!
>
> > > > > Soooooo! anyhooo! We do have a long way to go before we can genera=
te
> > > > > the amount of energy a black hole requires.
>
> > > > > We should really be worried about our carbon foot print and the po=
lar
> > > > > ice melting.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > ----------------
> > > > you are right about global worming
> > > > now abouth the LHC
>
> > > > there must beno doubt abot it
> > > > so it is worth to think before opperating it
> > > > while we say black hole from LHC
> > > > we do not mean =A0 of couirse a big one
> > > > my question is
> > > > is there a chance for even a microscopic back hle to be created ??
>
> > > Not much. But even in the event that it is, microscopic black holes
> > > evaporate. Very quickly.
>
> > very quickly
> > but we need something more** quantitative!!**
>
> > we are realing here with an uknown risk
>
> What is the risk of collisions that are at least 7 orders of magnitude
> weaker than routinely observed cosmic ray events?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > it is imporant both theoretically and practically
> > > > if it will be a tiny balck hole =A0(BH) that will disapear
> > > > imediately =A0than it is not relvant practically
> > > > but may be theoretically
>
> > > > and let me tell you my oppinion and understanding :
> > > > BH is actually a =A0 bundle of protons that lost their electrons
>
> > > No, that's not right.
> > > Try reading Kip Thorne's book, "Black Holes and Time Warps".
>
> > anyway
> > it is a very dense situation of particles
> > while the collider can do it
> > the question is how much and how far
> > so =A0 =A0again
> > we are confronted with an **unprecedented situation**
> > (may be it i s =A0 very exagerated to think that all our globe
> > will be swallowd
> > but there might be a 'minor cathastrophy'
> > exclpsion or else )
> > and cannt afford dealing with =A0it casually carelessly
> > and unresponsively
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

------------
since you asked sivilisly and a legitimate question
i will try to answer

the main point as i ssee is that the problem
*is not an abstract problem or oversimplified*

a black hole must have some specific geometric inner structre
it is not just a shaples random mess
so it is not only a prioblem of energies
it is a much more detailed problem
now
it i snot taken fo rgranter that the nenery emitted form
black holes is the one than created them
no onereally knowes how black holes were created
and that is the problem
may be small black holes are created regularly
while we dont know aboutit because they 'evaporate' quickly

bottom line as i saied

the balace between dangerous risks versus
possible gaines
is too much big against the advantages
unless **proven* otherwilse
and worth examining a thousand times before doing

our civilazation will not collaps if it will take
such and such more time to reexamine it ..
again and agian from any possible angle
and even so
at last we wil have to take a risk chance
(ass many breakthrous that were in past
while some people paied the toll for that ..
im am warere of it
but it must be carefully

(Alfred Nobel lost his brother in a dynamite test...not to mention
lots of other examples .)

because no mathematical theoretist or even
an ex[arimentalist can be 100 sure
while cinfronting
**an unprecedented event*
we are not dealing here with a formula on paper rist
to be found wrong
we are dealing with confronting ..... nature !!
(no one has a direct phone line to GOD (:-)
isnt that so ???

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
isnt that so ???