sci.physics.particle

On Apr 1, 4:32=A0pm, PD wrote:
> On Apr 1, 3:00=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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" wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Following the current discussion about starting the LH=
C
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 n=
on-debate.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 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=
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Well!!!, considering black holes are found only in the heart o=
f a
> > > > > > > galaxy. Well will need at least 500 million fusion stars like =
our sun.
> > > > > > > But we cannot even produce on working stable fusion reactor ye=
t.
> > > > > > > Ahahahaha!
>
> > > > > > > Soooooo! anyhooo! We do have a long way to go before we can ge=
nerate
> > > > > > > the amount of energy a black hole requires.
>
> > > > > > > We should really be worried about our carbon foot print and th=
e polar
> > > > > > > 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 hole=
s
> > > > > 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 =A0 =A0try 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
>
> Actually, we know quite a bit, and a lot of that work was done in the
> 1930's, set aside for WWII and the beginning of the cold war, and then
> picked up again in the late 1950s. You can pick up Kip Thorne's book
> on black holes (which is written for hobbyists) to get a glimpse of
> how much is really known.
>
>
>
> > 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 =A0dangerous 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 =A0risk 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 ???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--------------
Thanks
anyway it seems to me that neither me or you
are experts about BH

now
suppose you are the general mameger of LHC

whould you like to take on youself
the full responsibility of the results of the
first full scale operation of the LHC ??
(some peole say
there will be (in that case) noone left to take any resposibility
or anyone left to make any accusations !! (:-)

(i personally and *intuitively* dont thing that our globe will be
swallowed
but there are some interim smaller unpleasant results )

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------