Just another stupid thing to worry about

I know very little about the physics of the Large Hadron Collider, but I've been aware of the debate over whether the LHC could create a black hole that would swallow the Earth. A new physics paper suggests that this possibility, while remote, may not be as totally implausible as originally predicted.

According to the Physics arXiv blog,

In 2002, Roberto Casadio at the Universita di Bologna in Italy and a few pals reassured the world that [the doomsday scenario] was not possible because the black holes would decay before they got the chance to do any damage.

Now they’re not so sure.  The question is not simply how quickly a mini-black hole decays but whether this decay always outpaces any growth.

Casadio have reworked the figures and now say that:  ” the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible.” ...

What’s more, the new calculations throw up a tricky new prediction. In the past, it had always been assumed that black holes would decay in the blink of an eye.

Not any more. Casadio and co say:  “the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly >1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models”

Whoa, let’s have that again: these mini black holes will be hanging around for seconds, possibly minutes?

Most of the commenters on the physics blog dismiss these new concerns as the baseless speculation of alarmists, and their reasoning may well be valid. But reading this comment, you have to wonder if scientific zeal is not outrunning prudence:

Answers to big questions require big investments and lots of risk. Yes, there are unintended consequences, just like those created when Columbus sailed off to discover a new route to India. We got positives and negatives that could NEVER have been conceived of before the voyage. IF…and its a hugely unlikely IF…the LHC does destroy the earth, who is going to be around to say “I told you so.”

Hmm. Unintended consequences ... lots of risk ... no one will be around to say, "I told you so."

Very reassuring.

Comments

[Pete]

"Unintended consequences ... lots of risk ... no one will be around to say, "I told you so."

Very reassuring."

Analogous to business as usual with high carbon emissions, perhaps?

[Art]

That would be funny or ironic if humankind ended itself by creating a machine that made something that sucked the earth into oblivion. It would make for a good science fiction book or movie with a not so happy ending?

[Michael H]

On the other hand, some seven billion of us would no longer have to worry about whether we survive death or not.

[Art]

I could also quit worrying about what I eat and being fat, money, surviving my retirement portfolio, the stock market, recession, my health, and snow and winter. Hey! It doesn't sound all that bad to me now that I think about it!

[Michael H]

Very reassuring.

Those who weren’t reassured by my previous comment might want to read Wallace Thornhill’s take on the LLL, http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188>The $6 billion LHC Circus. He concludes the piece as follows:

There is no physics to explain a creation event. Creation is a metaphysical concept. The big bang is a theory created out of nothing. And there is plenty of evidence contrary to the big bang that shows the universe is not expanding. It is irrational to ignore the evidence or to explain it away, as is being done with dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Earlier scary performances by circus clowns about black holes gobbling stars frightened the public. Now the public is being assured there’s nothing to worry about if a ‘mini black hole’ happens to be created by the LHC. What seems to be forgotten is that cosmic rays routinely exceed the energy expected from the LHC.

But it is the search for the “God Particle” to explain gravity that reveals the irrationality of the enterprise. The equation of gravity with “God” comes from the belief that gravity controls the universe. It is no more than that — a belief. Plasma cosmology shows the belief is mistaken. It is an Electric Universe, not a gravitational universe. Clearly, the scientists involved in the LHC experiment have no real idea of what they are doing. We are told by one of the participants with a fatuous grin, “science is what you do when you don’t know what you are doing.” The LHC is a mammoth engineering and technological undertaking that I predict will serve in future as a monument to human lunacy.

In 1852, Charles Mackay wrote in the preface to his classic work, Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Without a doubt, the modern era of physics will soon be deemed a “dark age of science.” The very language of ‘black hole,’ ‘dark matter,’ and ‘dark energy,’ portends the end of this mad and dismal era.

Scientists today are herded into large institutions. The ones to watch are those leaving or excluded from the herd. A few of them have recovered their senses and are raising a clamor to acknowledge a crisis in cosmology and to return to real physics.

Each group of specialists urges the other to ever more preposterous performances based on their cherished beliefs, while the public pays dearly. But the audience is becoming bored and restless. There is growing doubt that the circus clowns know what they are doing when they talk about “creation” and the “God particle.” When the LHC finds nothing, it will be time to sweep the fertilizer from the main ring and close the circus.

Stephen J. Crothers exploration of the http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest.htm>veracity of “black holes” is worth consideration as well.

The notion of black holes voraciously gobbling up matter, twisting spacetime into contortions that trap light, stretching the unwary into long spaghetti-like strands as they fall inward to ultimately collide and merge with an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, has become a mantra of the astrophysical community, so much so that even primary school children know about the sinister black hole. There are almost daily reports of scientists claiming that they have again found black holes here and there. It is asserted that black holes range in size from micro to mini, to intermediate and on up through to supermassive behemoths. Black holes are spoken of as scientific facts and it is routinely claimed that they have been detected at the centres of galaxies. Images of black holes having their wicked ways with surrounding matter are routinely included with reports of them. Some physicists even claim that black holes will be created in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider, potentially able to swallow the Earth. Despite the assertions of the astronomers and astrophysicists, nobody has ever found a black hole, anywhere, let alone "imaged" one. The pictures adduced to convince are actually either artistic impressions (i.e. drawings) or photos of otherwise unidentified objects imaged by telescopes and merely asserted to be due to black holes, ad hoc.

Of course, in order to make sure that everyone can discover at least some reassurance from this comment, it should be pointed out that both Thornhill and Crothers are outspoken advocates of alternative cosmology ideas which are widely regarded as pseudoscience. As Crothers puts it:

Science can only advance in an environment of free and open exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, modern science, physics and astronomy in particular is very big business. Interests other than science consequently hold sway over what is and what is not published in scientific journals and otherwise reported, what is taught to students at universities and high schools, and what research money goes where. Inconvenient truths are deliberately and systematically suppressed. NASA has openly stated that it will not fund any research which impinges adversely upon the dogma of Big Bang Cosmology, despite a plethora of both physical and theoretical evidence for its falsity.

The editorial boards of the major science journals now routinely suppress papers that are adverse to black holes, big bangs, gravitational waves, and indeed any other cherished theory by which reputations have been built, jobs acquired and lucrative research grants obtained.

It must be noted that these two thinkers each consider the work of Halton Arp and Hans Alfven to have great validity. Those still searching for reassurance at this point should know that both of these thinkers are referenced in the link Zetetic Chick provided in The SuperConscious thread, http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm>‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological).

What I personally find most reassuring is that we’re spending billions upon billions of public money to support mainstream research. I mean, we all know that our institutions are populated by the best and brightest among us, don’t we?

[Sandy]

I guess the one real benefit to being a NDEr is knowing that I’m going to survive. We all are. So relax.

:)

[undrgrndgirl]

yes, the zeal for science has outrun prudence.

[Art]

How long do you reckon it would take? Would we know about it ahead of time? Or would be more like a light switch flipping off? Would the black hole then orbit around the Sun till it eventually fell into the Sun and ate it too? Enquiring minds want to know!

[Cyrus]

Interesting comments Sandy and Michael H. I'm also one of those people who's not exactly afraid of death. This blog is one of the few places I feel at home! Regardless, I hope the Giant Hardon Collider (I'm sorry, I had to say it--) does not devour our world. I really like Earth and it would really suck :(

[Art]

It would be rather ironic if it happens exactly on December 21, 2012. For once an "the End is Near" prediction would come true. Sort of a cosmic joke?

[Cyrus]

Hey Art to answer your question:

If the black hole is big enough it would be instantaneous. If the black hole somehow shuts off a millisecond before completely devouring the Earth, then it may be slightly more painful a process.

[Roger Knights]

I've heard that the process could take a year or two, during which time there'd be lots of earthquakes. This reminds me of the sixties song:

"Have you heard about
The eggplant that ate Chicago?
If he's still hungry
We're all doomed"

Or words to that effect. (I think "doomed" was something else.)

[alpha_geek]

All this science-bashing is so funny. Don't you guys know that materialist-based science is the only thing that will keep humans (made of matter) going on planet Earth?
And have you checked the universe out, lately? Have you noticed that apart from the pinprick earth, there isn't any other know intelligent life? Are you seriously suggesting that a god would limit his interests in sentient life to .000000000000000000001% of the universe? Sheesh! do me a favor.

[Vicky]

I thought humans were reproducing long before knowing how to use science ;-)
and let me borrow your faster than light space ship. I wanna see the rest of the 99.9999999999% of the universe

So what exactly made Casadio rework his figures?

[dmduncan]

Vicky, maybe scientists don't have sex without lots of expensive equipment and taking copious notes and measurements. How else will they know when they've had an orgasm?

[Michael H]

I'm also one of those people who's not exactly afraid of death. This blog is one of the few places I feel at home!

It's impossible to be frightened of something that's known not to exist. Kind of like monsters under the bed.

To make a statement that carries the risk of being misinterpreted, I find myself looking forward to the next level at times. I get really weary of the alpa_geek population here, and their remarkable ability to masquerade their metaphysical assumptions as facts, while remaining entirely oblivious to the actual fact that they're making the same mistake as the fundamentalist religious-types they so vociferously oppose.

I honestly don't think the alpa_geeks will destroy the earth with their LHC though, because I don't think black holes exist in any form beyond theoretical mathematical formulas that are predicated on the aforementioned metaphysical assumptions. What will disappear (and already has) is the six billion dollars we've invested in the alpha_geek's collective lunacy.

What the hell. Six billion pales in comparison to the trillions that the MBA's and quants have collectively squandered over the past few years.

I sure hope the educational system at the next plane places more emphasis on critical thinking - I'm pretty sure I won't be here long enough to see this one do so. I'm only likely to be her for another fifty years or so . . .

[Michael Prescott]

Are you seriously suggesting that a god would limit his interests in sentient life to .000000000000000000001% of the universe?

Though it's kind of silly to respond to an obvious troll, I can't help pointing out the fallacy in this argument. Assuming that Earth really is the only inhabited planet, not just in this solar system or in this galaxy, but in the entire universe (a huge assumption to begin with), it is still possible to argue that the rest of the universe is not just wasted space.

Let's say the Big Bang theory is correct - a position taken by most astrophysicists, though disputed by a few. If in fact the universe did begin with the Big Bang, then it has been expanding ever since. Thus, the size of the universe is directly related to the age of the universe.

Now, is there any reason why the universe has to be as old as it is, in order for life to exist? Actually, yes. The early universe consisted only of hydrogen and helium, no heavier elements. (Hydrogen and helium were the only elements produced by the Big Bang.) For that reason the first generation of stars had no Earthlike planets; the materials required to form an Earth didn't exist. Nor could there have been any carbon-based life forms - there was no carbon.

During their lifespan these stars carried out nuclear fission and fusion reactions that produced the heavier elements. When the stars died and exploded, these new elements (nickel, iron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., etc.) were dispersed into space.

Eventually a second generation of stars came into existence, as hydrogen and helium were again drawn together by gravity. Unlike the first generation, the second-generation stars (in some cases) were orbited by Earthlike planets, formed from the new elements left behind by the dead stars. Iron and lead and nickel and copper, etc., formed rocky planets; oxygen and nitrogen and carbon, etc., made up the atmospheres.

Only at this point were conditions in place for any form of life that we could recognize - life based on organic chemistry. And as soon as the Earth cooled off, the earliest life forms emerged. (Microorganisms seem to have appeared almost immediately after Earth's cooling, about 3.5 billion years ago.)

In short, the universe must be as old as it is in order for life to be possible. And since the universe is constantly expanding, its age is directly proportional to its size. Therefore it must also be as large as it is.

[Sandy]

Michael H., don’t be such a pessimist! I was just another materialist only a year ago. OK, I admit that if I could find some way to cure myself of whatever it is that possessed me to give up materialism, I probably would. Not because I think materialism is such a good thing, but because it was a much easier way to get by, especially for a scientist.

That being said, I can’t go back to materialism. It just doesn’t have room for the way I see the world. Either I have to discredit everything I experience and see, which includes personal observations made as a part of my very mundane work as a scientist, or I have to figure out a world view that has room for all of my experiences and observations.

If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Maybe the world is in better shape than you think...

;)

[Michael H]

If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Maybe the world is in better shape than you think...

There's certainly truth to that. And I can definitely be pessimistic at times, especially when I consider our institutions and what is currently regarded as common wisdom. I'm pretty prickly for a mystic.

On the other hand, there are times I'm pretty amused by the absurdity of it all. Nova opened their new season last night with a piece on the migration of the Monarchs, and somehow managed to suggest that naturalism will someday explain fourth-generation butterflies traveling over 2000 miles to arrive at the same grove of trees their ancestors left the previous winter. I found that suggestion especially amusing, and not in a cynical sense.

In all honesty, I actually do think that more and more people are waking up all over the planet - they're just not waking up fast enough to suit me!

So besides pessimistic, I'm not particularly patient, either. (Sigh). I may be a mystic, just not a particularly good mystic.

[Sandy]

So besides pessimistic, I'm not particularly patient, either. (Sigh). I may be a mystic, just not a particularly good mystic.

Hmmm…
You’re not a particularly good mystic, and I’m not a particularly happy medium. We make quite the pair.

Michael H., I’d buy you a pint if I could. I know beer always cheers me up! Enjoying beer and good company is a much better way to spend time waiting for the world to wake up than silly meditation and weird new age psychic stuff, lol.

[Michael H]

I know beer always cheers me up!

Yep! Single Malt Scotch does, too!

I think it's Auchentoshan tonight . . .

[Sandy]

I think it's Auchentoshan tonight . . .

mmmmmmm… scotch…

All must be right in the world! (Don’t you feel silly for being a pessimist now?)

:)

[Cyrus]

No reason to rag on alpha_geek. Dissenting opinions are great. I agree very slightly with him, that I don't think spending huge amounts of money on research projects, in the name of science, is a bad thing. What if the Giant Hardon Collider (I swear I'll stop that joke soon) discovers things about the universe that can finally be revealed in the light of day?

But on the contrary, no experiment is worth threatening our safety. Thousands have died from cancer from atomic bomb testing. That's where it's lunacy.

[Art]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some of the black holes that we see out in space were actually made by sentient life forms that made colliders and accidentally made black holes? Maybe black holes are the Universe's idea of a joke?

[Kris]

well now we know why there are no alien civilizations...

[Michael H]

I don't think spending huge amounts of money on research projects, in the name of science, is a bad thing.

I don't think so either, Cyrus. Where I object is that our current sciences, especially physics and cosmology, are each foundering as a consequence of deeply flawed metaphysical assumptions that effectively inhibit genuine progress.

I agree completely with Thornhill when he writes:

"Without a doubt, the modern era of physics will soon be deemed a “dark age of science.” The very language of ‘black hole,’ ‘dark matter,’ and ‘dark energy,’ portends the end of this mad and dismal era.

"Scientists today are herded into large institutions. The ones to watch are those leaving or excluded from the herd. A few of them have recovered their senses and are raising a clamor to acknowledge a crisis in cosmology and to return to real physics."

We're living in an era where the institutions are populated by a majority that are practicing pseudoscience, and the peer review process is in turn populated by those who accept the status quo with little, if any, question. Those who think our peer review process is effective should ask themselves what progress we would have made if Galileo and Newton had been required to submit their ideas to a council of bishops for peer review. The difference today is that our high priests wear the mantle of "PhD".

I don't know whether Thornhill's speculation of an Electric Universe will eventually be accepted as accurate or not. What I do know is that I admire him for having the courage to point out that the emperor is stark naked.

I have the same admiration for Michael Disney, who had the courage to ask, in a piece for American Scientist, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3716,y.2007,no.9,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx>Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

I’m also in agreement with the conclusions reached on the page http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp>The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang:

The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review paper in support of the Big Bang. But these generally don’t count any of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State, Plasma Cosmology, Meta Model, and Variable-Mass Cosmology . . .

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist, but when I come across information like this, and then discover that NASA explicitly forbids funding for alternative cosmology theories - while burning through $750 million on failed projects like Gravity Probe B - it leads me to there is not any science going on any longer, only efforts to confirm what scientists have already decided to believe.

So it goes. Maybe I need to start having a Scotch with breakfast . . .