LHC, Micro Black Holes & The Dominium Model

[zosima]

Regardless wouldn't the LHC produce these energy-levels which not as high, a lot longer though than a cosmic-ray burst?

Collisions are essentially instantaneous in both cases, not completely instant, but close enough. As to frequency...maybe, but even if the LHC was more frequent. Cosmic rays have had a 4.5 billion year head start.

Also are energy-levels the only issue? (or does the type of collisions involved, matter as well -- if it sounds silly I'm sorry)

Yes, Insofar as we're talking about mass, p = mv(momentum = mass * velocity).Momentum is the determining factor in the energy of a collision. A high energy collision could be slower more massive particles or faster less massive particles. So if high energy collisions have happened what the mass was is not too consequential.
A large source of the increased collision energy in the LHC is that now it is colliding lead rather that gold, that way they can get more energy without increasing the velocity of the beam.(I think they actually did increase the velocity, thats why they upgraded the magnets, but I think maximum collider velocity is a function of ring diameter and confining magnet strength, if this is wrong someone, please correct me.)

I guess someone might try to argue that collisions with cosmic rays are more ionized hydrogen, helium, and electrons colliding with light molecules(N2,O2,CO2) and LHC will be lead v. lead collisions, but at the energy that the collisions occur, in both cases, they aren't really atom v. atom collisions, but they are neutron,proton,electron v neutron proton electron, or even quark, lepton v. quark, lepton. Whether there is some electromagnetic interference from the rest of the surrounding atom is really inconsequential.

 

[Ski]

Here is a link to the pdf:
*link to model*

I warn you all: it is absolute and complete drivel.

Hi Wangler. I recently ran into this model, and I have to admit it scared me at first. However, I have seen others point out flaws in the model.

I am curious (and I do not want to imply that you are wrong) have you read the model? Can you explain why it is wrong? I have read some of his model, although I do not have the expertese to criticize it.

 

[INRM]

So the Dominium model explains universe expansion as reverse gravity? What else?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I have a question about the micro-black holes...

I've read that if the LHC will create some small black holes, their speed will be higher than the escape-velocity of the earth since the particles travels almost in the speed of light.

But wouldnt the black hole get the momentum of the particles at the very moment they collied. And therefore has zero speed?

 

[Cuddles]

I have a question about the micro-black holes...

I've read that if the LHC will create some small black holes, their speed will be higher than the escape-velocity of the earth since the particles travels almost in the speed of light.

But wouldnt the black hole get the momentum of the particles at the very moment they collied. And therefore has zero speed?

No. A collision never has only one product, so although the total momentum of the products is zero, each individual particle can have very high momentum. If this weren't the case, we would never be able to see what happened in collisions because the products would never reach the detectors. I've seen this claim about escape velocity before, but I'm not sure where it came from first, and it really is very obviously silly. Particles are created in collisions with a wide range of momentum. Sure, some of them will be faster than escape velocity. And some of them won't. The idea that any black hole that could possibly be created must be travelling above escape velocity is just weird.

There's also an important point that is rarely mentioned for some reason. People try to debunk this by pointing out all the ways in which mini black holes would not be in any way dangerous, and bigger collisions happen all the time naturally. While this is all fair enough, the simple fact is that the creation of mini black holes is entirely hypothetical. No collision in any particle collider has ever been observed to create black holes, and no mini black holes have been observed to be created by any natural means. The whole black hole thing was only thought up as a far-out, worst-possible-case scenario, in the same way that the original nuclear tests considered the possibility that they might blow up the whole planet. No-one actually believes any black holes will be created at all, let alone that anything vaguely dangerous could happen.

And I leave you with:

Best. Video. Ever.

 

[Ski]

So, anyone else have any thoughts on the Dominium model?

 

[Reality Check]

So, anyone else have any thoughts on the Dominium model?

It is yet another cosmosology model written by 1 person for a book, available on the web and not passed through any peer-reviewed process.


Woo-factors from his PDF:

• No mathematics related to his model.
• Any modern day cosmosology model has to fit the observations of the cosmic microwave background. No such fit is attempted.
• conclusion 46:

  God intends for us to protect the Earth, e.g., divert projects that could extinguish all life.

• His emphasis on stopping the LHC project makes it look like the model was written for that purpose.

 

[Ski]

It is yet another cosmosology model written by 1 person for a book, available on the web and not passed through any peer-reviewed process.


Woo-factors from his PDF:

• No mathematics related to his model.
• Any modern day cosmosology model has to fit the observations of the cosmic microwave background. No such fit is attempted.
• conclusion 46:
• His emphasis on stopping the LHC project makes it look like the model was written for that purpose.

Thanks, that makes me feel better. By the way, are you the same Reality Check from phys forums?

Anyway, he posted his model on lhcconcerns, and I've been interrogating him. I also told him his model has no math, and he said he doesn't need math because that isn't the methodology used.

I've looked through a bit of his model, and I find it really hard to understand. When he talks about MBHs, he calls them "beasts" and says a MBH eating earth parallels apocalyptic Bible and Quran visions. He gets 80 years accretion time from the Bible/Quran too. He also claims no one has found a flaw in his model, which is ridiculous.

He also claims that he originally planned to submit it to peer review, but says there is no time now, which is suspicious. Perhaps he doesn't want his model torn apart? And if he really wanted to raise public awareness, couldn't he flaunt his model and still have it submitted for peer review?

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks, that makes me feel better. By the way, are you the same Reality Check from phys forums?

Anyway, he posted his model on lhcconcerns, and I've been interrogating him. I also told him his model has no math, and he said he doesn't need math because that isn't the methodology used.

I've looked through a bit of his model, and I find it really hard to understand. When he talks about MBHs, he calls them "beasts" and says a MBH eating earth parallels apocalyptic Bible and Quran visions. He gets 80 years accretion time from the Bible/Quran too. He also claims no one has found a flaw in his model, which is ridiculous.

He also claims that he originally planned to submit it to peer review, but says there is no time now, which is suspicious. Perhaps he doesn't want his model torn apart? And if he really wanted to raise public awareness, couldn't he flaunt his model and still have it submitted for peer review?

Hi Ski. This is the only forum I post on so it looks like I have a namesake.

Your comment confirms what I suspected. The Dominium Model is not a scientific theory (no math means no numerical predictions and so no testable predictions). This makes it theology.

 

[Beerina]

How are they certain that they won't produce a stable black-hole?

How are they certain that the micro black-holes that are produce couldn't aggregate together under some conditions however rare into a larger and stable black-hole?

I also heard something about concern regarding the LHC in terms of the collisions causing, due to conservation of mass or something, a very slow moving black-hole (which I'd assume would have to be a certain size to be stable but unsure) which would be a very serious problem. How have they ruled out the risk of this happening?

IIRC, it's because black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation. In order to keep from disappearing, they'd have to suck in matter faster than it gets radiated away as energy.

In order to suck it in fast enough to grow faster than it shrinks (when dropped into the dense core of the earth) it would have to be about 1cm (from one estimate I read) in diameter, which is to say, something like a large mountain to a small planet's size worth of mass. The LHC in no way deals with that much mass (or worse, that much mass as energy.)

The details may change, but that's about the gist of it.

 

[Ski]

Sorry, I just need to vent for a bit.

I've been on Hasanuddin's blog, who as we know, is the author of the Dominium model. This guy is absolutely impossible to argue with. I mean, look at some of his comments here:

science-community.sciam(dot)com/blog-entry/Hasanuddins-Blog/Stop-Presses-Actually-Stopping-Presses/5800000321&start=75

Under the username tayman2037, I tried to point out that the safety report is going to be written making no assumptions at all, and assuming all MBHs are stable. Yet, he still refuses to believe the best judgement of all of the particle physicists in the world writing and peer reviewing the report. I mean, just look at this quote:

I am going to have to maintain that, yes, I do believe this model is correct and you and your buddies have been wrong all these years.

I don't know if anyone has checked out the comments on his blog, but he claims that no one has found a flaw in his model. This claim is ridiculous. If anyone has seen the comments on his blog, you'd know that people have pointed out NUMEROUS flaws.

It just realy irks me when someone refuses to listen to criticism, thinks they have revolutionized science without using any math at all, while claiming that "I don't need math."

 

[sol invictus]

It just realy irks me when someone refuses to listen to criticism, thinks they have revolutionized science without using any math at all, while claiming that "I don't need math."

Ignore him. There are hundreds more just like him, and there are better things to do in life than argue with fools.

 

[Ski]

Oh, I know. I pretty much ignore everything he says now, and I've given up trying to talk to him. Right now he's in a debate with a physicist at the Tevatron, and Hasanuddin thinks he knows better than him. Amazing.

 

[Ski]

Looks like another theory "proving" danger at the LHC has popped up...

dovgel(dot)com/engl/apok-e.htm

I'm very less worried, though, although I don't have the knowledge to criticize it.

 

[Tubbythin]

Looks like another theory "proving" danger at the LHC has popped up...

dovgel(dot)com/engl/apok-e.htm

I'm very less worried, though, although I don't have the knowledge to criticize it.

I don't know where to start. Possibly with the fact that he's trying to say gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Reality Check]

It is just another crackpot.

 

[Ski]

With so many "theories" out there, my worrying has gone done to nearly 0.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

May as well take this as an opportunity to pimp my site! I've never heard of the dominium model, but our site did an interview (though a little one sided!) of Dr. Michael Peskin of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center regarding disaster scenarios at the LHC. He talks about mini black holes, strangelets, magnetic monopoles, and more. It's pretty interesting, if you have about an hour to spare.

Main blog post:
http://skeptech.net/?p=26

Direct link to the main podcast:
http://www.skeptech.net/wp-content/Podcasts/Episode2.mp3

Standalone portion of the interview:
http://www.skeptech.net/wp-content/Podcasts/Episode2-InterviewOnly.mp3

Lemme know what you think! And watch out for more podcasts in the future (we're still trying to get the site in order and produce new ones regularly, but that should smooth out eventually).

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[zosima]

A clever retort to the anti LHC zealots:
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334

 

[andyarok]

Past errors in calculation

Bosenova explosion was never expected or predicted by any scientists at such low energy levels as in case of of rubidium experiment as well as in d case of RHIC. Bosenova explosion is an example which proves scientists cant predict everything correctly. It is similar to a supernova but in much smaller scale where at the end thousands of atoms went missing. Its an undescribed phenomenon.

In head on collisions as in the case of LHC all KE is spent in the particle interaction as it is a direct head on epicentrical collision more often than not. But in cosmic ray event mostly angular collisions occur so lots of Energy is retained in its relative momentum. Even if head on occurs earth bound particle is stationary so some energy is spent while stationary particle gains momentum and some energy is retained by proton's momentum as well. Only the remnant energy is utilized in particle interaction. When bosenova explosion occurred it remained as a single super-atom for few thousandths of a second before exploding. So with luminosity 100 times more than any other colliders built so far interaction between previous collision event and d next is possible which is unlikely in cosmic rays as they are solitary. Sorry if am wrong, Forgive my ignorance.