Bit unusual for me to branch into physics, but it has come to my attention that the turning on of the large hadron collider may be delayed due to a Law suit. It has been filed because of fears that it may cause a black hole that could destroy the earth. So, while we are waiting on the edge of our seats for it to start producing data, here is a little song to keep us amused.
Stephen Hawking's voice in this reminds me of the time a couple of us tried to compose a message from him (with a ZX spectrum) to leave on a friends answer phone - crazy days :-)
Crazy question for lee: could a black hole be transported in a rocket?
31 comments:
This is very sad. Rossler seems to have been haunting Wikipedia and posting "we are all doomed" links on it, neglecting that if any of his theories are right, there would be no white dwarfs or neutron stars.
We can only hope a restraining order is put on him. I'm really excited to see if the Higgs boson is found and this idiot is holding things up
This is indeed very sad (and, as Steve points out, colossally ignorant).
Physicist and former D:Ream keyboard player Brian Cox puts it commendably succinctly in the new Radio Times:
"Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."
Mark_W
I didn't know Brian Cox was in D-Ream. How "cool" is that?
I didn't realise either until today...
Apparently he was doing his PhD at the time D:Ream were big:
"I was doing experiments in my lab in my white coat in Manchester [...] so I did my lab day, took my coat off and walked up the road to GMEX to support Take That..."
Mark_W
Crazy question for lee: could a black hole be transported in a rocket?
Without reading up on the subject, so just from my Sci-Fi knowledge.
Sure why not...
You just would not get very far before it decays away I think via Hawking radiation (and gamma rays are not good for your health when it does) – and it would be bloody hot – the smaller they are, the hotter they are I think... oh, and really small probably smaller than an atom if you plan to move it with any man-made rocket - and I have no idea how you would carry it in a box.
I think the first problem (and easiest) to look at is that the small mass; the smaller the mass the faster they decay away to ‘nothing’ (with a shed load of energy probably E=mc^2 and all that)
I would need to look up the life expectance of a black hole of around 10,000 Kg (which I am guessing is fair for what a rocket today could carry off the Earth – it is a nice round number anyway. Don’t ask me why I think you would want to take it off the Earth, but you have to make it somewhere right?)
Lee
PS
I am of course assuming you do not want or expect to move a stellar mass black hole in a rocket? That would be a silly thing to try and do wouldn’t it? For one, how would you get close to it before it rips you apart... I suppose you could use a more massive object like an OB type star... but how do you move a star?
Moving around very small black holes is simple. Fire electrons at them, and they will swallow them and get charged. Then you can safely capture them with positive charges, and keep them contained circling magnets.
(Also, Brian Cox is very cool indeed)
I don't know if micro black holes will be formed, I suspect fireball creation suggests they will, but I do know Hawking Radiation is a joke.
Stable cosmological bodies may or may not prove safety, I find Dr. Plaga and Dr. Rossler's rebuttals more than plausible, but don't think for a moment that Hawking Radiation theory is remotely logical or remotely plausible. I give it approximately zero chance of being correct and I give reverse Hawking Radiation a strong probability of being proven correct.
I am not a member of a band either, I guess that makes me "not cool".
Billy, some numbers on how long our rather small black hole will live.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
“So, for instance, a 1-second-lived black hole has a mass of 2.28 × 105 kg, equivalent to an energy of 2.05 × 1022 J that could be released by 5 × 106 megatons of TNT.
If you believe Hawking and his 1970’s physics… for a black hole twice that I quoted which is a large load for a rocket – you have one second before 5 million megatons of TNT energy hits your rocket.
(I think a nuclear bomb is measured in ‘a few’ megatons of TNT – so I think this is more than ALL the nuclear weapons ever to have existed going off in your rocket… so hold onto to your hat)
Does this help?
Steve Moving around very small black holes is simple. Fire electrons at them, and they will swallow them and get charged. Then you can safely capture them with positive charges, and keep them contained circling magnets.
Do the black hole become charged? I thought they lost such information - I need to do more reading.
If you are right, then cool... it is easy as you said - for very small black hole.
Not sure this would be easy for my 'large' rocket load of black hole though.
I wonder what Billy has planned?
Lee
Hi James,
I don't know if micro black holes will be formed, I suspect fireball creation suggests they will, but I do know Hawking Radiation is a joke.
The theory probably isn't right, but why is it a joke?
Seems a pretty good guess for 1975 or whenever it was.
Stable cosmological bodies may or may not prove safety, I find Dr. Plaga and Dr. Rossler's rebuttals more than plausible
Erm... could you maybe outline these rebuttals then for me please. I am not as versed as yourself in them.
I don't have a problem with black holes being formed in a collider such as the LHC but I do not see the danger since far greater energy collisions happen every second from cosmic rays in the Earths atmosphere - so please can you explain the difference - why I should be worried?
but don't think for a moment that Hawking Radiation theory is remotely logical or remotely plausible.
Erm... it sounded reasonable to me, but of course it is untested.
Could you tell me where Hawking went wrong?
I give it approximately zero chance of being correct and I give reverse Hawking Radiation a strong probability of being proven correct.
Reverse Hawking Radiation? But you just said Hawking Radiation wasn't 'logical' but you think you can now reverse it and make it logical? So what is this “reverse Hawking radiation” (that is of course unrelated to the ‘joke’ that is Hawking radiation?)
I am not a member of a band either, I guess that makes me "not cool".
I could have been a roadie for a rock band once, but that is about as close as it got for me
Lee
Hello Lee,
First part of your question "Seems a pretty good guess for 1975 or whenever it was"
Yes, Dr. Hawking's 1970's conjecture was a clever explaination for why black holes created after the big bang might not exist today and why the universe appears to be made of mostly matter.
Dr. Hawking conjectured that when virtual particles appear near black holes, the the anti-matter virtual particle might fall into the black holes and matter particle might escape.
The main problem is that even if only anti-matter particles fall into black holes, anti-matter is not anti-energy. There is no such thing. Anti-matter is a form of energy just as matter is a form of energy (anti-matter plus matter equals energy).
So adding anti-matter and/or matter to black holes adds energy which adds mass. But the original conjecture was never refuted early on, it was accepted as "standard model". Only in the last decade have physicists re-examined this conjecture and refuted it or tried to correct it. It is not plausibly correctable.
Reverse Hawking Radiation is growth from consuming virtual particles. This might only happen in the rare case that a virtual particle pair becomes real when one of the anti-matter particles becomes a matter particle. This experimental result (occasional by measurable anti-matter flipping of virtual particles) was published in 2008.
Second part "I find Dr. Plaga and Dr. Rossler's rebuttals more than plausible..." "could you maybe outline these rebuttals then for me please."
(Dr. Rossler and Dr. Plaga differ on the possibility of micro black hole radiation, Dr. Rossler, Prof. VA Belinski, Dr. Adam Helfer and others conclude flawed and/or impossible, Dr. Plaga theorizes the possibility of dangerous radioactivity. I favor Dr. Rossler's conclusion in this respect).
Both Dr. Rossler and Dr. Plaga conclude that CERN's assumptions with respect to micro black hole effects on White Dwarfs and Neutron stars may be incorrect and therefor may not prove safety.
Dr. Rossler concludes "cross-section for a miniblack hole passing-through is by a factor of 10^5 greater than earth‘s. They remain safe if no more than 10^4 eating-type collisions with a quark
await a fast natural miniblack hole entering them (so it can pass through)." and neutron stars are protected by superfluidity "miniblack holes can pass without friction".[1]
Dr. Plaga concludes "Such arguments remain not completely definite for neutron stars because it remains unclear if cosmic rays with sufficient energy reach their surface." and "mBHs deep in the “quantum gravity” regime (violating eq.(7)) might behave differently and escape white dwarfs, just as they could escape ordinary stars in the semiclassical approximation" [2]
[1] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders
Hi James,
I can point out a couple of issues I have - but please tell me where I am wrong. I am out of touch with my physics (my memory could be wrong)
Firstly, you seem to be inconsistent when applying your logic/physics.
You say that particles and anti-particles come into and out of evidence
(This bit is good)
Then say that there is no negative energy?
Wouldn’t this cause you a problem i.e. the energy within the universe increases rapidly as particles and anti-particles annihilate one other? Energy not cancelling out one another?
So the problem you would have when describing “reverse Hawking radiation” is in fact the universe becoming very hot, very fast?
I think also you have taken Einstein equation, but only taken half the solution.
i.e. E=mc^2
The full solution is E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
Now if the particle is at rest, p=0
So E^2=m^2c^4
Now if you take the square root of both sides, what do you get?
+/-E=+/-mc^2
Hint: Negative Energy
Oh, and here are some old physics to look over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dirac_sea
Must go… time for Fish and Chips
Lee
James,
Should say, I am in a rush so I am probably wrong of course - not thinking straight - so I would love to hear your response
Or maybe Steve's?
Cheers
Lee
Hawking Radiation is a solid idea, and we are close to observing it in model physical systems analogous to black holes.
Also, negative energy (anti-energy) is real. It is present in the Casimir effect.
Enough said, I think!
Hi Steve
It is present in the Casimir effect.
What you have evidence? He he
Enough said, I think!
Pretty much - but I would love to hear what James has to say. I still like to know how this reverse Hawking thing works...
Lee
I'm a bit worried about this.
Didn't someone once stop the earth's core? I'm sure that they then had to travel to the earth's core in a ship made of unobtainium and set off a nuclear device to start it again.
You scientists just never stop to think, do you?
Rune,
Are you not in on my plan to fly a black hole into the sun and hold the world to ransom then?
Actually, I asked that question because black holes have infinite mass, so was wondering if they could be moved. The fact that you have different mass black holes though is something I cant get my head round .... I need to learn some physics. Can anyone recommend some good books on this stuff (not that I time to read them)
Funnily enough, I've just written a book titled "Getting Your Head Round Black Holes Which Have Different Masses - An Intermediate Guide"
Hopefully it will be a runaway success like my last one "Getting Your Head Round Why Some Cretins Can't Negotiate A Path Around You on Pavements In The West End Of Glasgow Without Walking Into You - A Beginners Guide."
Actually, I'm sure that Calvin and Hobbes moved a black hole with their Transmogrifier.
Rune,
Need to remember my book "how to thrust brights cards on fundies hastling you when you are talking about Carmen Electra"
Good news, I've got a pilot to fly the blackhole. He seems under the impression that the sun is populated by red haired baristas that give you venom with your coffee - don't know how he got that idea (Oh yeah, and he thinks it has mixed saunas :-) )
Billy-
You might find this post of mine useful:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/146358.html
Thanks Steve
Hi Billy,
Not been to Steve's blog yet, so he may have answered your questions - but I thought a response should still be on your 'blog of learning'
Actually, I asked that question because black holes have infinite mass, so was wondering if they could be moved.
I see what the problem is here.
You probably are getting mixed up with the ‘classical’ view of black holes (which ignores quantum mechanics so will be wrong) that a black hole is a point in space of infinite density (not heard the infinite mass bit before but this idea could be tested – more later).
This comes about from the model only and is because the maths fails when you get numbers being divided by zero (never good that – infinities come out of it)
The theory of gravity is wrong, well, incomplete – he he he
General relativity deals with the very large and massive... but once you start to move into the realms of the small via compress you are in the Quantum world – but as we know, the theories are not compatible – yet. Hence the silly infinities.
So, in conclusion - A black hole has a finite (and measurable) mass.
Stellar mass Black holes are found in orbit around other stars – the orbit of the visible star can be used to determine the mass of the black hole. This has been done.
Any stellar mass black hole in the galaxy will be in orbit around the centre of the galaxy – just like the sun and everything else in it.
The Milky Way (and its supermassive blackhole) is part of a cluster of galaxies - so is itself in orbit – and so moving.
The Andromeda galaxy is actually coming straight at us – black hole and all.
We have 3 billions years... then the fun begins.
The fact that you have different mass black holes though is something I cant get my head round ....
I think now the mix up with density and mass has been Then let’s keep it simple.
We have different masses for stars – why not for ‘something else’?
Massive stars form stellar mass black holes – so different mass stars probably form different mass black holes.
I need to learn some physics. Can anyone recommend some good books on this stuff (not that I time to read them)
Erm... specifically about black holes? I will have to think.
Lee
Rune Funnily enough, I've just written a book titled "Getting Your Head Round Black Holes Which Have Different Masses - An Intermediate Guide"
Perfect... I've have two.
Lee
I just read my comment on black holes... I wish I did before posting.
Oh well... you get the point (I hope).
Lee
Thanks Lee, that reminds me of a great video to post later
Lee. have you got a truck? That book was remaindered for some reason. ;)
Billy Thanks Lee, that reminds me of a great video to post later
Just seen that post... I like that video.
Rune Lee. have you got a truck? That book was remaindered for some reason. ;)
Do I get a discount now?
Lee
It seems obvious to me that black holes will have different mass. They can only have the mass that's in them in the first place, plus the mass that's been sucked into them. Or am I just being simple?
They can only have the mass that's in them in the first place, plus the mass that's been sucked into them. Or am I just being simple?
Good enough for me... though a very, very small amount is thought to be lost due to Hawking radiation - well, small for a stellar mass (or bigger) black hole.
Lee
Post a Comment