Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I believe that LHC will produce mini black holes that will not evaporate.  Several reasons.  First the idea that mini black holes will evaporate is cavalier wishful thinking.  Would we accept such assurances from a biotech lab? Suppose the lab reported revolutionary benefits of conducting an experiment where they insert small pox genes into an influenza host--with the solemn assurance that any and all samples will immediately be destroyed.  Would we just let them waltz on ahead?  I think not.

The other reason I believe that the mini black holes will be stable is because I am advancing a revolutionary new model, the Dominium, that suggests that mini black holes will stay stable as voracious matter compacting beasts.  Debate has been hot and heavy on my Scientific American blog. http://science-community.sciam.com/blog/Hasanuddins-Blog/300005039  I invite anyone to come on over and join the "fun."  You wouldn't believe some of the harsh words that my detractors have against me.  The funniest thing is that the people with the harshest words adamantly declare that they have never read the model.  Go figure?  Of those who have read the model, they have nothing but positive things to say...though they all hope that I am wrong about the stable mini black-holes, or, if I am right, that LHC can be stopped in time.  

If you do chose to join in the discussion, please read the model first.  You can download the half-version at http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/u56srb or you can purchase the full book (the paperback is more complete) at online bookstores

by Hasanuddin on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 05:04:09 PM EST
I have given this guy a 2 rating, as I think he is about as far out of the scientific community as a creationist is out of biology, but unexperienced readers might not notice.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 05:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™] That's not exactly warranted as his comment is not uncivil. However, I understand it if you find it offensive.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 05:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally I'd have explained why he was wrong, without the 2, and then watched him attempt to justify. Sooner or later his logic would have hanged him if he's so far out of reality.


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, next time I'll try that.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is your mechanism for halting the evaporation of microscopic black holes? Hawking radiation is a well-established result from QFT on curved spacetimes ("semiclassical quantum gravity"), and if you have a rebuttal of Hawking radiation that in itself should make waves in theoretical physics.

The issue is that when the black hole becomes small enough that semiclassical approximations don't hold any longer it could be that either the black hole becomes unstable to dacay into photons, or that a "smallest" black hole state is obtained. This would be like a new elementary particle - it has even been suggested that elementary particles are actually microscopic black holes.

Thinking about this, another question that arises is whether a stable microscopic black hole can accrete matter faster than it radiates it back as Hawking radiation. Remember that Hawking radiation is more intense the smallest the black hole. It's possible that matter around Earth is not dense enough for a microscopic black hole to accrete and grow.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series