ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Tales of the big bang

Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:41 PM by Alan Boyle


JHU Press
"The Quantum Frontier" focuses
on the Large Hadron Collider.

Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have barely begun their quest to unlock the smallest mysteries of the universe - but there's already a book that explains the whole story, written by a researcher who's still deeply involved in the plot.

"The Quantum Frontier," by Fermilab physicist Don Lincoln, delves into the workings of the LHC as well as the basic (and not-so-basic) outlines of the scientific frontier the $10 billion machine was built to explore.

Far beneath the French-Swiss border, the LHC had its official startup last September - and soon afterward it suffered some serious glitches that required months of repair. The latest word is that the collider won't start up again until this coming September at the earliest. Once it's back in operation, scientists could discover how it is that some particles (like protons) have mass while others (like photons) don't. They could learn the nature of dark matter, or confirm that our universe has extra dimensions, or find whole classes of weird new subatomic particles.

Or they could discover something completely different.

"It's completely wrong-minded to say that 'the LHC was built to discover X,'" Lincoln writes. "That would mean that 'X' is understood well enough to know that it's there, and therefore to find it isn't really a discovery. No, the purpose of the LHC is to study the nature of matter under conditions that are seven times hotter and more energetic than ever before observed. We will see what we will see."

Fortunately, Lincoln doesn't stop there: He goes on to explain the ABCs of particle physics as well as the XYZs of scientific mysteries. One of Lincoln's favorite mysteries is the subject of his own research, which focuses on what he calls "the next layer of the onion."

If matter is made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of particles like electrons and protons, and protons are made of quarks ... then what are quarks made of? No one really knows, although theorists have talked about the existence of pre-quarks or "preons." (Plenty of other names have been proposed for the theoretical particles; Lincoln's favorites are "quinks" and "tweedles").

In an interview, Lincoln noted that physicists now know enough about the various flavors of quarks (up, down, bottom, top, strange and charmed) to organize them into a periodic table of sorts. "That's telling me something," he said. "My guess is that this is evidence of something inside quarks."

The LHC could point to the things inside quarks if high-energy collisions produce characteristic sprays and jets of particles, Lincoln said. "You would expect to see more scatters than you would if in fact quarks had no size," he told me.

Another big mystery has to do with the origins of particle mass. For decades, scientists have suggested that a factor known as the Higgs field affects some particles to give them mass, while not affecting others. Lincoln describes the field as an "add-on" that modifies the way particles behave - just as air resistance is an add-on that determines why a lead ball falls faster than a feather through Earth's atmosphere.

Detecting the particle that's associated with the Higgs field - known as the Higgs boson or the "God Particle" - is one of modern physics' top quests. Lincoln happens to be part of two research groups involved in the search: the DZero collaboration at Fermilab and the Compact Muon Solenoid collaboration at the LHC.

For the past couple of years, scientists have wondered whether the first evidence of the Higgs boson would be found at Fermilab or the LHC. "It's not a race per se," Lincoln said, but the folks at Fermilab would love to make the discovery before handing off the baton to their colleagues at Europe's CERN particle physics lab.

Although there's no breakthrough to report yet, the researchers at Fermilab's Tevatron collider are getting closer to the big prize. Just this week, they reported the first detection of single top quarks, which is a significant accomplishment in itself and also advances the search for the Higgs. Last year, Fermilab reported results that narrowed down the energy range where the Higgs might lurk, and Lincoln told me there are new results in the works that will improve upon those previous results.

"Knowing where not to look is an important piece of the puzzle," he said.

Knowing what not to expect from the LHC is just as important, particularly when it comes to planet-destroying catastrophes. In the prologue to "The Quantum Frontier," Lincoln addresses the widely reported worries over microscopic black holes, strangelets and other nightmare scenarios - and he explains why "it is impossible that any of these scenarios are true." Essentially, the reason is that many, many reactions much more energetic than the LHC's collisions have occurred over a span of billions of years. The fact that we're still here is an indication that we're safe, Lincoln said.

"If you do the arithmetic, you'll find that you'd have to run the LHC for 100,000 years in order to have the same collisions that the universe has brought to Earth already," he said. "People do worry about this, and I think it's a completely fair question. But when you think about it for a little while, you see that there's absolutely no reason to be nervous."

For more about Lincoln, the LHC and the quantum frontier, check out Lincoln's collection of online presentations, as well as this podcast from "Lab Out Loud."

Here are a few extra tidbits from the world of particle physics:

  • More books about the LHC are on the way: LHC project leader Lyn Evans' work, "The Large Hadron Collider," is reportedly due for publication in June. Paul Halpern, a physicist and mathematician at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, is coming out with "Collider: The Search for the World's Smallest Particles" in August. And for something completely different, check out this online publication called "The Little Book of the Big Bang."

  • A federal lawsuit raising concerns about those doomsday scenarios was dismissed last year, but the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and the federal government was supposed to file its response by the end of last week. A spokesman for the Justice Department, Andrew Ames, told me today that government lawyers have asked for more time to prepare their brief, but the court has not yet ruled on that request.

  • The LHC is going to get some screen time in "Angels & Demons," a movie based on Dan Brown's thriller. The US LHC users' group is already gearing up to use the film, due to premiere in May, as an opportunity to educate the public about particle physics. Watch this space for more to come. And watch for a little extra star power when the LHC is ready for its restart. Actor Tom Hanks, the star of "Angels & Demons" as well as "The Da Vinci Code" and loads of other movies, is supposed to help push the button.

Update for 1:15 p.m. ET March 11: Fermilab just announced that its DZero team made an high-precision measurement of the mass of the W boson, which will in turn help narrow down mass estimates for the Higgs boson. If you must know, the exact mass of the particle measured by DZero is 80.401 +/- 0.044 GeV/c2. Click on over to the Symmetry Breaking blog for more information (plus a cute picture that actually helps explain what's going on).

Update for 12:30 p.m. ET March 13: But wait, there's more: Fermilab researchers report that they have excluded still more places where the Higgs boson may lurk. The latest findings suggest that the Higgs' mass should be between 114 and 160 GeV/c2, or between 170 and 185 GeV/c2. That is, if it exists at all. Once again, get the full story from Symmetry Breaking.

Check out our special report on "The Big Bang Machine" for 360-degree views, interactives that explain the LHC's workings, expert commentary on the nightmares and dreams generated by the LHC, and much, much more. And speaking of much, much more ... here are more postings about Big Science:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Although I do not believe the LHC was close down because of a "higher source" respectively speaking, I believe with something like that so complexed, you are not going to get it working 100% the first time. I think the wait alone with be worth it considering what we are going to find out within the next couple years. Society's progression has never been slowed down by the advancement of information and technology; it's going to be quite exciting to see what the our universe is really about and why things work the way they work. I hope Ferilab does find the Higgs first so that when the information comes to the LHC, it will take even less time to disambigously sort our the tons of information that will be coming through their computers( supercomputers :D)!!
Thanks for covering the US-based anti-LHC case.
What are some of the possible benefits to society or the world from this collider? Will it make cheap power for me? Don't think so! Will it do away with our dependence for oil? Don't think so! Will it make our annual net incomes rise due to the significant savings from food prices or all products that we need, as to live in this world today? Don't think so! Someone enlighten me with the possible benefits.
You physicists, theoreticians, observers and searchers are missing the trees that make up the forest. The answer has always been right infront of your eyes! Einstein touched on it and was in the right direction when his basic formula was developed; E=mc2.

The accelerators will produce observable particle theory exposure and the blink of existence (showing themselves and then disappearing). The one thing, the obvious answer to the Big Bang and the beginning of everything can be called 'transmutation'.....the changing of energy into matter and then reversing (or expanding) the process.

Energy has NO mass and only exists as the 'birth' of a power that IS the other side of 'nothing'. Matter and gravity, quarks and their own building blocks, are grown from energy.

How did the Big Bang happen? Where did everything come from? It is the total product of infinite energy changing into infinite matter through a process we can never know.....only observe. Find a way to diagram, and break down energy, and you will have the answer.

[...]

I do enjoy hearing about the race to find the Higgs Boson first, a little friendly competition is good for the discovery process.  As long as someone finds it that's all that matters.

It will be interesting if the LHC is able to find the smaller subparticles that make up quarks, quinks and tweedles sound funny but I hope they are found.  Just makes me wonder how far down we can go in finding new subparticles.  At some point we should hit the final frontier of particles and subparticles.

I think that calling the little black holes that might come up in the LHC microscopic is a bit misleading and may be causing some to fear needlessly.  The reality is that these little black holes will be at the subparticle level, and even calling them nano-black holes would be making them bigger than they are.  Maybe subparticle black holes would be a better description that shouldn't cause so much fear.

Crank Up the LHC!

I think I've heard of tweedley quinks. Isn't that a children's game?
The reason photons don't have mass is well-understood: it's because they move at the speed of light. Relativity says things get heavier with faster velocities; a particle with mass would get infinitely heavy at light speed. It is not well understood where the mass of slower particles like electrons comes from.
"In the beginning..." , you know the rest!!!
Steveneedsanswers- a simple internet search would have answered your question.  Whether you agree with them or not, at least they are active enough to explore something new rather than wait for someone else to deliver answers to them.  Here are some examples you ask for:

Spin-offs and stimulation of industry
By spin-offs, I mean devices and techniques developed to do basic research which turn out to have other uses. I give some examples from particle physics (many could equally well be credited to nuclear physics, from which particle physics developed):

Accelerators [*]

semiconductor industry
sterilisation - food, medical, sewage
radiation processing
non-destructive testing
cancer therapy
incineration of nuclear waste
power generation (energy amplifier)?
source of synchrotron radiation (biology, condensed matter physics...)
source of neutrons (biology, condensed matter physics...)
Particle detectors

Crystal Detectors [*]
medical imaging
security
non-destructive testing
research
Multiwire Proportional Chambers
container inspection
research
Semi-conductor Detectors
many applications at the development stage
Informatics

World Wide Web [*]
Simulation programmes
Fault diagnosis
Control systems
Stimulation of parallel computing
Superconductivity

Particle physics
multifilamentary wires/cables
nuclear magnetic resonance imaging
many others (cryogenics, vacuum, electrical engineering, geodesy...)

This list pasted from a larger article available at:  http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/About/BasicScience3-en.html
While the concept and evidence supporting the "Big Bang" are pretty solid, I would love to see the LHC find the source of "dark" energy. The acceleration of the known universe is enough for me to easily abandon the idea everything was once a single point. Maybe "dark" is a paradigm that keeps us looking in the wrong place and the elusive matter and energy, once illuminated, will get a name change.
I agree with Steve Needsanswers....what is the purpose of all this?  Billions spent on a new updated toaster! While people are starving in the street. I don't get it.
"The reason photons don't have mass is well-understood: it's because they move at the speed of light. Relativity says things get heavier with faster velocities; a particle with mass would get infinitely heavy at light speed. It is not well understood where the mass of slower particles like electrons comes from."

The reason the photon is brought into it is because it is not understood why some gauge bosons, such as the photon, gluon and (hypothetical) graviton have no mass, while others like the W+, W- and Z boson are so massive.

And, as it is widely known, relativity simply isn't compatible with quantum mechanics yet. We're look for a quantum solution, not a relativistic one.
Physics Author Don Lincoln is more honest than most when he writes "the purpose of the LHC is to study the nature of matter under conditions that are seven times hotter and more energetic than ever before observed. We will see what we will see."

However the logically flawed reason he cites as proof of LHC safety was long ago disowned by CERN's own LHC Saftey Assessment Group (LSAG) as noted in this March 16, 2008 email to me:

"While it is true that a BH produced by cosmic rays would not be stopped by the Earth, there are many other "things" in the universe that could trap such CR-produced BH's, thus leading to visible consequences." [1]

(Some LHC head-on collision created particles would be stopped by Earth compared to zero initially neutral cosmic ray created particles.  Other scientists also disagree that other "things" in the universe would definitely trap such CR-produced BH's due conditions such as super fluidity.  Safety will be what it will be, but it might be improved by increasing energy levels by no more than 100% before fully examining results as at least one senior Physics PhD recommends.)

[1] LSAG email (16 March 2008) http://www.scientificconcerns.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22&hilit=LHCSafetyAssessment.Group%40cern.ch&start=10
oops! someone forgot the other dimension-TIME!  This is what converts energy (Dark matter, so called) into visable mass. Thus energy does have mass at least E=mc2 thinks so!
The flow of time makes reality by converting energy from the Singularity into visable mass.  My latest paper will give you the details1
As Robert points out - Photons can travel at the speed of light because they have no mass. The problem is that we don't understand why photons have no mass and other particles do. The Higgs Boson particle (Higgs field) has been proposed as the explanation for many years, but has never actually been detected .....This is what they are looking for.
Prediction:  Whatever mechanism is found to give mass to particles will also be involved in the quantum mechanism of gravity.  Mass and gravity are just too closely related to have it be otherwise.  Pure speculation:  Space/time is quantized.  Its quantum (let's call it the Higgs) exchanges gravitons with certain particles (as photons do in QED or gluons in QCD).  This exchange establishes a relationship between those particles and space/time which is unchanging absent the influence of an outside force (ie: gives these particles inertia -- which is the same as giving them mass).  It also warps space/time, which is manifested as gravity (per Einstein 100+ years ago).
It is exciting that technology may be reaching a point where we are about to understand our universe in ways never before possible.  However, this talk about the 'Big Bang' theory as the origin of all of existence does not make sense.  Everything came from something.

You can continue to break particles down further and further, but at some point science can no longer explain it.  For example if a quink were the smallest subpartical, where did it come from?  It could not have created itself.  Science cannot explain how something can be created from nothing, nor can it explain how all of these random pieces fit perfectly together to create an indescribable universe and the miracle that is life.  Somebody even mentioned that maybe energy was the source of all of existence.  Where did that energy come from?  A God far more intelligent than us is clearly behind it all.  Science can explain how things work to an extent, but it was God that created the laws of science.
"Someone enlighten me with the possible benefits."
--Steve Needsanswers

It will increase our understanding of the universe.  It is known as enlightenment.  If people didn't benefit from enlightenment then you would not be seeking it.
What are some of the possible benefits to society or the world from this [WAR]? Will it make cheap power for me? Don't think so! Will it do away with our dependence for oil? Don't think so! Will it make our annual net incomes rise due to the significant savings from food prices or all products that we need, as to live in this world today? Don't think so! Someone enlighten me with the possible benefits.
Steve Needsanswers


Steve, I changed one word so that your question would make more sense.
I'm sorry some people think the LHC is a waste of money. Maybe instead of asking why we're "wasting" 10 billion dollars on the LHC, they should ask why we're wasting 100 TIMES THAT MUCH bailing out greedy bankers and incompetent CEO's. The LHC will produce knowledge that we can all share & build on in the future. What benefit do the "people starving in the street" gain from supporting financial parasites?
"If you do the arithmetic, you'll find that you'd have to run the LHC for 100,000 years in order to have the same collisions that the universe has brought to Earth already," he said.'

This is the simple and well-known "cosmic-ray-argument" of CERN. The problem is: We do not know much about cosmic rays (rate, speed, mass...), they have been observed indirectly (Flys Eye Experiment). Particle physics rely on only a few experiments by their experimental colleagues.  

Secondly, put it this way:

100.000 years LHC = 4.000.000.000 years cosmic rays on the whole earth
10 years LHC = 400.000 years cosmic rays on the whole earth

Am I right? This is astonishing and suddenly looks very different!

So within 10 years of the planned operation-time of the LHC, the machine would produce as much high energy collisions as would occur naturally in 400.000 years (!) on the whole earth (and this only if the CERN-comparison with cosmic rays was right, which is questionable). So how can they say something totally natural would happen at the LHC?
This shows another interesting discrepancy: Critics and supporters of the LHC may use the same arguments - must be another point of view...

In our complaint at the European Court of Human Rights, we gave several recommendations to make the LHC safer:

1: External multidisciplinary risk evaluation. Before this, the LHC should not start up at all.

2.: Wait for the AMS 2 experiment in 2010 at the International Space Station to observe the cosmic rays directly finally, so the prominent argument of a similarity to the collisions at the LHC could be proved.

3.: (If this is positive) Start up the LHC only in small steps and study the results carefully before each increase of energy.

In case, the standard model of physics can be changed before major dangers occur.
So many skeptics that seem to want the LHC to fail. Why spend billions on it? Why buy a new computer when you know in a month or two it will be obsolete...the possibilities. What the LHC can help discover could lead us as a race in a million different new paths. From anything telling us how everything came to be, what is the bottom, where we can go, how many nows are there. Endless possibilities.

The skeptics who focus on the bible, a god, and no life elsewhere make me sad. They feel they are that important that the endless expanse of the universe it dedicated to one small microscopic spec of dirt. I highly doubt that. The LHC may help to give us more answers, and even better give us more questions to answer.
James Tankersley Jr, Middleton WI (3/11, 1451) wrote, “Some LHC head-on collision created particles would be stopped by Earth compared to zero initially neutral cosmic ray created particles.”

This statement only addresses interactions between high energy cosmic rays and earthbound particles.  It completely ignores the possibility of head on, or near head on, collissions between cosmic rays.  Particles of similar momentum would produce a net velocity of near zero, wherever they collide.  CR-CR collisions will have happened such that whatever the resultant that resultant will have been within the gravity well (lacking escape velocity) of any and all planet sized and larger objects.  In addition to that any slow MBHs created in deep space would continue to drift until they fell into a gravity well.   If there were a credible danger we should be able to see it.  If there were a credible danger we should have a “planetary black hole” orbiting the sun.  Maybe we’ve just dodged the bullet for the last several billion years.
"The skeptics who focus on the bible, a god, and no life elsewhere make me sad."
NY

They are not in any sense skeptics, they are True Believers.

A skeptic questions conventional wisdom, the word literally means "to look at thoughtfully".

A True Believer only attacks what he already "Knows" is un"True". It is the opposite of skepticism; it is thoughtless blindness.
Jean from Hillsboro said that we should focus on current needs: "people starving in the streets" instead of doing this kind of science.
If scientists waited for every person on earth to be better off, there would, from this point on, be no science of any kind completed!
I have traveled through seventeen 3rd world countries and seen many thousands of folks who were not well off. Some to the point of starving. Sorry, but humans produce too many children for all of them to survive. This is the same thing that other animals do (you are an animal, like it or not) so that their genes will be passed on.
We need to continue to perform science research to  further our understanding of the universe. We never know what the research will give us in a practical sense, but often there are hidden unforeseen benefits.
Bottom line: let science proceed regardless of known immediate benefits. Much of what you use today came from unexpected sources.
Tim Rommes writes "CR-CR collisions will have happened... within the gravity well (lacking escape velocity) of any and all planet sized and larger objects."

Excellent creative thinking Tim except that I am not aware of credible support for the assertion that CR-CR head-on collisions are common enough to "will have happened" and left at-rest results inside the gravity wells of planets/stars in the expected lifetimes of planets/stars.  

Links to and summaries of similarly creative CERN sponsored safety arguments and counter arguments/concerns from independent scientists that safety may not have been definitely proven are detailed at LHCFacts.org.
Tim Rommes wrote: "If there were a credible danger we should be able to see it.  If there were a credible danger we should have a 'planetary black hole' orbiting the sun."
Please take a look at this article from 2006, MSNBC News, where prominent string theorists expect Micro Black Holes at the LHC and as part of the dark matter in the universe. According to them, it is also likely to find mBHs in our solar system!

"This is something with the mass of an asteroid, but it’s microscopic in size," Petters told MSNBC.com
"If braneworld black holes form even 1 percent of the dark matter in our part of the galaxy — a cautious assumption — there should be several thousand braneworld black holes in our solar system,” Petters said.

Coincidentally, the refering article is also by Alan Boyle:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070896/
 
The theory of mBHs as part of the dark matter is also supported from another point of view by Adam Helfer, criticizing the hypothesis of "Hawking radiation":
"Do black holes radiate?" (2003). Quote taken from the abstract: "The possibility that non–radiating 'mini' black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe."
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0304/0304042v1.pdf
---------------
 
Hello Jim! We find that the recommendation of Dr. Plaga, to start up the LHC in steps of 100% increase each time is still very soft. This would mean: Start at 2 TeV per beam, this is 4 TeV at the collision point (double collision energy of Tevatron), then 8 TeV (at collision point) and then already the 14 TeV maximum energy.
 
Generally in this safety-method, there might lurk a sudden bad surprise (a principle suggested by Dr. Richard Webb for example), that occurs - without showing any signs before - at a certain energy, as a point of no return that no one knows.
 
So we think it should be smaller steps with very profound analyzes before each restart.  
But anyway, first the external multidisciplinary risk-evaluation should be done, then the cosmic ray argument strengthened or proved, maybe by the AMS 2 experiment in 2010.

As mentioned above, this way the standard model of physics maybe could be changed before major dangers occur.
 
www.LHC-concern.info
(LHC-Critique, European complaint against the CERN-member states.)
Markus Goritschnig, that's a tough call to make.  If they exist they have the light bending capacity of an asteroid.  It would be a very small amount in a very small area a very far way off.  GLAST may be capable, but a rifle is capable of hitting a bullseye 2 miles out.  If there are thousands of MBHs in our solar system it's still not definite we'd see any of them.  But, if they exist they haven't swallowed up any of the major bodies.  We'd still see them gravitationally.  What are the odds that several thousand black holes are here but only hit minor objects.  How many times can you roll a 1 without rolling a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6?  If we could see a large gravity well orbiting the sun, or a planet, but not see the associated body, I'd scream credible threat from the rooftops.  If you're going to tell me that there's thousands out there but they only gobble the small stuff, or that they've been in planets for millions of years but haven't managed to collapse the planet, I still have a question of credible threat.
Reply to doomsday scenarios is even more disturbing:

"it is impossible that any of these scenarios are true." Essentially, the reason is that many, many reactions much more energetic than the LHC's collisions have occurred over a span of billions of years. The fact that we're still here is an indication that we're safe, Lincoln said"

To me, it sounds like a very old argument that "meteorites do not exist because the heavens can't possibly have stones, as any and all stones that were ever there should have fallen long time ago".

Well, it turns out that stones are still falling from the "heavens" despite this "watertight" argument.  What was wrong with this argument?  (Hint: what is defined as heavens?)

Who can say that this scientist is right when words are redefined and expanded?  In my example, stones may have not fallen from the heavens all right, but they still keep falling.  Likewise "more energetic reactions existed long ago ... and we are still here".  Well, since when that argument assures us that the energies at LHC will not create some phenomena that will then feed out of our own planet?

P.S.: BTW, the black hole creation theory is a bit ridiculous if we check our current knowledge of black holes.  The smallest survivable black hole weighs 1 billion tons.  Anything less will disappear before it has a chance to eat up even one atom, let alone 1 billion tons' worth of them.
 The LHC does not hurdle around 1 billion-ton particles, nor relativistic acceleration would create such.  So, black holes might form all right, but they would dissipate almost as soon as they are created.
Hello Markus,

Dr. Plaga's recommendation is advertised only as a feasible compromise designed to help reduce (not eliminate) risk.

CERN now plans to limit the initial energy increase from 2TeV to 10TeV instead of 14TeV based on concerns for the safety of the LHC itself.

This is still a far more aggressive energy increase than even Dr. Plaga proposes and no known plans to verify safety report assumptions before experimentation begins.

Jim
Hello Tim Rommes, intuitively, I quite support the idea that Black Holes or mBHs could be a part of the dark matter. We also don't need string theory for that, dark matter can only be measured as gravitation... Since we just have theories how mBH could behave, it also seems possible that a great part of the cosmos is made out of them. Our visible matter (4-5%) should be a small minority anyway..

But I don't know if they lurk in our own solar system. First, it is an interesting idea by Petters that they could be closer than we might think. GLAST could not detect them if they were orbiting somewhere without accreting matter ('sleeping' BH, so no gamma rays). If they were accreting some matter the amount of gamma rays would probably be far too small to be detected. (Typically, the highly accelerated matter that falls into a large black hole produces gamma rays.)

Theoretically, they could accrete matter in a planet for a long time already if the accretion rate was very low. There are only hypotheses about these processes.

The thought that touches our mind is the only 4-5% visible matter physics can talk about. What surprises might the other part bring along - only good ones ? Not necessarily. The golden path we are on – physically – must be regarded as a precious good.
Markus,
In the article you cited they were talking about detecting local MBHs because they would optically bend the bursts from far off sources.  Not by detecting gamma ray emissions from the MBH itself.  That's what I was saying I think would be improbable even if there were thousands (again, the article) in this system.
As for threat, if they've been out there for millions of years and haven't destroyed a planet or moon yet I feel pretty safe.  If they're not out there I feel pretty safe.  If they've been in the planet for millions of years already and their accretion rate is really slow then:
a)  I surmise the accretion rate of artificially produced MBHs would be equally slow.
b)  The natural ones will kill us a long time before the artificial ones.
c)  We currently don't know how to do anything about the natural ones inside the planet.
d)  Our only hopes are:
 1)  Find a way off the planet and make a new home elsewhere.  We currently don't know how to do this either.  If we want this option available we probably need more in depth knowledge of physics, so we'd better fire this puppy up.
 2)  Figure out how to deal with the natural ones we are already plagued with.  If we want this option available we probably need more in depth knowledge of physics, so we'd beter fire this puppy up.

My conclussion, either there is no threat so there's no reason not to fire it up, or there is a threat and our only hope rests on firing it up.  Eiter way, start it.  If there is a threat then start it sooner, increase funding, work harder, study more, build a bigger one.
As far as "dark matter" goes, I still lean toward "dark" matter, at least as a substantial portion.  We can't even see the core of our own galaxy visually.  The closest, brightest (taken together) thing in the universe, except our sun, is obscured by so much dust.  The city of Milky Way has a smog problem.  What's out in the countryside spread thin over millions of acres?
Are we the Mexico City of the universe or is our "air" clean?  How much crap is floating around in every other galaxy?  How much is accounted for in the tabulation of each galaxy's mass?  How dense is it in the intergalactic void?  How much does this attribute to red shift?  How much farther does it make a galaxy appear when we base distance on a standard candle supernova?  How badly is our current science skewed because of experiments designed to reproduce the same errors, taken to validate each other?
Please help me. I'm not a physicist.  This is all exciting stuff.  Apparently energy converts to mass and mass to energy and so on.  The Big Bang started some interesting things.  In the meantime, we are searching for the Higgs boson, and figuring out how string theory ties in, etc, etc. My question is simple: Where did the original energy or mass come from?  Or to put it another way: What is the original source of all energy or mass?

Thanks.
Hello Tim Rommes,

interesting rhetoric, but as You might expect, I don’t agree:

The example I gave above: “So within 10 years of the planned operation-time of the LHC, the machine would produce as much high energy collisions as would occur naturally in 400.000 years (!) on the whole earth (and this only if the CERN-comparison with cosmic rays was right, which is questionable). So how can they say something totally natural would happen at the LHC?” shows that even if harmful natural Micro Black Holes were around in our closer cosmic environment and if they would also endanger the earth, the experiment could add a vast amount of those extreme particles to our planet within a very short time, produced in a very small area.

So for this reason, just for example, it may be a failure turn the LHC on.

To start up the LHC for getting prepared to flee from the planet sounds a bit like the fairytale about the fabric producing gas-masks and making lots of money with them, because the production strongly pollutes the environment… This is actually an interesting metaphor for our present way of life.

So in both regards I would definitely argue against the start up of the LHC under the present circumstances and showed several ways above to improve safety in this very unforeseeable field.

Concerning Dark Matter: As many of the present theories and imaginations of modern physics, we might find out that it was just an illusion and a totally wrong model:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist
Video:
http://www.sciam.com/video.cfm?lineup=1406165298&id=17285482001

On the other hand, Dark Matter could also consist of Black Holes in great parts, we simply don't know.

Finally I want to point out: ‘Peaceful’ astronomical research produces spectacular new results on a row that could totally change our understanding of the universe. The LHC might be a technical step done too fast…

(To take a look on our different approaches to the theme also on our website, please click below.)

Best regards
"The skeptics who focus on the bible, a god, and no life elsewhere make me sad."

What the heck does opposing LHC have to do with Bibles, and God? Even extraterrestrial life? (and how does that disprove God? As the way you lump it in makes it sound like you think it would do that.) LHC is not about Bibles, it is not about God, it is not about ET life, it is about particle collisions, and the question revolves on whether it's worth spending the money on it vs spending it on something else. Note that questioning the validity of spending money on the LHC and similar projects is not the same as questioning the validity of spending money on science in general: it's about what's most productive for humanity. For example, if the money was spend on finding cures for diseases, or something that could produce new and useful sources of energy (see, for example, the projects being done for nuclear fusion power), that would be good, and that involves SCIENCE!!!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1830948

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google