I wrote this response to a blog over at www.americasright.com, a website I quite enjoy. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this skepticism too many times to keep quiet on it, so I’ve included some information that I hope will show why this experiment is not something we should concern ourselves with. Arguing against the LHC shows a couple things, ignorance of science, and a lack of ability to accept science and math as strong evidence. This could be used to severely weaken any argument against global warming on the basis of a lack of science to back it up. If we are unwilling to accept science and math in this case, then why should Democrats be willing to accept science and math with AGW? The result of both cases is the same: detsruction of earth (if the non-science and hype is to be believed). The stakes are the same, the amount of scientific evidence is roughly the same (actually, the LHC is probably even better supported than the case against AGW). We need to take a moment, educate ourselves, and not buy into the buzz around words like black-hole until we understand what a black hole actually is.
Jeff, love the page, and I agree with you on many things.
This, however, is not one of them. The fear from the LHC comes from a combination misunderstanding of physics, and the baggage associated with the term “black hole.”
Black hole basics: Black holes are a collection of mass crunched into a small enough space that “nothing” can escape. This includes matter, and light, hence the black…
Now, there’s a lot of math involved in this, which I won’t get into, but it’s pretty much like this: For any given mass, there is an “event horizon”(schwarzchild radius, technically) which is the size of space that mass needs to be crammed into to become a black hole.
for reference: The Shwarzchild radius for a 1kg black hole is ~1.5 x 10^-27 m, or 12 orders of magnitude smaller than radius of the nucleus of an atom
12 orders of magnitude is such a vast number…it’s literally the difference between 1 dollar and 1 trillion dollars. It’s the difference between having 1 gallon of water, and having the all the water in lake superior 4 times over. It’s almost unimaginably vast.
Now that we’ve covered that, think of a 1 kg object (roughly 2.2 lbs). Stand by that object and see how long it takes the gravity fom that object to pull you into it. See how long it takes the gravity of that object to pull dust into it…It’s a ludicrously small amount of force.
Ok, so that’s a 2.2lb object, how heavy are the particles being collided by the LHC? Well, the LHC is expected to produce a higgs boson particle (and is the primary purpose for the collider) Go look up why it’s important, if you care, to find this particle, that’s not relevent to this discussion of danger. Anyway, a Higgs Boson should weigh about as much as 138 protons, or roughly 69 molecules of hydrogen… It’s hard to imagine how small this is, but I’ll try and compare…
A water molecule is H2O, which contains 10 protons (and 8 neutrons, plus some electron change, but for the sake of ease, we’ll say 69 molecules of Hydrogen gass = 6 molecules of water in weight (it’s probably more like 3, but it doesn’t matter.)) A water drop contains 1.67 10^21 molecules of H20. again, we’re talking magnitude…this is a greater difference than 1 gallon of water and all of the water on the earth (and that’s short by 5 orders of magnitude still….) It’s MORE than the difference between the width of a strand of DNA and the distance from the earth to the sun.
So, you take a mass that is 21 orders of magnitude smaller than 1 drop of water, and determine how much gravity it produces…Then you smash that mass down to a size smaller than anything I’ve mentioned so far, and you’re near the planck length…the smallest unit of measurement. If you know anything of string theory, a plank length is the theoretical distance between strings. It’s so ridiculously small that it’s the distance between two things that exist, it’s as close as two things can be to each other, the space between them is merely representing the fact that two things cannot occupy the same spot. It borders on being 1 dimensional. This black hole would only be slightly bigger than that. IF a black hole existed from this, it would be so monumentally small that it could pass through the empty space in a molecule. It doesn’t matter if it exists for a second, an hour, a year…the likelyhood of it absorbing mass is so small that it cannot sustain, grow, or destroy the earth.
The problem is that people hear about black holes and how they consume everything etc etc etc. It’s simple gravity; at our earth’s core, gravity is enough to crush rock into a molten liquid center, but we’re not afraid of combustion engines. They operate on the same principle, they force liquid gasoline into a small enough space to heat up, vaporize and then ignite.
To get a sustainable black hole that we observe in space, you would need roughly 3 times the mass of our sun. It is impossible, in the truest sense, to create that scale of black hole in our solar system. And for reference, the diameter of a black hole of that size is about 60 km. That 60km black hole doesn’t eat planets, or the galaxy around it.
60 km is only 16 orders of magnitued smaller than our GALAXY. so, the likelihood of an LHC-produced black hole eating planet earth is SMALLER than the likelihood of the black holes that we observe consuming the earth. it’s 5 orders of magnitude smaller…the difference between a centimeter, and a kilometer.
In summary, it is 10,000 times more likely that a black hole being observed by nasa will consume the earth than a black hole produced by the LHC will.
Sorry to prattle on, but this aversion to scientific discovery is comparable to the aversion to fossil fuels on the basis of global warming (a patent hoax in its own right) We conservatives ask scientists to use science to back up global warming, but then we ignore the math and science behind this experiment.
February 2, 2009 at 10:27 am
E=mc²/2
2009 is the end of Einstein’s space-jail of time and Fraud symbol E=mc²
Joenahhas1958@yahoo.com
Time is not a structure like space to allow space-to time-back to space jumping claimed by Physicists regardless of what physicists have to say about it because Physics is a business and not necessarily science or scientific and like every business it comes with fraud and fraud is Einstein’s space-time (x, y, z, it) continuum that led to fraud symbol E=mc² and yes I am saying that 109 years of Nobel prize winners physics and physicists are all wrong and space-time physics is based on scientific fraud. When “results” expected and “No” discovery, Physicists rigged Physics for grant money since the start of the industrial revolution. Physics today is at least 51 % fraud!
r ——————>>Exp (ì w t) ———->> S=r Exp (ì wt) Nahhas’ Equation
Orbit——–>> Orbit light sensing——>> Visual Orbit; Exp = Exponential
Particle —->> light sensing of moving objects———— >> Wave
Newton———>>light sensing———->> Quantum
Quantum = Newton x Visual Effects
Quantum – Newton = Relativistic = Optical Illusions
E (Energy by definition) = mv²/2 = mc²/2; if v = c
m = mass; v= speed; c= light speed; w= angular velocity; t= time
S = r Exp (ì w t) = r [cos (wt) + ì sin (wt)] Visual effects
P = visual velocity = change of visual location
P = d S/d t = v Exp (ì w t) + ì w r Exp (ì w t)
= (v + ì w r) Exp (ì w t) = v (1 + ì) Exp (ì w t) = visual speed; v = wr
E (visual energy= what you see in lab) = m p²/2; replace v by p in E = mv²/2
= m p²/2 = m v²/2 (1 + ì) ² Exp (2ì wt)
= mv²/2 (2ì) [cosine (2wt) + ì sine (2wt)]
=ì mv² [1 - 2 sine² (wt) + 2 ì sine (wt) cosine (wt)];v = speed; c = light speed
wt = π/2
E (visual) = ìmv² (1 – 2 + 0)
E (visual) = -ì mc² ≡ mc² (absolute value;-ì = negative complex unit) If v = c
w t = π/4
E (visual) = imv² [1-1 +ỉ] =-mc²; v = c
wt =-π/4+ỉln2/2; 2ỉ wt=-ỉπ/2 – ln2
Exp (2i wt) = Exp [-ỉπ/2] Exp [ln(1/2)]=[-ỉ (1/2)]
E (visual) = imv² (-ỉ/2) =1/2mc² v = c
Conclusion: E = mc² is the visual Illusion of E = mc²/2 joenahhas1958@yahoo.com. All rights reserved.
PS: In case of E=mc² claims to be rest energy claims then
E=1/2m (m v + m’ r) ² = (1/2m) (m’ r) ²; v = 0
E = (1/2m) (mc) ²; m’ r =mc
E=mc²/2
February 4, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Joe, thanks for the awesome contribution!
I’m a big fan of the fact that you added some math to back up your claim. Unfortunately, we’ll have to disagree on this one. I do not propose that Einstein or any other physicist has been 100% correct through the past century, but there is a substantial hole in your criticism of space-time.
Let me elaborate. Space-time assumes a simplified 3-dimentional structure of space working in euqlity with a 4th dimension of time. Since it’s very difficult for a human mind to wrap around more than 3 spatial dimensions, I’ll try and simplify it with vector mechanics.
If you can move at a constant speed of 5 mph, then you can move 5mph north, or 5mph east. If you try and shift that in a direction between north and east, you’ll get a 5mph NE with vectors of say 2.5mph N and 2.5mph E (or 3 and 2, 1 and 4, etc)
This is a fact, moving at a constant speed in a given direction you have a fixed vector. If you change direction, you still move at the same speed, but it changes the inherent properties of the vector.
Applying this to space-time requires a little give, and a bit of thinking in the abstract. All of our movement has to be guaged in reference to time, but to do this, there has to be a theoretical maximum speed. This is often referred to as the speed of light, but that is slightly inaccurate.
Light is interesting, it’s observed speed doesn’t changed based on relative motion. For example, if I fire a bullet at 1000mph, then if I’m standing, the bullet goes 1,000mph. If I’m driving forward at 100mph, then the bullet fires out at 1,100 mph. Light does not do this. No matter what observations have done, light’s observed velocity is constant. To achieve constant velocity, irregardless of relative motion, it must be at or near the theoretical maximum.
Ok, applying all of this learning to space-time, and understanding that TIME is a spatial dimension as well, we do move through the 3 spacial dimensions we all notice (x y and z) at a given vector (velocity and direction) but relative to the speed of light, we all move pretty darn slow. Or do we?
Let’s look at it this way: What if all objects are moving at maximum velocity? This is supported by the second rule of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. To explain this we have potential energy(resting) vs kinetic energy(moving). If this were not true, we would be violating this law of thermodynamics simply by moving, because we would be creating energy by going from a state of relative 0 motion to a state of (0+vector XYZ) relative motion. This only does NOT occur if we are in a constant vector of XYZT(where T is time)
If we are in vectorXYZT, then moving in the classic sense of the word simply reduces our movement in the direction of time, and increase our movement in X Y or Z.
This is actually an observed result of moving at high velocity. One experiment loaded an atomic clock on a jet-liner and kept an atomic clock on the ground. The jet-liner flew around at high speed for a while and eventually the clock on the jet-liner was a small fracton of a second slower than the clock on the ground.
This is also demonstrated with E=mc². In Einstein’s theory E = the total energy (which is both potential and kinetic) and is derived from a different formula than the E=1/2mv² that you are referring to. Your formula is the kinetic energy formula and it’s derived from the work formula, where Work = Force over distance (or Work = vector(Force) x delta R(which is change in disposition) if you want to get technical) The two formulas are not the same even though they look similar, one is explaining the total energy of a set, the other is explaining the energy of a set in relative motion.
All of this is well and good. I agree that they are not correct, but I don’t think it’s to the effect that you indicate, and it certainly is not in the method you indicate. My completely unproven, non-math thinking is that we cannot adequately measure movement in the direction of time (vector(T)). This complicates everything, since we can only assume that the observed speed of light is the maximum attainable vector and that it is moving in XYZ entirely and ignoring T. We have to assume this because of our inability to measure T objectively.
I have a feeling that when we can measure T, we will find that light is also moving in a direction of T, but probably in a very slight amount. Thus, c will remain undefined in an absolute sense until this happens. This makes the theory technically wrong (similar to newtonian principals, or the pythagorean theorum) but practically functional. E=mc², as we currently understand it, explains a whole lot about our universe…The next leap, however, will come from our ability to define constants precisely.
-Demablogue