# Microscopic Black Hole Signatures in LHC



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Microscopic Black-Hole Signatures in LHC



> A search for microscopic black hole production and decay in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV has been conducted by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC, using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 inverse picobarns. Events with large total transverse energy are analyzed for the presence of multiple high-energy jets, leptons, and photons, typical of a signal expected from a microscopic black hole. Good agreement with the expected standard model backgrounds, dominated by QCD multijet production, is observed for various final-state multiplicities. Limits on the minimum black hole mass are set, in the range 3.5 -- 4.5 TeV, for a variety of parameters in a model with large extra dimensions, along with model-independent limits on new physics in these final states. These are the first direct limits on black hole production at a particle accelerator.


This has been an issue that's bothered me for some time. Though the black-holes produced (far as I know) aren't large enough to destroy the earth, these scientists kept claiming that it wasn't possible to produce a singularity at all.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

particles hit the earth's atmosphere regularly with energies in excess of 10^20eV... 
LHC maximum energies are something like 10^9? Think we'll be ok lol.

unless they can make a particle accelerator more powerful than a neutron star or supernova roud:


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Still, the principle - they lied to us.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

RobynC said:


> Still, the principle - they lied to us.


that would imply they knew exactly what would happen before even measuring anything. They're not all-knowing. 
You can't even touch an object without a small but existent chance of your hand quantum-tunneling through it. 
Calculated risks. Recreate something that happens constantly elsewhere with no bad effects, should be fine.


----------



## Borrowed Lunacy (Sep 30, 2011)

Black holes of that size should be evaporating so fast they'd never be able to absorb enough atoms to destroy the earth. I wouldn't worry about this.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Still, the principle - they lied to us.


Imagine the shitstorm if they ever mentioned this possibility. They either didn't know, or knew and hid it to avoid (even more) panic.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

RobynC said:


> Microscopic Black-Hole Signatures in LHC
> 
> 
> This has been an issue that's bothered me for some time. Though the black-holes produced (far as I know) aren't large enough to destroy the earth, these scientists kept claiming that it wasn't possible to produce a singularity at all.


Miniature black holes are created naturally all the time. Just relax. 

They didn't lie about anything because they do not possess the power of foresight. And even if they did, they had to. The ignorance of the majority would see to it that the project be shut down over silly fears and misconceptions.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Still, the principle - they lied to us.


They never that black holes could never be created, they said it was unlikely. Also, that article is three years old.

Heres a more recent one. Please do more reasearch before crying wolf.

http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/search-microscopic-black-holes-march-2012



> The ST distributions from data are examined for deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model (SM), which would be an indication of black hole production. We find no such deviations, and proceed to set limits on minimum masses of black holes. We find that microscopic black holes would have to have masses above 3.8 to 5.3 TeV, depending on the model in consideration.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Krou

Considering they were rumblings about the possibility early on I think they might have wanted to avoid a shitstorm


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @_Krou_
> 
> Considering they were rumblings about the possibility early on I think they might have wanted to avoid a shitstorm


despite your ridiculous and paranoid fearmongering, it is not the case that every person who says something that turns out to be wrong is maliciously manipulating you.


----------



## Aether (Apr 27, 2010)

Uh.. it’s probably not a problem.. probably.. but I’m showing a small discrepancy in.. well, no, it’s well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining sequence.

...

Shutting down. Attempting shutdown. It’s not.. it’s not shutting down.

...


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@_aestrivex_

Paranoid fearmongering? I actually wasn't really all that critical about the LHC experiments at first but when you find out that they

Stating the possibility of creating a singularity was unlikely
Possibly had some intentions to form microsingularities from the outset (whether or not they thought it was harmful)

I'm not very happy about it. At the very least, they were simply wrong and I'm glad nothing bad happened. However if they were intending to form micro-singularities and were telling people it couldn't happen or was unlikely they outright lied to us.


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)




----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

El Psy Congroo


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34

El Psy Congroo? I don't know what that means...


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

RobynC said:


> @_0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34_
> 
> El Psy Congroo? I don't know what that means...


Its from Steins; Gate. The premise of the anime was that CERN (SERN to avoided being sued) lied about the blackholes. They said the LHC did not produce black holes to cover up. Actually, they managed to form Kerr Black holes. 

If they were able to form Kerr black holes, they could possibly make time machines and take over the world. They've probably only revealed this information because its too late for us to stop them at this point (should I really be feeding you? XD)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

If they could make time-machines, wouldn' they have
done it arleady?


----------



## Borrowed Lunacy (Sep 30, 2011)

RobynC said:


> If they could make time-machines, wouldn' they have
> done it arleady?


How would you know? It's not like a timeline shift would be noticeable. You don't suddenly notice something's different. There very well could be universes where humans took a different course in History, i.e. the Romans never adopted Christianity as the State religion, Greek Philosophy was lost to the sand of time, Hitler won the war in Russia etc.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

Borrowed Lunacy said:


> How would you know? It's not like a timeline shift would be noticeable. You don't suddenly notice something's different. There very well could be universes where humans took a different course in History, i.e. the Romans never adopted Christianity as the State religion, Greek Philosophy was lost to the sand of time, Hitler won the war in Russia etc.


And thus is the amusing concepts theorems and whatnot behind parallel universes. Some theories I know of even stating that EVERY single action in the universe creates a parallel reality upon it occurring, one for each and every possible choice and outcome.


EDIT: forgot quite a bit

It is a very structured theory, and interaction between realities are very improbable from what I remember reading. Now, on the other hand, if we had the T.A.R.D.I.S. here, then there might be a drastically increased likelihood of interaction between timelines. Hell, lets just agree on the fact that Doctor Who explains it all XD (I also remember reading another theory on time travel recently, pretty much only stating that you can travel forwards and 'maybe' sideways. So if that is the formula for it, there isn't much of a threat in the way of "altering" timelines. and even then, with the way the main theory regarding alternate realities go, it would just simply create another timeline.)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Borrowed Lunacy said:


> How would you know? It's not like a timeline shift would be noticeable.


They probably would have went back and time and either killed of or discredited anybody who thought time travel would be possible; they probably would have either discouraged or killed any scifi writer who proposed it.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 24, 2012)

RobynC said:


> They probably would have went back and time and either killed of or discredited anybody who thought time travel would be possible; they probably would have either discouraged or killed any scifi writer who proposed it.


Except that if events are deterministic, as it would have to be for a time-machine to exist, you couldn't change the course of time by going back into it, seeing as you always did go back into time.

EDIT: To clarify, if the belief that achieving time travel is possible was a prerequisite for the creation of the time machine, one couldn't go back into time to stop that from happening, as it clearly did not happen, as evidenced by the fact that you have one.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Wormwood said:


> Except that if events are deterministic, as it would have to be for a time-machine to exist


Why?



> you couldn't change the course of time by going back into it, seeing as you always did go back into time.


Then why would somebody want to develop a time-machine?


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 24, 2012)

RobynC said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Then why would somebody want to develop a time-machine?


To learn more about the past? Or the future? Ultimately, yeah, it's futile. I didn't say that it would be useful in any way.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

RobynC said:


> If they could make time-machines, wouldn' they have
> done it arleady?


Under all time machine hypotheses (except the one from Futurama that could travel to the end of the universe and loop around to the past), you can only travel back in time to the point that a time machine was created... so its possible that as soon as we create a time machine, time travelers (or messages more likely) from the future will pop out of it. But think of what you could do with important messages from the future like this if you controlled the only means of time travel, the LHC. You would know of all the important events that were going to happen, and you could change them to your benefit, and push the world into your vision of the future.

Obama finds Osama who after we failed for so many years, and then Obama wins an election with such low approval, which no president has done in history. You think that's a coincidence? :ninja:


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

RobynC is actually from the future... a dystopian world where every fear we had came true! She is prevented from actively changing history (by the Time Travel Council Accord of 2139). To work around this, she advises humanity by posing as someone asking thought provoking questions on PerC, knowing that current members will eventually produce future leaders that can reshape the nightmare awaiting us!!!

In fact, her signature proves she is from the future because there's no way she can be deceased in our modern-day reality.


:wink:


-ZDD


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34



> Under all time machine hypotheses (except the one from Futurama that could travel to the end of the universe and loop around to the past), you can only travel back in time to the point that a time machine was created... so its possible that as soon as we create a time machine, time travelers (or messages more likely) from the future will pop out of it. But think of what you could do with important messages from the future like this if you controlled the only means of time travel, the LHC. You would know of all the important events that were going to happen, and you could change them to your benefit, and push the world into your vision of the future.


Still wouldn't there be a reason to bump off anybody who starts saying time travel technology is real?



> Obama finds Osama who after we failed for so many years, and then Obama wins an election with such low approval, which no president has done in history. You think that's a coincidence? :ninja:


Actually there are lots of scenarios regarding the death of Osama bin Laden


OBL might have been dead a couple of years and kept on ice (i.e. during the Bush administration)
- Under this scenario Bush planned to unveil the body when it was politically convenient
- People however already suspected he'd "find" him a week or two before the election for gain and the idea was shelved
- Obama claimed to have lead the assault that killed him; then killed the Seal Team responsible for BL's death because they knew that he was dead awhile
OBL was a CIA asset: What better way to keep a dangerous group of people under your control than to put a spy in charge of the entity
- There is compelling evidence to support this claim: OBL was originally a CIA asset fighting the Soviet Union in the 1970's and 1980's; he did create a database which was later called "The Base" which Al Qaeda translates to "The Base" which included his operatives; since the 1970's and 1980's the CIA did have a desire to get some domestic intelligence capability (Can you say DHS?) with a terrorist attack; ample evidence suggests that our government knew the attack was occurring and let it happen (The head of the FBI even said he didn't want to hear anything else about a terrorist attack; the ball was dropped so many times that it makes you wonder if the game was thrown; there was knowledge of terrorists training in the US to fly planes; regulations were changed to require the President or VP to authorize a shootdown of an airliner which previously an officer in NORAD could do; put options were placed on UA and AA (airlines involved int he attack) -- bets the stock would plummet -- which was traced to a high-up in the CIA; and a training exercise was carried out on the day of the attack _(Forget about all the crazy bullshit about nanothermite, remote controlled airplanes, explosive charges in the buildings -- the rest explains pretty much everything)_
Allegedly a CIA agent met OBL in a hospital: Why was he not killed? Far as I know he wasn't...
OBL made a variety of bizarre videos about environmentalism on at least one occasion which made no sense
After being "killed" the body was dumped into the ocean, no video was taken of his head with a hole in one eye and half his brain blown out the back
The SEAL team responsible for "killing him" was killed, perhaps to eliminate the possibility the people who allegedly "killed" him might say "We didn't do shit"

@Zombie Devil Duckie

LMAO!


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

RobynC said:


> @_0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34_
> 
> 
> Still wouldn't there be a reason to bump off anybody who starts saying time travel technology is real?


Those who say time travel is real and actually effect the future would be killed. Those who say time travel is real and don't effect the future in a way that hinders their plans would not be. And, they would know the future, so they could easily tell the difference. In fact, they wouldn't carelessly kill off people if it was needed for their plan because time is complicated and it could have the opposite effect.



> Actually there are lots of scenarios regarding the death of Osama bin Laden
> 
> 
> OBL might have been dead a couple of years and kept on ice (i.e. during the Bush administration)
> ...


It is very suspicious now that I think about it.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

RobynC said:


> If they could make time-machines, wouldn' they have
> done it arleady?


Look, I'm going to tell you this because it doesn't really matter in the long run. We fucked up majorly the very first time. It look -years- of searching and funneling money (we really found the Higgs 8 years ago) before we were able to reinstate a reality where Star Trek wasn't canceled after half a season. So don't really mess with it anymore. Lesson learned.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

RobynC said:


> Microscopic Black-Hole Signatures in LHC
> 
> 
> This has been an issue that's bothered me for some time. Though the black-holes produced (far as I know) aren't large enough to destroy the earth, these scientists kept claiming that it wasn't possible to produce a singularity at all.


No mini "black hole" created in the LHC could be self perpetuating longer than a microsecond before evaporating. Their greatest fear is from people like you who, lacking understanding of physics and cosmology and the subatomic manipulations involved, will, as are Luddites are want to do, create hysteria among the ignorant masses, and that hysteria might go viral retarding their work.


----------

