Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atom Smasher May Create "Black Saturns"

Posted by kdawson on from the distinctive-Hawking-radiation dept.

David Shiga writes "If we ever make black holes on Earth, they might be much stranger objects than the star-swallowing monsters known to exist in space. According to a new theory, any black hole that pops out of the Large Hadron Collider under construction in Switzerland might be surrounded by a black ring — forming a microscopic 'black Saturn'. This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough." An evocative excerpt from the article: "...there is an outside chance that in a few years in a tunnel near Geneva, physicists will make a black hole far smaller than a proton and circled by a squashed four-dimensional black doughnut."

7 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you actually suggesting that string theory might actually predict something that the standard model doesn't, and what it predicts might actually be measurable?! That's crazy talk! Next you'll be suggesting that string theory is disprovable and therefore actually science. I'll believe it when it happens.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Such a theory is predictive. As it stands, it predicts that that is all the data we will ever have, or that any further data will exactly mimic what we've already got. That's why it is such poor science; it is ludicrously easy to falsify.

      Science's definition depends a great deal on who you talk to. Most everyone who has studied would agree that Plato did a bit of science. In fact, Plato's science was pretty amazing for its time. You recall the "four (or five) elements"? Plato said that each element was in fact tiny tiny versions of the Platonic solids. For instance, fire was made of tetrahedrons, and it hurt because it was sharp. When things decayed, the reason they smelled strongly was that the elements were actually breaking up into little triangles (their faces), and those triangles were small, so they got into our noses easily.

      Plato's science wasn't very predictive at all. Pretty much purely descriptive. And yet it was a sterling example of early science.

      Quantum Field Theory in and of itself is barely predictive. Pretty much its only predictions are directly its assumptions, such as the Lorentz Invariance I mentioned previously. Perhaps it is not science (and if you say that QFT is not science, then I might well agree that string theory is not science either, but I would then argue that we certainly need QFT to get the SM, which is science), but most people agree it is.

      It is of course difficult to come up with decent examples of purely descriptive science, because of course purely descriptive science is very poor science indeed, and is rightly largely ignored.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Now wait a minute.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science is the study of the disprovable. Man. Shouldn't have to explain this stuff....

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Now wait a minute.. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it?
      Yes, it is. But I do try to do my part to combat misconceptions, because public misconceptions about one part of science tend to hurt all of science in a small way.

      Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything.
      True. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community regards string theory as something which could very well be the most important thing since the relativities and QFT.

      Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not.
      As I tried to explain previously, but you obviously either didn't read or didn't grasp, you are comparing apples to oranges. The SM is a particular instance of QFT. Nobody has yet found a comparable particular instance of string theory. You would in fact have just as difficult of a time disproving QFT as you would string theory, perhaps even more difficult of a time. For instance, suppose we did our searches for extra dimensions (these are done regularly at HEP labs) and found that our data supported a universe with 15 extra dimensions! This would rule out string theory without drastic modifications, but wouldn't hurt QFT at all. Wouldn't even hurt the SM.

      Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.
      If I shouldn't take it up with you, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place. If you're intending to hide behind a shield of "I don't really know what I'm talking about," then actually behave as if you don't know what you are talking about. Keep your mouth shut unless you've really got something worthwhile to say.

      Most of the scientific community that I am familiar with (experimental HEP) doesn't really much care for string theory, but neither do they think it is not science and is a waste of time. In other words, they and I largely agree. Now which scientific community did you want me to take this up with again? (and don't forget the concept of a vocal (and book-writing) minority. Only a tiny minority of scientists ever write pop-science books. Their opinions should not necessarily be considered representative.) In my opinion, it is the amateur public, who is easily and immensely swayed by a few popular books, and then who reinforce each others misconceptions by such things as posting to slashdot and saying "yeah, string theory, sucks doesn't it. I really hate it.", who need to be addressed.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:Now wait a minute.. by StarvingSE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it not science? I think what is called "string theory" should probably be renamed "String hypothesis" since that is what it really is IMHO. A science means following the scientific method, and the ideas proposed in string theory make up the hypothesis, and now researchers need to focus on experiments that test the theory. If the observable findings agree with the hypothesis on a regular basis, then we can call it a theory.

      But to call it "not science" is just ignorant. People used to laugh at individuals who thought the Earth was round you know..

      --
      I got nothin'
    5. Re:Now wait a minute.. by Discordantus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, the gp is right. H didn't say provable, he said disprovable. Huge difference. Evolution is probably not provable, but it is disprovable. This is also why creationism is not science: it is not disprovable (once an omnipotent God is in the picture, any disproof can be refuted).

  2. Third of all... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else.

    Third of all: The kind of (and energy of) collision in question occurs with non-trivial frequency when cosmic rays hit atoms in the atmosphere. If it created a long-lived black hole that could suck down a planet in a geologically short time we would have been down the drain LONG ago.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way