So no worries, even if they DID create a black hole, it will just "evaporate" by some unproven radiative phenomenon? Suuuuure...

Just another excuse to build an even bigger, more dangerous machine next time.

Number of black holes detected in nature that seem to have formed from gas giants being eaten by micro black holes because they are too small to have formed through stellar collapse: zero.

Number of high energy particles that exceed anything human civilization will be able to muster in the next few hundred years if ever and that hit gas giants and smaller objects: uncountable but a whole damn lot.

Number of people who have put those two facts together: Not many it seems.

Watching Chicken Littles forecast doom at the hands of reckless mad scientists: priceless.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...

Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...

Aaah, the house painter still likes to comment on what a poor artist Micheal Angelo was. Your's is a truly ridiculous line of reasoning, given the reality that ya don't even understand anything in the article. But at least ya can find your toe to hold on to.

And good ol Zeph blithly pandering to his fanbase of 0.

Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...

Aaah, the house painter still likes to comment on what a poor artist Micheal Angelo was. Your's is a truly ridiculous line of reasoning, given the reality that ya don't even understand anything in the article. But at least ya can find your toe to hold on to.

Good analogy, kinda like astrophysicists trying to understand plasma physics. There seems to be an overabundance of house painters trying to figure out how the electricians wired the house.

they will just say: "You know, our calculations weren't exact, sorry.." ... and after then they will get sucked too.

Just one more of the many great reasons why we need to establish independent colonies elsewhere, and fast.

Could a black hole where the earth used to be be useful in any way? Any ideas?

esearchers find it would require 2.4 times less energy to create a black hole than thought

That little bit of useless information isn't even fascinating.

Bottom Line is that by 2010, expts. at 7 Tev did Not produce any black holes at LHC. That was the predicted threshold for quantum gravity effects. Something ventured but nothing seen. What a shame.

This made me wonder. If you could keep on pumping kinetic energy into a particle, would it eventually have sufficient kinetic energy to form a black hole?

This would be quite odd because if you had two particles doing this (with low relative speed) then they wouldn't perceive each other as black holes.

What gives?

@Natello. In dense Cheese Hole analogy model, the cheese around the holes doesn't allow for varying vacuum density because it's a frikkin vacuum. This is supported by Casimir's dense mayonaise theory http://apod.nasa....801.html in which a fixed amount of empty space-time in vacuum will not produce more zero point energy if you make it denser in one of it's 4 dimensions.

then again, we all knew Cheese and Mayo would go well together.

Cheese hole modelling doesn't work well with French or Swiss cheese and therefore the French and Swiss bungholes @ CERN refuse this model.

Aparently, despite the fact my theory holds up with every new scientific discovery, you have to revert to alternative theories as well, which makes me suspect you are part of the Swiss/French mainstream physics conspiracy.

So please go back to your beloved FR/CH with your foamy soapbubbles and stink cheese.

sorry, here is a more accurate link, sorry for the religious side note though:

http://wdtprs.com...forever/

Number of black holes detected in nature that seem to have formed from gas giants being eaten by micro black holes because they are too small to have formed through stellar collapse: zero.

I see, you mean a planetary mass black hole.

The reason they haven't detected those yet is because even if they do exist, they would need to be VERY active, eating some material, etc, in order to detect, and then you'd need to calculate their mass and distance.

Most "planetary mass" black holes, if they exist, would be orbiting a star, so it would be incredibly difficult to see them compared to the light of the star. They would probably need to be colliding with the star's asteroid belts or Oort cloud in order to be visible, and they might only be visible for exactly one moment in their entire orbit, or even in their entire history.

Still, looking for planetary mass black hole, or a ONE solar mass black hole, would be the best way to substantiate microscopic black holes...

Still, looking for planetary mass black hole, or a ONE solar mass black hole, would be the best way to substantiate microscopic black holes...

What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".

In dense aether model you will not pump the energy into particle itself, but into wake wave of vacuum, which is forming around it. This wake wave makes the http://www.aether...ndex.htm in similar way, like the introduction of energy into soap foam makes this foam more dense. But if you're moving with high speed, you're surrounded with the wake wave of the same density, like the object observed. So from your perspective the vacuum around object observed would exhibit nothing exceptional.

dear nutello:

please desist. please! we all love your theory, ok? we really really do! it explains everything and we're profoundly grateful for your unrecongized genius. but now that we have all been thoroughly enlightened and have surely bookmarked your url, wouldn't it be more productive for you to enlighten folks at other websites? again, thank you and (hopefully) bon voyage!

What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".

A microscopic black hole is a black hole which starts out with something like atomic scale mass. They would presumably be formed at the beginning of the universe, or perhaps during particle collisions in supernovas or in the accretion disk of ordinary black holes, and then ejected into space.

i.e. solve the Schwarzchild radius of an object with one atomic mass unit.

A "sub-stellar" mass black hole, would presumably be formed by a microscopic black hole eating planets or brown dwarf stars.

If particle collisions could create stable black holes of any size with enough gravitational influence to consume a planet I think it's a fairly safe bet that our universe would be very different than it is today.

What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".

A microscopic black hole is a black hole which starts out with something like blahblah

No lurkker as you've been told many times the proper reply to Internet posters who are too lazy to answer their own questions by themselves is LOOK IT THE HELL UP.
http://en.wikiped...ack_hole

Look guys, there really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. In order to create something with enormous energy, you have to HAVE at least that much energy to start with. A black hole that could do any damage, or cause problems, would have to be created with enough energy to start with.

So until we get perpetual motion, and can create energy from nothing, I don't think black holes will be a threat anytime soon.