Exploding black holes rain down on Earth...

[K.I.L.E.R]

Are these mini black holes the size of a tennis ball? I want to put my foot in one.

This is scary indeed, this may be 1 step to proving the multiverse theory is indeed correct.

19:00 03 December 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

Are mini black holes raining down through the Earth's atmosphere? It is possible, says a team of physicists. They think this could explain mysterious observations from mountain-top experiments over the past 30 years.

Ordinary black holes form when stars explode at the end of their lives. The heavy stellar core can collapse into a superdense "singularity" whose gravity is so strong that nothing - not even light - can escape.

If some of physicists' favourite theories about extra dimensions are correct, it would also be possible for high-energy cosmic-ray particles from space to create black holes when they collide with molecules in the Earth's atmosphere (New Scientist print edition, 29 September 2001).

These black holes would be invisibly small, with a mass of only 10 micrograms or so. And they would be so unstable that they would explode in a burst of particles within around a billion-billion-billionth of a second.


Particle shower


Theodore Tomaras, a physicist at the University of Crete in Heraklion, Greece, and his Russian colleagues Andrei Mironov and Alexei Morozov wondered if these mini black holes might explain some strange observations made by cosmic-ray detectors in the Bolivian Andes and on a mountain in Tajikistan, central Asia.

The detectors record showers of particles that cascade through the atmosphere when a high-energy cosmic-ray particle smashes into molecules there.

In 1972, the Andean detector registered a mysterious signal. In contrast to a normal cosmic-ray collision, the cascade was unusually rich in charged, quark-based particles and far more particles turned up in the bottom part of the detector than in the top part. It was dubbed a "Centauro" event, because it looked like a little head on a surprisingly big body, like the half-man half-horse centaurs of mythology.

Since then, the detectors in Bolivia and Tajikistan have clocked up more than 40 Centauro-like events. Several explanations have been suggested: they might arise when hypothetical nuggets of strange-type quarks hit the detectors, or if the strong force between particles behaves unexpectedly when they have enormously high energies.


Natural explanation





Subscribe to New Scientist for more news and features

Related Stories


Cosmic rays may originate in quasars
22 April 2002

Black holes "detonating all over our Galaxy"
28 November 2001

Wimpzillas leave tracks say astronomers
3 June 2003


For more related stories
search the print edition Archive



Weblinks


Tomaras' paper (pdf)

Physics, University of Crete

Cosmic rays, NASA




But exploding black holes also fit the bill. The team has worked out what signal a detector should see if a cosmic ray creates a mini black hole that explodes nearby. The researchers' prediction is consistent with the Centauro-like events.

"We might be wrong, but it looks to us more natural than all other existing explanations," says Tomaras. The team hopes that detailed analysis of future Centauro-like events, as well as computer simulations of mini black holes exploding, will help to resolve the issue.

If they are right, the consequences would be stunning. As well as proving that tiny black holes exist, it would unveil hidden dimensions in our universe.

It would also show that the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva will soon be able to churn out black holes to order. Particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, due to start in 2007, would have enough energy to create thousands of black holes every day.

 

[Neeyik]

The event horizon of a 10 microgram black hole would only have a radius of 10^-32m so you'd be out of luck for trying to stick your foot into one. Why would this be evidence for the proof of any multiverse theory though?

 

[nutball]

Bah, more tripe from mathematicians with too much time on their hands.

 

[ByteMe]

Don't see why this is so interesting. I have an exploding black hole a few times a day.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Bah, more tripe from mathematicians with too much time on their hands.

Well it is only a theory for the time being.
Would you be interested in this if it becomes a proven theory?

 

[Gubbi]

Don't see why this is so interesting. I have an exploding black hole a few times a day.

Cut down on the buritos then

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[London Geezer]

KILER, what's with the sig? U got me thinking for like half an hour, trying to remember a Mr Anderson in LOTR...? What's that all about?? :?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

The actor playing Elrond is the same actor playing Agent Smith in the Matrix.

 

[London Geezer]

The actor playing Elrond is the same actor playing Agent Smith in the Matrix.

OH

MY

GOD


THAT'S WHERE I SAW THAT GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nutball]

Bah, more tripe from mathematicians with too much time on their hands.

Well it is only a theory for the time being.
Would you be interested in this if it becomes a proven theory?

I'm quite confident the theory will be proven: it will be proven wrong!

The reason I'm so dismissive is that we see a lot of these sorts of theories coming out every now and again to explain all sorts of stuff. They are really very little more than just interesting mathematical diversions.

Just because the theory fits the data, doesn't make it right. It's probably quite possible to explain the cosmic-ray observations with Exploding Bananas too, doesn't make it true. Theorists do this a lot, postulate wild and wacky models to explain various phenomena. It's what gives them their buzz. It's pretty harmless (though arguably a waste of the tax-payers money), and really only becomes a problem when they escape into the public arena.

All the multiverse stuff is just guff too, just extra widgets added to an incorrect theory to make it fit the data.

Did you see that in the same edition of New Scientist there's also an article calling into question the existence of Dark Energy? That's another example of extra knobs and dials being added to a theory to make it fit the observables.

There's a principle in science which goes along the lines "the simplest explanation is probably the correct one". This means that if you find yourself needing to add tweaks and extra dimensions and new forms of matter/energy to your theory, your theory is wrong. It doesn't tell you that these things exist, it tells you you're barking up the wrong tree.

</rant>

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Thanks Nutball. Yes, I did read the article on dark energy and I was really excited about it. Now that you have placed reality into perspective I will be more critical about these amazing theories.

They honestly did sound too good to be true. I just thought maybe there was some truth to these theories.

 

[London Geezer]

All the multiverse stuff is just guff too, just extra widgets added to an incorrect theory to make it fit the data.

Well some theories will never be proved at all, since the very nature of the theory of a multiverse makes it impossible to "go from one to the other" to put it simple. An infinite numbers of universes each with a different "choice patter" to our one, is a theory that will never be proved, just like the whole realm of Quantum-Krazy-theories, since the experiment is already biased when someone is looking at the model. When holding a pen vertical between the table and your finger, the "possibility" that the pen will fall into a direction is nearly infinite, meaning that the pen could fall in a nearly infinite number of directions/ways. At that moment our universe "splits" into many universes, one for every direction the pen takes when falling down. Multiply that into each and every different "choice" every atom of our universe "choses" to behave, and you get an idea of this infinite number of universes.
Like, according to the theory there is an universe out there which is exactly identical to our, with the only difference being that in that universe K.I.L.E.R. spelled his username without the dots (making much easier for everyone to write! )

Is it ever going to be proved? Impossible, the theory itself states it is impossible. Makes you wonder why someone would make the theory in the first place then...

 

[nutball]

Is it ever going to be proved? Impossible, the theory itself states it is impossible. Makes you wonder why someone would make the theory in the first place then...

Indeed, an untestable theory is useless, because by definition it has no relevant predictive power. It's only purpose is as an exercise in mathematics to keep otherwise dangerously deranged people off the streets

 

[London Geezer]

Is it ever going to be proved? Impossible, the theory itself states it is impossible. Makes you wonder why someone would make the theory in the first place then...

Indeed, an untestable theory is useless, because by definition it has no relevant predictive power. It's only purpose is as an exercise in mathematics to keep otherwise dangerously deranged people off the streets

hehe.. Yeah, well one could argue that a theory of that kind is a "pure" theory. A thought that has no real meaning. And as usual, at a certain critical point, things get into the realm of philosophy, where a theory is nothing more than a simple "belief" without any kind of proof, just like religion is.

 

[Bambers]

Well if such a theory models the visible universe accurately then its a valid theory imo. Complex numbers don't visibly exist, doesn't stop us from using them.

 

[Neeyik]

One of the first things I try to get into my students' heads is that physics is not "The Truth". Models and theories are not "proved"; they are simply tested against experimental or natural observations. All models are limited in some shape or form (many of them have to be, just so one can use them) but if the model and its predictions match the observations, then it is obviously consistent within the parameters of the recording.

If these limitations are well-defined, then the model stands a good chance of being highly consistent. For example, electron band theory is a good enough model to use for developing transistors, etc that operate at very high frequencies for years on end. Some models are not so well-defined though; multiverse theory being one such example of this.

<shrug> Every Institute of Physics meeting I attend, I tend to go off on my modelling rants, which empties a room faster than an eggy-fart...

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Neeyik funny.

Neeyik, are you saying that a model's validity is based upon it's limitations?

 

[Neeyik]

Neeyik, are you saying that a model's validity is based upon it's limitations?

Yes. For example, modelling gas behaviour - the various models that appeared over the years have applied strict limitations (all particles are equal size, impacts are 100% elastic, etc) but each successive one has been developed to expand the limits. Earlier models of a gas were only valid under certain conditions; modern ones are more generic.

 

[ByteMe]

Earlier models of a gas were only valid under certain conditions; modern ones are more generic.

Excuse me, but I think I might be of some use to you... so I'd like to apply for a job. I can produce an almost unlimited supply of gas (depends on what I eat). You could hire me as your own portable gas producer. Heck, I am even self maintaining. I never thought I could be so much use to the scientific community.