Hopefully, the LHC results will provide some of these insights, as well as in recorded spikes in radio emissions.

At least, I hope something is revealed.

dont get fooled by those lurid knock offs.
Serious writers dont repeat the sensationalistic aspect of the story.
If at all, science expects an incredibly tiny baby black hole, much smaller than an atom. What's more, it should evaporate immediately. Black holes give off radiation. And the black hole would be so incredibly small and hot, it would radiate itself away in less than 0,00000000000000000000000001 seconds! That’s why real physicists feel pretty confident about working with the LHC. No problem if a black hole shows up. According to the laws of physics, black holes from the lab just shouldn’t be stable.

This lurid speculations are there to trap you into website hits for the authors to make money with your fear.

If the LHC could generate mini black holes, I really would like to be assured that they WILL evaporate in nano seconds and not 'get away'. I expect/hope the people building the LHC have considered this issue, because "Oops!" would not be a very satisfactory response if Hawking radiation hasn't been confirmed yet (Has it?) or if it doesn't work as quickly as theory suggests. (This is not my area of expertise.)

Ron

the funding of LHC was not really dedicated to hunting primordial black holes.
I dont think that the spending of money gives evidence to the significance of a speculation by some fanfarons.
Votre bien dévoué francois chateau

As for the string theory.
I think it is not there to be taken as a kind of religion for crackpots that dream of a reason.
It is work in progress with stunning results in consolidation of GTR and QT. The difference to the speculation here is that there are some bright minds working seriously in theorethical physics.
The empirical verification might never come, or only in some decades when the current constructs of String theory have evolved to something completely different.
As Ian said it. He can make a living for years by delivering speculations to your type of scientist.

Now, I care not one way or the other for String Theory, but all of you armchair 'scientists' and your anti-string theory rants – Blah Blah Blah. Umm, we've HEARD IT ALL BEFORE. Yes, string theory is highly speculative. No, it is currently not backed by any sort of empiric evidence or currently testable. But just because something is not currently testable does not mean that it isn't fundamentally falsifiable, which is the actual prerequisite for a scientific theory, isn't it?

If you recall, general relativity wasn't testable when it was proposed either. A while later, ONE TEST was made and passed, namely the shift in the perihelion of Mercury, and that was it for years. It is STILL on the limits of our abilities to make stringent tests of GR. But even though it wasn't, at that stage, testable, it was falsifiable. Just because something is beyond our current ability to test does not mean it is not true, or at least a close approximation.

I mean, I don't really want to argue the point too far seeing as I'm sure that you've all thought about it very hard. You may have even read 'A Brief History of Tme' and several other serious tomes on the subject. So I'll just put it out there – seeing as you are so acquainted with the machinery of particle physics and cosmology, and seeing as your sense of beauty and aesthetic lead you to strongly feel that string theory can't be correct, what papers have you published in the journals recently that have a better explanatory power and are currently testable?

lol, Ian you are so double-tongued with your readers.

I hate it when my boyfriend talks in miracles about astrophysics. Ian is my favorite writer. It is so inspiring when he explains these fancy things like black holes and tells these scary stories about them.
It often gives me goose bumps. ooohh.
And I can tease my boy friend by repeating some of Ians sentences. It is great fun.

thanks Ian

Dont blame my friend Ian. He is a serious guy. It is not him that asks for stories about black holes and a dozen of dimension. He is just a slave to our wishes.

You are very likely just one of this smart asses that cant stand the humor of Ian.
Chill out and enjoy when Ian delivers what we want.
bernard right

Certainly it needs believers.
But hey, thats what universe today is all about.
Believers and adepts.

That makes us strong and makes the difference to all those real scientists.
they only accept what is proven.

We are free to dream with Ian anything that sounds good.

primordial black holes from LHC.
Hawking radiation that difts slowly in 6 or seven or 11 or 20 dimensions.

I dont care. It is beautiful in itself.

Ian give us more of this fine stuff.

We pay you by visiting the site and let you make money with the ads.

fair deal.

If you have a problem with what I have written, please set me straight. I just took an interesting story and reported on it. If there are any inaccuracies or misinterpretations please send me the corrections and I will address the problem.

If not, then discuss the article and don't attack the writer, as I've said before, I don't make this stuff up…

Cheers, Ian

You are the idol of the ones that have less brains to understand all these complicated mathematics.

In your articles i have always get the feeling to understand the deepest depths of the universe.

This is a gift.
You make the most advanced theories and the extremely difficult physics a piece of cake also for blockheads like me – at least you make me feel so.

thanks forgiving me a 3 digit IQ.

Go ahead, Roger

Check out this video- http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

I haven't read the book but this clip should help you begin to understand the theory.

Hilarious how you take then for a fool by addressing their weaknesses.

Your a bugger indeed.
Let them orbit.

To Ron Evans: I also wondered about this problem with the LHC, but the energies are probably too small to generate any large black holes. They are more likely to be created and then rapidly evaporate in a fraction of a microsecond (if Hawking radiation has its way), so their time-scale and size will be of little danger. Primordial black holes could cause damage to planets if they were sufficiently large… There's a lot of "ifs", "mights" and "coulds", but all doing well over the next few years we can begin finding some definites

Hope that helps…

You need to get inside your own brain and observe the myriad convolutions of the nerve tissue there. Ever look at the Calabi-Yau topologies?

No doubt these xtra dimensions theorized exist only at Planck-lengths in the domain of quantum physics.

First, I also very much appreciate the news on Universe today. While I know that "String theory/fantasy/ whatever you want to call it" is an unproven and so far an unprovable theory, it is still something that has consumed a lot of scientific effort over the past 30 years so I don't mind hearing about what is being done to test it. I'd also like to hear things about other theories like quantum gravity and doubly special relativity and such.

However, in this article you mention that primodial black holes could come to rest inside a planet and slowly consume the planet planet from within. Then you go on to say,

"… When the Large Hadron Collider goes online in May, it is hoped that the high energies generated may produce mini-black holes (amongst other cool things) where research can be done to look for the string theory extra dimensions. …"

The question comes to mind, "Is this wise?" If mini black holes are generated on Earth where there is an abudance of mass to 'feed on', wouldn't they quickly settle to the core of our planet and begin consuming the Earth just as you said the primodial black holes could?

I know that sounds like a bad Hollywood movie plot, but the question is real.

Thanks,

Ron

I know how you feel, but . . .

Although there are no testable predictions so far from string theory, because our equipment can't reach that small, if the string folks are right it can explain many things. That's why it generates such excitement.

My guess is that the string theorists are off in the wrong direction, but even if they only get negative results, then we have a better understanding of how the universe doesn't work.