trash

As long as it has mass, it has to be moving slower than 3x10^8ms.
Supprisingly enough, most of the collision particles are moving close to that speed and there is no problem detecting them.
Even when something like a neutrino is created with no charge and a very tiny mass and not even directly detectable in the cloud chamber itself, neighbouring particles betray it's presence. The vectors of those particles add up, when they don't, there is an undectectable particle present.
This is how neutrinos were discovered.

In the case of a micro black hole, the mass and energy can't be destroyed, so the rules of newtonian physics still apply.

Even in an extreme case where the new particle's gravitational field is huge by comparison to other particles, and that particle itself is undetectable, the movement of the neighbouring particles in that field will also betray its presence.

The general consideration is that if it isn't detectable either directly or indirectly, then it doesn't exist.

We might well say that gamma rays didn't exist before they were discovered.
But this isn't a coherent statement. If you'd proposed the idea of gamma rays without supporting evidence. Their existance and effects would not be considered until such time.
The Michaelson Morley experiment is one episode in science which all students should be aware of. The experiment itself was a failure, but we learnt from that failure and progressed.
We could have continued to deny the absence of results and continued to look for something which just was not there.

If there's no evidence, it doesn't exist.
It's a bitter pill to swallow sometimes.

In the example you described nomeat... lets say that two protons collide and a micro black hole is formed by most of the mass of the two particles.
If the constituant mass say moves off in another dimension (not the correct way to talk about extra dimensions) and it vanishes from "the classic 4" while the left over particles are left behind. Their mass and energies will quickly be added up and we will either come to the conclusion that 1+1=10 or that we lost 8 units in the collision.

Now we can't detect those eight units, but what is detectable is.... that their missing !

Then one of the possible theories like the example you proposed might be considered.

My personal view is a little more conservative. I'm expecting a new subclass of higgs particles rather than just one, or particles going missing.


Extra dimensions while I think of them.
This is another think tank experiment that anybody reading this thread can play. Describing properties of extra dimensions.

Some examples.
# Every point in space has all of the dimensions passing through it.

Pick a point in space, from that point you can always move, up/down, left/right, forward/back. If you consider time a dimension, then time also exists at any point in space you use.

# Each dimension is the complex conjigate of any other dimension.
Using the classical three dimensions as an example, up/down is always at right angles to left/right and both of these are at right angles to forward/back.


I can't help but think that gravity is some how dimensionally related.
It's effects appear to be able to change the classic 4 dimensions.
One might consider it to be a dimension in itself.
Consider time. Does space change when time changes.
Well in this universe, apparently it does.
As time passes, the universe expands. So the first three dimensions are always getting longer.
Another thought is that as we travel faster, time slows down.
Or another way to think of it is that the more time slows down, the more asymetrical space appears to be.

nomeat

Took damn long for them to grasp that the experiment was actually not a failure.
Sudden analogies come to my mind with scientists of the 19th century days being convinced in aether and those of today in Hawking radiation.
As we can not detect it we would need at least an experiment to rule out that it exist.
Creating micro black holes in LHC might not be the most ideal approach.

If energy or mass can disappear from a black hole in a different "dimension" or better said a different time reference frame, then energy or mass from another time frame would eventually have to become apparent to us... a micro black hole could suddenly appear in a few years in CERN, one that was created and "evaporated" this year... only it might not evaporate any more, perhaps even be bigger.

Gravity deserves to be seen as a dimension.
It changes time, slows down light and can deflect it, it can radiate in waves and all it's real.
What if I would say we don't need height as a dimension.
We could use gravitational time dilation instead.

tytower

Some of you blokes are pretty damn stupid
I make a post and get a reply as above and suddenly I'm the one at fault.

If you don't want to be called stupid or a clown or an out and out idiot then don't have a go at me .

Pretty simple really don't call me names and I won't call you names .
What i beleive is what I post . You don't have to agree with it
That would be boring . I do however have the right to post whatever I damnwell please.

The point made in the first post is see it for yourself first because there a lot of fanciful dreamers out there who are just lost . They call themselves theoretical physicists. Hawkins is exactly the type I mean. People like Trash who believe them blindly are influential but wrong. He has never seen this done or could never do it but will tell you for certain it is right .

I dont post for the likes of Trash and Onefella., I post to ask the young people of this world to think for themselves first.

How many people do you know who have an opinion on something but have never experienced it themselves. When you do get to experience it you find it is completely different to what you expected or much ,much harder than you realised. Use your brains

trash

Ok, you overstepped you mark. Thank you for telling us of your ability to read minds. My response is BITE ME ! You haven't even read any of Steven Hawking's books. Fvck, you can't even get his name right.
Common Tytower, by this logic Einstein is wrong because the man was never able to demonstrate the exchange of matter for energy.

No, you post looking for people who agree with you and get upset when you discover that those people don't exist.

Please don't quote hillsong surmons here !

Artilect

Micro Blackholes are theoretically created at the Barrier between space and our atmophere. The energy of particles hitting our atmosphere is so high that even the LHC @ CERN is not capable of producing those energys. I think the Physics that states these clames was disproven in 1912. Though many people still use the 1907 theory which is wrong.

__________________
Sextus Empiricus advises that we should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs, that is, we should neither affirm any belief as true nor deny any belief as false.

Pyrrho stated that "nothing is in itself true or false. It only appears so. In the same way, nothing is in itself good or evil. It is only opinion, custom, law, which makes it so."

trash

Yes, some very high energy paticles in cosmic rays up to 10^20eV. That is a huge amount of energy for a single particle.
But most cosmic rays are less than 10GeV (10^10eV).
The LHC is to produce particles with slightly less than 10^13eV.

In a particle accellerator it isn't just one particle, it's trillions of them and the particle flux is high enough that collisions are more likely.

I am not sure how common 10^20 cosmic particles are in the universe, but it would not be impossible to suggst that these particles can and probably do on occasions collide, and a f/pi*r^3 chance (rare) of that occuring head on.

I can imagine what the collision fragments would be or how long they would last, but observation of such a collision would be impossible to observe by chance in free space let alone here on earth.

You're right though... not much chance of a black hole.