How is CERN not creating Black Holes?

[Justice For All]

The generally accepted model of The Big Bang is that photons in an early, hot and dense state of the Universe collided and expanded into the known Universe today. Scientists at CERN have been trying to recreate these conditions with the Large Hadron Collider ever since it has been created, and they have come 'relatively' close.

My question is, however, how are they not creating supermassive, or just massive black holes? When massless or elementary particles collide they rip fabrics in spacetime and create black holes; which are still pretty much nature's most elusive mystery and we know little about. I did a quick Google search and the only thing that I can conclude is that it is due to something called '

You must be registered to see links

' which is basically black holes do not solely suck matter in; but they also spew it out, which causes the black hole to shrink until it disappears into 'nothing'

Scientists at CERN have run numerous successful experiments, but you also may be asking yourself, "What do they expect to happen if they collide 2 elementary particles and recreate the Big Bang?" Well, for starters, physicists theorize that the particles involved in the original Big Bang were traveling at 'faster than light' speeds, and not to mention, the Universe was in a completely different state than what it is now. The conditions were more nursing for what happened with the Big Bang than here on Earth or in any CERN laboratory.

 

[Mucski]

They are not so much into recreating the Big Bang than Learning about new particles. There's still 90% of the universe nobody understands and there are still unkown elements out there that can't be observed or tested neither in a lab or in their original location.

 

[Justice For All]

Physicists have created tiny black holes on a few occasions though, the only reason they weren't sustained I'm lead to believe is the proton beams of energy in the colliders were not of high enough energy to really create anything significant. Like I said in my OP, thanks to Hawking Radiation the black holes just turn into 'white holes' and dissipate but what if they collided the beams at high enough energies to sustain a black hole?

 

[LordDemonMan]

Don't cross the streams! But seriously, we're way too underqualified to discuss this on a productive level.

 

[Justice For All]

Well I mean we all have to start somewhere, right? :


I've been tirelessly studying loop quantum gravity/theory and black holes among many other things in the related quantum physics field, as I want to eventually at least contribute to solving some of the great mysteries of our universe and become a 'successful' astrophysicist. I would love to definitively prove the origins of the universe, and especially the conditions before the Big Bang, so that we as a human species may advance as one rather than a division among the people throughout the world (I'm talking about religion).


Contrary to the 'New World Order' generally being thought of as bad, the idea of being globally united would make us stronger in the end. It's just the motives behind it (money and power) that taint the end product. Anyways, I understand using particle colliders, and creating conditions similar to the Big Bang helps us better understand the cosmological model, but like I was previously asking what happens if we collide beams with a high enough energy to sustain a black hole? The only data I can come up with about CERN creating black holes is

You must be registered to see links

; and they just state that, like I was saying thanks to Hawking Radiation the black holes are not of high enough energy or mass to sustain themselves.

 

[Kreeate]

From an astronomy website :

"The simplest way to explain this is that nothing happens in CERN that doesn't happen all over the universe and in the upper atmosphere of the Earth or on the surface of all the moons, planets and stars every day. For example, the Oh My God particle was traveling with several million times the energy of the particle collisions inside CERN. At those speeds, accelerating the particle further doesn't add much velocity, what they're basically doing is adding energy or mass to the particle and only slightly increasing it's velocity as it's speed gradually moves closer to the speed of light.

What makes CERN useful, isn't that the high speed collisions don't happen anywhere else (they happen all the time all over the Universe). What makes it useful is the million dollar equipment that zooms in on those collisions, recording what happens with the best cameras in the world. We can't predict when and where a very fast moving cosmic particle will hit the Earth, but they know when and where the CERN particles are going to collide, because that's planned to happen in a specific place and time.

So, if those kinds of collisions happen all the time and no planet or star has ever been observed being eaten by a particle collision created black hole, then such events are, at the very least, extremely rare.

Add to that, Hawking radiation dictates that black holes that small should evaporate before they can eat anything. So, when Brian Cox laughs at that question, he has good reason to laugh, because it was never a real risk and it's more of a joke question than a genuine risk.

Now, when you say "pressure" to create black holes. The pressure inside a black hole, or, I should say, pressure inside a Neutron Star about to turn into a black hole, or the pressure inside a collapsing core of a very large star about to create a black hole - those pressures are crazy high, but if we could re-create that pressure on earth (We can't), but if we could, it wouldn't be enough to make a black hole. Pressure alone doesn't do it, you need mass (at last about 3 solar masses) to fit within a certain size and the less mass you have, the greater the required density (and greater pressure) is needed to achieve the necessary mass to schwarzchild radius ratio. The pressure required inside the forming black hole actually decreases as the mass of the black hole increases. (based on simple pressure equations and schwarzchild radii). Equal pressure in a lab on Earth wouldn't accomplish it.

What makes black holes theoretically possible is the small quantum size and possibility of extra dimensions and quantum rules that only apply to the very small, so it's a very different set of circumstances.

Collisions in CERN are measured in Electron-volts. It was theorized that if there were extra dimensions on the quantum level, then micro-black holes might form at the energy of CERN's collisions (this would imply that black holes of this type form in Earth's upper atmosphere all the time, implying they're not dangerous).

But so far, no luck. No micro-black-holes have been observed. They should dissipate very rapidly but their decay streams should be recognizable so they should get noticed, but so far, none have been spotted and as a result, there's no evidence of extra dimensions. That doesn't mean they're not there, and that micro-black-holes can't be created, but so far there's no evidence that they've been created up to about 13 trillion electron volts, the current peak of CERN's collision energy."