LHC’s Lack of Black Holes Rules Out Some Versions of String Theory

By Jennifer Welsh | December 17, 2010 4:22 pm

CMSYou know those black holes the Large Hadron Collider was going to make and kill us all? Well, not only are we still here, but the LHC doesn’t seem to be making black holes at all—their decay signature is markedly absent from the data collected so far.

While that is good for those of us who want to keep living (we jest—the hypothetical micro black holes posed no danger), it’s also helping physicists make up their minds about how many dimensions there are in our universe. The lack of black holes at the LHC nullifies some of the wackier versions of string theory which depend on multiple dimensions.

“In order for the LHC to produce some of these black holes, we really have to go beyond the normal theory of gravity,” [CERN theoretical physicist Michelangelo Mangano] said [two years ago]. “We have to assume that there are extra dimensions. By the way, there are many theories that have extra dimensions. Not all of them would give rise to black holes at the LHC. It’s only highly fine-tuned ones that make this possible.” [CosmicLog]

These extra dimensions, beyond the four that we experience, are needed to rectify the inconsistencies between general relativity (the physics of gravity and space-time) and quantum mechanics (the physics of subatomic particles). Some string theories predict that gravity is stronger in these other dimensions, and that at very small distances (where these dimensions are experienced), it would be strong enough to create a black hole.

Since the scientists haven’t seen the signals that these black holes would make, it’s likely that this particular flavor of string theory isn’t correct. The data will be published in Physics Letters, and is currently available on arXiv.

Related content:
80beats: Baguettes and Saboteurs From the Future Defeated: LHC Smashes Particles
80beats: Surprise! LHC Spots Unexpected Effect in Proton Collision Aftermath
Discoblog: Taking Particle Physics to Court
Bad Astronomy: No, the LHC won’t destroy the Earth
Cosmic Variance: Beam Seen in LHC’s CMS Experiment
DISCOVER: Nevermind The Black Hole Hoopla: Here’s How the LHC Could Blow Up the World (of Physics)
DISCOVER: The Extremely Long Odds Against the Destruction of Earth

Image: CERN

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Physics & Math, Space
  • Brian Too

    So what does that leave us with? 5.0 x 10^499 possible solutions?

  • http://www.cosmology-particles.pl Sylwester Kornowski

    Physicists do not understand gravity and origin of quantum physics. This leads to many wrong interpretations.
    Due to the faster-than-light particles (i.e. the tachyons and binary systems of closed strings) the quantum physics is local i.e. points separated spatially (for information moving with the speed of light) can communicate. The behaviour of the renewable particles (i.e. the photons and electrons in the Einstein spacetime and the pions in strong field) shows that the quantum physics is also real. Existence of the two spacetimes, i.e. the Newtonian spacetime (it is gas composed of tachyons) and Einstein spacetime (it is gas composed of non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos), leads to the classical interpretation of the quantum physics i.e. to the locality and reality of nature.
    The Everlasting Theory shows that there are not in existence gravitational black holes smaller than the neutron black holes (such black hole has mass 24.8 times the mass of the sun). There are in existence black holes with respect to the strong interactions (their radius is 0.7 femtometer, they are the cores of baryons – baryons have an atom-like structure) and black holes with respect to the weak interactions (their radius is in approximately 10^-17 m, they are the point masses in centers of the cores of baryons). Physicists do not understand also nature of the weak interactions. There are not in existence the Higgs boson(s).
    BTW: What physical phenomena lead to the DNA? Within the Everlasting Theory we can answer this question.

  • http://cosmicdarkmatter.com Tissa Perera

    Simply, there cannot and will not be singularities of any kind in nature. Nature does not go into extremes like some would like to theorize. No BHs and no BBs. But there can exist at least one extra space dimension which can explain many as I have done.

  • Michael

    The thing about black holes is that they are black (Holly: Red Dwarf)

  • Michael

    Have the Boffins searched the data before the collisions because theory suggests time violation within the event horizon meaning a collapse should spit matter out before hand.

  • Karlin

    Ha!! I love to say “I told you so”… in fact, I live to say that. I don’t “hate to say” it at all.

    Making the experiment fit the theory has only limited usefullness, as this LHC data shows.

    The gravity of gravy is wavy, so of course it hangs on a string theory in other dimensions.

  • Brian

    There is some misinformation in this article. It is patently false to say that string theory, or really any of its ‘flavors’, has been ruled out by this data. All string theories are necessarily multi-dimensional, not just some of its ‘flavors’ as this article indicates. The vast majority of string theories of interest are 10-dimensional theories. The crucial point is that string theory does not ascribe a size to these dimensions — they are freely tunable parameters. All the LHC experiments have done is place an upper bound on this size. If the extra dimensions are large (say, ~ 1mm), then there are certain expectations about the production rate of black holes. If we don’t see what’s predicted in this case, the only conclusion one can make is that the extra dimensions must be smaller. That’s all. In fact, some have argued that string theory has a difficult time with largish extra dimensions and so an absence of black holes at the LHC so far might lend circumstantial support for the theory.

    @Tissa: It’s totally sensible to assert that singularities do not exist in nature. However, it is not correct to then conclude that black holes do not exist. The classical black hole solution in general relativity does indeed possess a singularity, however, it is widely understood that quantum effects will become relevant before the singularity is ever reached — in other words, the classical solution has some quantum fuzziness to it. Black holes do exist — we’ve discovered several at the centers of galaxies.

  • http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8424853/Trans-Dimensional-Unified-Field-Theory-82009 george james ducas

    Here is the current update of trans dimensional unified field theory. You can access it on the internet at
    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8424853/Trans-Dimensional-Unified-Field-Theory-82009
    I also have a physics group at
    http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=1931832&sharedKey=1141AE749569
    Thank you.
    George James Ducas

  • Brian

    @George: How is trans dimensional unified field theory relevant to the experiments being carried out at the LHC?

  • http://cosmicdarkmatter.com Tissa Perera

    Brian, you have to realize that almost all theoretical equations are derived with scant disregard to natural limitations or boundary conditions that may apply in nature. So when a so called BH solution is extracted it is given a fictitious reality of its own. And I disagree that black holes are discovered(or proved) any where like you believe, they are just inferred to exist so far.
    I have concluded that gravity force itself has a maximum natural limit, the ‘g’ force boundary, that would prevent BH formation in nature. I can account for the galactic center behavior by means of of an extra space dimension without speculating a SMBH.

  • Brian

    @Tissa: You should write this work up. I’m sure the community would be interested in reading about it.

    So let me get this straight. You question the existence of black holes because you have a problem with singularities, that nobody thinks actually exist anyway. You would rather postulate the existence of an extra spatial dimension than accept General Relativity — a fantastically successful theory with substantial experimental support.

    How does your work differ from that of Kaluza-Klein? How might we distinguish your theory from GR? What are its predictions? Surely it must predict *something* different for the orbital behavior of bodies about the galactic center.

  • http://cosmicdarkmatter.com Tissa Perera

    Brian, I do not dismiss GR, I extend on GR like KK did. But unfortunately KK ended up
    to believe in a compact 4th space dimension. I have written a simple solution and derived
    MOND without compactification. I published one whole article about this:
    See
    http://cosmicdarkmatter.com/Newtonian_Dynamics.html

  • http://www.cigartronic.fr/ e cig

    any words of advice for a newbie Arizer owner like myself?

  • george james ducas

    Everything is products of time and velocity, and so you
    only need three units, d, t and v. Mass = d^3T^2.

    Calculate D for the sun and you get to the limits of the
    ether generated by the sun; which would fluctuate wildly since it spins with
    the sun.

    Constants merely set the scale. D^5 = mc^2 is the
    opposite extreme to the Schwarzschild radius, same equation.

    I believe that all numbers represent physical functions.
    So then behind mathematics – numbers as well as geometry are all the physical
    functions and relationships. In my own theory, everything can be reduced to
    velocity and time functions and their product d or dimension.

    I believe that all equations and complex math can be
    rewritten to express the functions time and velocity. Having such at your
    disposal, you can basically explain everything.

    For example I take 2 equations phi x phihat = -1 and phi
    + phihat =1

    From these most or many all physical formulas can be
    derived from

    Phi is velocity and phihat time and so

    Velocity x time = -d

    Velocity + time = d

    The multiplicative are proper and additive are scalar
    (leading to quadratic forms); So then number 2 is a ratio of scalar and proper
    form in v+v/v, and as a relationship, always referring to phi and phihat, or
    velocity and time respectively.

    The limits you have of 1 and 0, 1 referring to balance
    and zero to unity. 1 is coming from relationship of velocity and time in
    scalar and proper form, and zero, coming from scalar and proper forms as
    a limit of functions in scalar form such as quadratic form and proper such
    as in beta functions or others that define 2pi. I see 1 as defining velocity
    and time relationships in scalar and proper form, and zero as setting their
    limits.

    If you take some of Einstein equations and convert to
    three units d, t, and v, all functions cancel and the cosmological constant is
    2 and fine structure is 2pi defining prime numbers.

    Energy has 2
    forms expressing time and velocity, which are additive and multiplicative or
    scalar and proper respectively; which is basically ratios of the same motion
    energy manipulated in various ways:

    Scalar with time + velocity = D resulting in quadratic and parabolic forms.
    Here the correct value of curvature of pi finds it form in relation to phi, phi
    being velocity; where Phi = 16 / pi^2, so velocity is coming from Euler’s
    equations where E^(i*pi) = -1 and -1 is time x velocity, pi acting from outside
    the universe is generating 2 waves, or one form of consciousness, appearing as
    part of a group of constants is producing the universe. The parabolic forms of
    scalar products define different inertial fields or systems considered
    multiple. Proper or multiplicative are single, as in E=mc^2 or D^5=mc^2. In the
    universe, then everything can be described with phi or velocity and its
    complement or conjugate time.

    Proper dimensions are in products of v and t and also in powers, such as D^2.
    Scalar evolves in 2d, 3d, etc. And D is middle C, the resonance of the universe
    representing those 2 wave forms. Double middle C and you get the 528 frequency
    that the vedic philosophers can the sound that heals. In Vedic philosophy, 2 wave
    forms also produce all the chakras, which are a relation of the scalar wave
    forms from d to 2D, 3D, etc.

    In physics,
    the 2 pi begins to refer to geometric dimensions, not to be mistaken with
    dimensions of powers, so 4 pi is 2 dimensions, 8 pi is three, and 16 pi is 4
    dimensional, not to be mistaken with a property product of D^4 or force.

    Presently I am working on a gravity equation that related proper Newtonian with
    the quadratic elastic form of scalar systems, gravity has both as a single
    systems, an also as an elastic system of the aether and its superposition. So
    we can speak of the total energy of a system as proper, acing instantaneously,
    and also as an elastic vibration at a quantum level, being equivalent.

    Mass is induced by velocity and time. The association with a particle does not
    reveal the mechanism by which properties come to be. The induction of mass is
    from multiple causes. When you want to understand the real nature of something,
    you need to ascribe the “functions” that bring it into being.
    Particle physics is merely looking at the effects of these functions without
    determining the underlying functions. The particle is merely an associated
    effect of multiple functions, a node within the process of wave function
    interactions. Mass is a function product of smaller functions, hence the
    particle does not really represent this as it reveals the transition between
    various functions. Looking for higgs is like hoping for a function or set of
    functions that produce a particle, but particle and function are not the same.
    Since the functions that produce products are time and velocity, then the higgs
    or particle associated with producing anything would have to be at the smallest
    scale. At a scale of D^2, we can see the field matrix of 2 dimensions
    associated with perhaps a photon. Since T^2 = density, then even in 2
    dimensions there is a relationship to mass and motion.

    When you
    consider density = t^2, anything with time is related to mass and so with
    regards to the higgs, anything in time is related to mass, and mass is
    therefore induced by velocity and time functions. particles are residuals or
    interferences of wave functions, so the idea of discovering a function that
    causes mass is velocity and time, function resulting in function, and the
    particle related to such would be functions without mass or less than mass,
    since mass is merely a product of functions time and velocity, and those being
    at the smallest level, hence the smallest particle contributes by association
    to smallest functions product, mass. So even if you associate a particle with
    the function mass, what causes or induces mass are functions smaller where mass
    is merely a product of such. And at such a scale our instruments could not
    define. We are looking for mass, but need to look for the decay of mass into
    velocity and time, which a representing node would be a photon or less.

    It’s not correct to say that a wave function mass is a particle; however a
    particle may exhibit such properties as a product of wave interactions by
    association.

    If we consider force to be D^4 = ma, then a force carrier by association would
    be related to a particle at D^4. If we consider the higgs boson to be a force
    carrier, then its decay into two photons would be square root of D^4 or D^2.
    Hence the particle higgs by association to the wave field is 4 dimensional
    while the photon is 2 dimensional. So then the ether is a wave field of 2
    dimensional photons at when excited by a wave front act as a three dimension
    excitation.

    The question
    of decay would determine whether there is more than a single mechanism for
    mass. Mass, in TDUFT would have multiple origins and the functions that create
    mass are V and T. When those functions V and T become products, at greater
    complexity states of mass are presented or induced, so rather than saying a
    certain configuration achieves mass, there may be multiple, and so the higgs
    may be an “a” rather than “the”.

    Thomas N Lockyer has written an article of the vector components of a photon.
    Translated into TDUFT, they are D^2 (charge) , V or ampere per meter (which is
    DV/D), and E/H or DT (component of time). Notice in the creation of every field
    is a component dominant D, a V, and a T, and these representing a photon have a
    2 dimensional vector or wave construct at D^2 associated with the particle.

    http://www.vectorparticlephysics.com/?goback=%2Egde_1931832_member_89024324

    so then any situation that resolves in mass= D^3T^2 or greater such as D^4 with
    2 photons can be attributed to resulting in mass.

    The Universe is a product of wave functions velocity and time. Together there
    are three variables D, T and V are wave functions whose products result in all
    properties. Particles are merely the interference nodes of these wave matrices.

    It is
    interesting that the higgs boson has a channel that leads to 2 photons. If you
    take tduft and analyze lockleer’s work, those photons have a vector which is
    D^2, which when 2 products become force or D^4, are equivalent to a model for
    force carrier. So the standard model does not focus on function. Mass is a
    function, and so is time and velocity. So then to say, the standard model will
    revolve issues of function when it relates particles, is not an exact approach.
    And also note, that something equivalent to force or D^4 is greater than mass
    which is D^3T^2, and so the higgs is not exactly mass, it is mass with
    acceleration, and so the experiment is flawed. And the decay channels never
    lead us to D^3T^2. What is more interesting is that even at T^2, there is a
    relationship to mass, since T^2 = density; so anything in time has mass. Do not
    be misled, we know now that a neutrino has mass, and so do all particles if
    they exist in time.

    And in an event, there are 2 systems at work. The proper multiplicative, which
    would refer to Newtonian, such as force = Gmm/D^2; as a single system, and the
    equivalent elastic, additive, scalar system, which is f = mv^2 + mv^2/D.

    All physical
    equations can be derived from three units and two forms which are T + v = D and
    T x V = -D, which are represented in phihat x phi = -1 and phihat + phi = 1.
    phi is representing velocity as all numbers are. 2 is represented by v + v/v;
    relating proper and scalar functions in whole numbers. If you take Einstein’s
    equations and convert to three units the cosmological constant is 2 and fine
    structure is 2 pi. Interesting! Everything is a ratio of motion. And particles
    are the interference pattern in the fields, which quantum physicists refer to
    as excitation. There is aether. On the short end is Schwarzschild radius;
    constants merely set the scale, and further out is D^5=mc^2. Note the -1 in
    Euler’s equation represents time x velocity, the 2 waves that generate
    everything. Actually it is a single energy transformed.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »