Paint it black

So suppose Hawking is right that the Large Hadron Collider will have a one in a hundred chance of producing mini-black holes? His theory, buttressed by many physicists, is that such entities would vaporize so fast they could do no harm.

But I'd like to know, are they sure these little buggers aren't quantum entities subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Because if they are quantum entities, wouldn't that imply that every once in a great while something improbable happens? The hole violates energy conservation just long enough to translate from virtual to real, in which case it I presume could then gobble the planet in short order.

The fact that statistically energy conservation can't be violated does no good if one little beastie acts wildly but in accord with quantum rules. Remember, all solid state circuits are based on this improbable energy violation, whereby a "particle" slips through an energy barrier or potential well. So occasional energy violation would be expected if the mini-holes are quantum particles.

If hundreds of thousands of such particles are produced, is there a signficant chance that one will balloon into a doomsday particle within the next, say, 20 years?

Anybody have an answer for me?

Aug. 4, 2009--Today's New York Times had a feature on the CERN collider saying that the engineers were having a tough time getting the machine to crank up the highest energies. They're still tinkering with it. Scientists would be happy even if it doesn't go at full tilt since the energy levels would still be far higher than those the Fermilab's Tevatron can produce.

Nowhere in Dennis Overbye's otherwise respectable story were black holes mentioned. So I suppose we must infer that we shouldn't worry because the collider won't reach black hole energy levels anytime soon. Funny how many things are on the uncool-to-discuss list. Now even the scientific topic of black holes has made the list, it seems.