INTERNAL ARTICLE OF THE DAY:

a. James Blodgett’s Deductive Logic by Another

b. First Hearing in US Federal Court of Hawaii, June 16, 2008 by JTankers

c. Culture of Superiority? by JTankers

EXTERNAL ARTICLE OF THE DAY:

DOOMSDAY DEBATE UPDATE by Alan Boyle on msnbc cosmic log

EXTERNAL BLOG OF THE DAY:

Q: What is the Large Hadron Collider?
The ‘LHC’ is the largest, most expensive scientific experiment ever created. It is located along the French and Swiss border and it will create conditions not seen since the first fraction of a second after the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. This experiment is expected to begin colliding particles some time in 2008.

Q: Why all the concern now?
When funding for the LHC was approved decades ago, scientists believed that there was no reasonable danger. But then scientists discovered a few years ago that the LHC might create something called a micro black hole, and CERN then predicted that it might create micro black holes at a rate of 1 per second. And the creation of just 1 micro black hole could potentially destroy the planet in our lifetime.

Q: But surely no scientist would purposefully destroy the planet, that is just not credible!
No, the scientists would not purposefully destroy the planet! But they might do it by accident and they might take risks that are much much higher than they are willing to tell you they might. Just like the managers that recommended Launching the Shuttle Challenger did not believe that it would explode. They knew there might be a reasonable risk because their engineers told them there might be a reasonable risk. But the managers said (paraphrase) “there is no proof of reasonable risk… launch!”

Q: OK, I want the facts, what questions should I be asking about Large Hadron Collider?
I recommend the following questions…

Q: Scientists are not worried about this experiment are they?
A: Actually some may be worried, according to Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist . Dr. Baldev says “ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”

Q: Micro black holes probably won’t be created will they?
A: Actually according to CERN’s safety web site in 2008 predicted creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second. And CERN still predicts that micro black hole creation will not be an unexpected event.”

Q: Wouldn’t more powerful cosmic rays create micro black holes if particle colliders could?
A: Some scientists have argued that cosmic ray collisions are the same as head-on collider conditions, but the facts do not support that assertion. Occasionally a cosmic ray may involve a single proton traveling so fast that it may have more net energy when impacting a relatively stationary particle on Earth, but the results will be safely sent into space. Head-on collider collisions may involve thousands of protons (or protons to anti-protons) colliding all at the same time, head-on at 99.9999991% of the speed of light in both directions (colliding similar to a head-on car collision) in temperatures lower than space with powerful magnetic fields to help focus all the energy to a single point in space (extreme focus of potentially much more mass than a stray cosmic ray) and particles created may be captured by Earth’s gravity, possibly including the first micro black hole that might be created containing thousands of protons or the energy of thousands of protons and/ anti-protons, in the first second of full energy collisions. The differences between cosmic ray impacts and collider collisions are significant and numerous.

Q: Don’t Micro Black Holes just evaporate?
A: The black holes we know of grow at rapid rates, and the following PHDs and Professors of Math and Physics argue that micro black holes might only grow:

Dr. Adam D. Helfer: Do black holes radiate?
• “this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions…“
• “no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes“

Dr. William G. Unruh and Prof. Ralf Schützhold: On the Universality of the Hawking Effect
• “Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation or not remains an open question“

Prof. V.A. Belinski: On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole “quote”
• “…the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist.“

Dr. Adam D. Helfer: QUANTUM NATURE OF BLACK HOLES
• “…the correct picture of a black hole is very different“
• “…completely alters the picture drawn by Hawking“

Q: But don’t most physicists still believe that micro black holes will evaporate?
A: Actually James Blodgett, who has a masters degree in statistics conducted a Delphi Study of 15 physicists, and he says “In 2004, I tried a series of Delphi questionnaires in which I asked physicists their estimates of several components of collider risk. As an example of the variability, estimates that Hawking radiation would fail ranged from 0% to 50%. The data are as follows: 0, 0, 1E-10, 0.001, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.07, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.35, 0.5. This was… before we were aware of the papers questioning [Hawking Radiation]“..

Q: But Stephen Hawking says the experiment is safe, and isn’t he one of the most famous scientists on Earth?
A: Actually Dr. Stephen Hawking is famous and creative, and he is hoping to win his first Nobel prize if he can prove that Hawking Radiation is real. But his theories often tend to be disputed or found incorrect. Hawking Radiation theory may prove to follow this trend also.

Q: Ok, so if micro black holes are created, and they do not evaporate, then how fast would a micro black hole grow?
A: Germany’s Dr. Otto E. Rosssler, inventor of Chaos theory’s Rossler attractor, predicts possible destruction of the planet in just years or decades: Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk

(Dr. Rossler’s theory is that when a MBH accretes a charged particle, say electron, this will not go straight into the MBH, but will circulate around the MBH for a while, and by doing this, a magnetic field will be created which will attract positive and negative charged particles, each at the opposite poles of the MBH, thus accelerating the accretion rate.)

Q: What will CERN do if they discover that the Large Hadron Collider is creating micro black holes that don’t evaporate?
A: According to recent reports, CERN will stop the experiment. One recent post on the topic reads “… if there was a black hole at the interaction point, we could very easily detect a huge drop in the rate of events within a millisecond (from 40 MHz to 100 Hz) and turn off the accelerator.”

Q: So we should be safe correct?
A: Unfortunately once a micro black hole has been created, it may be absorbed by the Earth in just seconds. And once that happens, there is no known power on Earth that could halt the process of micro black hole growth.

Q: Ok, but why aren’t micro black holes created in other colliders?
A: Existing colliders are many times less powerful than the Large Hadron Collider. And most physicists think that the much lower power existing particle colliders have not created micro black holes. However there have been some incidents that hint that science may be close to creating micro black holes even with less powerful colliders. For example, Horatiu Nastase of Brown University writes: “We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole.” The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole, and Nobel laureate Dr. Eric A. Cornell, does not rule out the possibility of stable micro black hole creation after an unexpected bosenova implosion at the university of Colorado.

Q: I heard there is a lawsuit, what is the status of that?
A: The first hearing in the US legal action is June 16, 2008 in US District Court of Hawaiian before the honorable Judge Helen Gillmor. Comments include those from the Harvard Crimson “[this lawsuit is] not frivolous” You may assist nuclear physicist Walter L Wagner with the legal action at LHCDefense.org

Nuclear Physicist Walter L Wagner is noted for his role in the discovery of an anomalous cosmic ray in 1975 that was tentatively identified as a magnetic monopole. See Time magazine, August 25, 1975, “Bring it Back Alive” and “Evidence for the Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole”, Physical Review Letters,. Vol. 35, (1975)

A recent blog sums up the arguments fairly well I think

[User] wrote:… I can’t even begin to explain why. This is patently ridiculous that someone would be “anti-safety”

Let me help explain. On another forum I posted the following in response to a safety argument:

[user] wrote:

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

Thus, the currently accepted “safety net“ can be described as having 4 levels:
(i) the miniholes may fail to appear;
(ii) the overwhelming majority will leave the earth immediately;
(iii) all will evaporate;
(iv) if not, a long period of linear growth – “1 quark per week eaten“ – lets them be
pussycats since it will take at least a million years before they “eat the earth“ [3,4].

What if there’s a level (v)?

[user] wrote: Seriously. We get it. Wikipedia has an inadequate analogy on their page. For crying out loud, it’s irrelevant. This doesn’t even remotely belong on the front page. It’s completely irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant. If you had a reasonable explanation for the mechanics of Hawking Radiation you would be fighting to post it correctly on Wikipedia.
The fact that you do not is fairly strong evidence that you can not, and a fairly strong indicator that black holes losing energy is a conjecture, a conjecture that requires Dr. Albert Einstein to be doubly wrong according to Dr. Stephen Hawking, that may very likely be absolutely incorrect with potentially very serious consequences.

(For more Facts view the Hawking Radiation topic)

JTankers
LHCFacts.org