Factual Errors with August 18, 2008 Article
Dear Sirs,
I would like to report numerous factual errors with the August 18, 2008 University of Wisconsin-Madision news article “Curiosities: What’s behind the claims that the new particle accelerator in Europe may create black holes that could destroy the Earth? Should we be worried?” at: http://www.news.wisc.edu/15490 False or misleading statements and assumptions include:
“if miniature black holes were created” … “would vanish almost immediately”
Buy Phentermine online
Buy Proscar online
Buy Biaxin online
Buy Lexapro online
Buy Soma online
Buy Xenical online
Buy Adipex online
Buy Zoloft online
Buy Propecia online
Buy Paxil online
Buy Wellbutrin online
Buy Diflucan online
Buy Valium online
Buy Prozac online
Buy Effexor online
CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group states “we are not working under teh assumption that BHs decay”. [4] Several recent peer reviewed papers concluded that Hawking Radiation “remains an open question” [10], “black holes do not radiate” [11] and “the effect does not exist” [12] Hawking Radiation theory as proposed in 1975 is fundamentally flawed, accretion of anti-matter by a black hole would add energy and mass to a black hole, not subtract. Alternate explanations requiring quantum tunneling are not compatible with predictions of ubiquitous existence of dark energy, and rapid micro black hole growth from Reverse Hawking Radiation is plausible [2].
“these hypothetical tiny objects would have too little energy to drag anything in.”
Micro black holes may grow exponentially from becoming charged by capturing charged particles in orbit outside the event horizon as theorized by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler [1] or from Reverse Hawking Radiation [2] as theorized by nuclear physicist and US Federal law suit co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner. CERN’s 2008 Safety Report also considers the possibility that charged micro black holes might emit a charge originating from inside the event horizon. [3] CERN’s interpretation of charged black hole theory is notably refuted by Dr. Rossler’s work based on recent re-interpretation of relativity theory, particles inside the event horizon are infinitely far from the event horizon in space time. [1]
“high-energy cosmic rays bombard Earth and its atmosphere. “If there were black holes being made that are dangerous to the Earth, we wouldn’t be here.””
CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged that any stable initially neutral micro BH (black holes) that might be created by cosmic ray impacts with Earth’s atmosphere would travel through Earth and into space. “While it is true that a BH produced by cosmic rays would not be stopped by the Earth…” [4]. Dr. Rossler refutes follow on arguments involving cosmic rays and Neutron stars “protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so miniblack holes can pass without friction” [5] that CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee (SPC) categorizes these arguments as “do require confirmation”. [13] Some percentage of micro black holes that might be created in head-on particle colliders will have velocities too slow to escape Earth’s gravity “less than 11 km/sec”. [5]
“None of the people who understand the physics of what’s going on have any concerns whatsoever and find all this rather amusing.”
Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler is the most eminent and notable of the scientists who fully understands the physics of “what’s going on”. Dr. Rossler writes: “A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take years until we know whether or not we are doomed.” [5][6]
Nuclear physicist and co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner [in 2007 enlightened] CERN of the fundamental flaws in their cosmic ray safety arguments prompting a promise in writing from CERN for creation of the 2008 LHC Safety Report. [7]
“if miniature black holes were created — a scenario UW-Madison physicist Wesley Smith calls unlikely”
This statement may be supportable, but may also be misleading. The CERN Courier in 2004 predicted possible micro black hole creation at a rate of one per second.[15]. Michael E. Peskin writes in American Physical Society “Giddings and Thomas and Dimopoulos and Landsberg realized that” [Particle collisions at energies above the Planck scale must create black holes] “implies that high-energy collisions at TeV energies should produce black holes.”[14]
Dr. Otto E. Rossler, a modern day Leonardo Da Vinchi, Professor of Theoretical Biochemistry, visiting Professor of Theoretical Physics, inventor of the Rossler Attractor, founder of Endophysics, winner of the 2003 Chaos Award of the University of Liege and the 2003 Rene Descartes Award, contributor to hyper chaos, micro relativity and author of approximately 300 scientific papers.
Nuclear physicist and attorney Walter L. Wagner was notably attributed with discovery of what was believed in 1975 to be the first observation of a magnetic monopole at the University of Berkeley as noted by Time Magazine. [8][9]
Sincerely, James Tankersley Jr. Founder of LHCFacts.org Middleton, WI
[1] Otto E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “Â-theorem“ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf, (2008)
[2] MSNBC CosmicLog, The benefits of Black Holes, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180976.aspx comment by Walter L. Wagner, (July 3, 2008, 12:49am)
[3] Giddings, Mangano, Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes, http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PH-TH_2008-025.pdf, (2008)
[4] LHCSafetyAssessment.Group@cern.ch, email, LHC Safety Procedures, http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10 (16 Mar 2008, 12:06:05 +0100)
[5] Otto E. Rossler, A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf (2008)
[6] SCIENTIFICBLOGGING, Alan Gillis, Professor Rossler takes on the LHC, http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/professor_rossler_takes_on_the_lhc, (12 August 2008)
[7] Walter L. Wagner, US Federal Legal Filings and Affidavits, http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php, (2008)
[8] Time Magazine, Bring is Back Alive, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913445,00.html, (1975)
[9] Walter L. Wagner, Wikipedia Cosmic Rays, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays#Unusual_Cosmic_Rays, (1975)
[10] Unruh, Schutzhold, On the Universiality of the Hawking Effect, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2.pdf (2004)
[11] Adam D. Helfer, Do black holes radiate?, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008016, (2000)
[12] V.A. Belinski, On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/03759601/1995/00000209/00000001/art00785 (1995)
[13] CERN Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), SPC REPORT ON LSAG DOCUMENTS, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=35065 (2008)
[14] Michael E. Peskin, American Physical Society, The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider?, http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 (2008)
[15] CERN Courier, The case for mini black holes, http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199 (Nov 12, 2004)
Tags: LHC, LHCFacts, Madison, micro black hole, Safety Issues
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Many thanks for your work, really appreaciated!
I am living near the LHC area and while people might have found initial claims of danger amusing, the arguments developped by the Cern’s detractors led me to read the material made available by the Cern about the safety of the LHC.
I must say that while I have no scientific knowledge of the subject, I was badly surprised by the safety assessments provided, which I found to be far from outweighting the questions being raised worldwide.
I am especially worried that such safety assessments were made in a way which, according to be, may seriously be subject to what is known as “groupthink” while it should have been carried out with a contradictory debate open to any serious disclamer.
I am also especially worried to see the extensive use of “a contrario” assumptions as if human science was understanding 100% of the mecanisms of the stars - while we don’t even master those of phenomenons occurring on Earth!
I can only hope that both French and Swiss authorities have the wisdom and the courage to make use of the principle of precaution and deny the right to the Cern to embark on such a journey without showing decent respect for people’s concerns and without taking the safety debate to an open and worldwide arena, no matter the delays.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
CT,
I very much appreciate your post. I lived in Geneva until the 1th August and have now moved away from this city about 70 kilometers. But I still watch the sky…
>>I can only hope that both French and Swiss authorities
Authorities - in my view - have no wisdom.
So my interpretation of this situation - in disregard of a all the critics - is that the LHC - which is LIVE now - will start collisions soon.
Kind regards
admin
http://www.notepad.ch
December 13th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Here’s three more scenarios:
Pile-Up:
Lets say that by 14TeV, a level of energy is reached such that two colliding protons could establish a mbh out of 10TeV of the available energy due to the momentum (although a slight deceleration is offered near impact from electrostatic repulsion).
When the next two turn up they don’t smash into each other because there’s something weird in the way that is so slow moving that it hasn’t moved far enough away yet. But there’s no way out (can seem a bit like that with CERN). So we get an accretion disk or accretion shell.
Anyway, another 25ns later, a bigger accretion disk/(shell). Shouldn’t take long before things get out of hand even if the machine is switched off in a couple of minutes.
Feel as ill as I did when I thought of this? (Remember, I got this idea from reading about rest ‘final state’ scenarios in particle collisions from the book ‘Special Relativity’, A.P. French.)
- Perhaps so.
Alternatively..
Flare-Up:
and this one I got from reading about Hawking Radiation (in a book by W.J.Kaufmann)
If you look at the expected Hawking TEMPERATURE for micro black holes*, you would get around 10^45 degrees Kelvin for 10 ^26 seconds. For me, its the temperature that strikes more..
Power is the one that’s about energy rates I thought, while temperature are directly related to kinetic energy -
isn’t that right?
Anyway, I suppose in string theory things aren’t supposed to be quite the same - not according to Kanti (physicist) anyway. But Kanti also believes that a mbh would have upto 4 times the radius.
Well, I don’t see how to necessarily exclude a conventional version of mbh temperature (see below) once its been established via string theory or whatever.
Oh yes, the last one..
ur,
End-Up:
I looked at Hawking/Stewart ‘92 on ‘Singularity Thunderbolts’. They were considering the possibility that the black hole SINGULARITY information would NOT radiate whilst only the matter created outside of it radiated - from within/outside of - the event horizon.
In this scenario, rejected in part because we’re still around; after the radiation completes, an unstable version of the singularity would then ‘tear through space’. The rejection argument depends upon there being primordial or other black holes small enough to have radiated away already. Even if there were other small enough black holes, the result of a Hawking radiation process may depend on circumstances - even a cern safety report suggested that occurrence of Hawking radiation itself could be circumstantial - and perhaps lhc creates the right context for small enough black holes to become unstable singularities for the first time?
Prepared to risk the above?
Eric
fr Wikipedia (with zero angular momentum):
Temp = (reduced Planck’s constant hbar* cube of speed of light)/
(8 * pi *G * mass of black hole * Boltzmann’s constant).
December 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Not finding evidence of the safe decay of black holes would be slightly worse than a black hole.
So where is the Hawking radiation? Individual particles do hit the earth with 110 million times the energy of the ones made at CERN so there should be millions of much bigger ’safe’ micro black holes all taking time to give off Hawking radiation … so where is it? Science is all about the empirical evidence … so where the heck is it.
Even worse is that on a second per second basis there will be 2 million to 250 million times more energy directed at a point than anything in nature depending on the process used and enhancements planned. The concept of a traffic jam or dogpiling as Hassanadin speculated requires a growing deformation of spacial dimension on a micro scale.
Even nature doesn’t treat all black hole formation in the same way because when a large star goes supernova it will explode most of its mass away in a nebula formation while a tenth will form a black hole. In a few cases there is a supernova impostor event where the star explodes then reforms like Eta Carinae did in 1843.
One can speculate on all sorts of events but the end result is that black holes are the most violent of all the known objects in the universe. I do not doubt the integrity of world scientists nor do I doubt that they are very clever. I just feel their confidence prevents them from using something so very ordinary that I would call common sense.