Archive for the ‘Hawking Radiation’ Category

CERN’s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

On August 14th, CERN’s Dr. Jonathan Ellis presented safety arguments to CERN scientists in order that they may use this information to defend CERN. The video presentation is 73 minutes long and the mood of the scientists is serious and somber. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/

Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story unfortunately.

All of Dr. Ellis’s arguments are disputed, done best in papers by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler[2] and Dr. Rainer Plaga[3].

By far the worst argument is for Hawking Radiation, clearly fundamentally flawed conjecture. Did you see Dr. Ellis’s slide with the outlandish reference to reverse time travel? I did not see a reference to negative energy though. LOL (Laugh Out Loud, anti-matter falling into black holes adds energy to the black hole, no matter how clever the counter arguments are to try to correct Dr. Hawking’s more than 30 year old blunder). See the following for references to a few compelling papers that argue Hawking Radiation is flawed conjecture, black holes are neutral* and do not radiate: [4][5][6]*).

Dr. Michael E. Peskin argues that the micro black hole danger scenarios are plausible except that they are excluded by cosmic ray arguments[1], but he does not address compelling counter arguments by Dr. Plaga[2] and Dr. Rossler[3], summarized well by Dr. Plaga “Concluding, G & M have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray produced mBHs in general. Their exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains not definite.”

(For the record I do not find plausible the arguments that safety is sufficiently proven for micro black holes created at Large Hadron Collider energies, but the safety of micro black holes created by future higher energy colliders still requires confirmation. I was unable to reconcile this line of reasoning other than it may have been creative wording to disguise and minimize minority opposition concerns in the SPC report.)

The most disturbing statement of all was the stunningly arrogant prediction that safety will be proven when the Large Hadron Collider begins high energy collisions in a few weeks.

I suspect General Custer said something similar to re-assure his troops that he would defeat the American Indian’s at the Little Big Horn. General Custer was arrogant and ignorant, but his mistake had relatively limited consequences.

Dr. Ellis comments that Hawking Radiation is “just elementary quantum mechanics” and argues only that an extremely implausible CP violation result could allow failure. Learn about Bohmian (Einstein deterministic) Quantum theory[7] Dr. Ellis then decide which passes the Occam’s Razor test by an order of magnitude and decide how sure you are about “elementary quantum mechanics” before you arrogantly potentially risk the future of humanity and belittle the genius of Dr. Rössler and others in your rush to prove yourself correct. Reverse Hawking Radiation is a theory you should familiarize your self with, it is predicted by at least one speculative theory that I find compelling[8].

An open and independent safety conference as Dr. Rössler calls for is desperately needed before micro black hole creation energy thresholds might be exceeded. The response to petition Swiss President Pascal Couchepin not to meet with Dr. Rössler appears to follow the pattern that Dr. Rossler alleges in his blog[9] “I consider it very plausible that the [disinformation] policy of CERN’s has shielded the author from his field of research for the last 18 months

Heed the appeal for reasonable confirmation of safety arguments by an open and independent credible decision making process before collisions begin.

Sincerely, JTankers Founder and co-administrator of LHCFacts.org

  • Dr. Otto E. Rössler’s brilliant yet obvious re-interpretation[6] of General Relativity theory concludes that [the horizon of black holes is infinitely far in spacetime from the outside world and never quite finished].  Dr. Rossler calculates that Earth will be destroyed in 50 months to 50 years if micro black holes are created (micro black holes become charged by capturing charged particles outside the event horizon). Dr. Ellis arrogantly and ignorantly belittles “Mr. Rössler”. Inappropriate, unbecoming and utterly misguided.

[0] http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/ The LHC is Safe – Dr. J Ellis

[1] http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? – Michael E. Peskin Paper, 8/18/2008

[2] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders – Rainer Plaga Rebuttal, 8/10/2008

[3] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma – Otto E. Rōssler Safety Counter Arguments

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1 Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? – Adam D. Helfer Paper.

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137 On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again – VA Belinski Paper.

[6] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk – Otto E. Rōssler Theory a

[7] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, New Scientist Magazine, March 22, 2008

[8] http://www.bigcrash.org “The Pre-Big Bang Universe Model”, open source physics project

[9] http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/21/on_the_splendid_article_by_michael_e_pes “On the Splendid Article by Michael E. Peskin” by Otto E. Rossler, August 21, 2008

Hawking Radiation

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

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. 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]”..

Professor Hawking has the reputation by some of the public as being infallible, always correct, but is this a valid belief? No. Dr. Hawking will tell you himself that he makes mistakes, and some of his theories have been proven wrong or conceded as wrong by Dr. Hawking, including at least one fundamental aspect of Hawking Theory, and some of his professors will tell you that Dr. Hawking was not an exceptional student. And some of his peers have even called some of his theories “poorly reasoned”. And some of his peers have questioned whether some of his ideas are even more pseudo science than science. But Dr. Hawking is creative and inspiring. Which means he helps to provide inspiring ideas, and inspires creative work. But would you want to “bet the house” that one of his unproven theories might prove correct? Probably not. Good material for study and research, but not to be considered as infallible by any definition of the word.

:geek: Professor Hawking speculates that it might be possible for particles to travel back in time, :geek: Professor Albert Einstein considered such ideas to be paradoxical nonsense, not possible.
:geek: Professor Hawking speculates that black holes might sometimes shrink, decay, evaporate, again :geek: Professor Albert Einstein considered such ideas to be not possible, against the laws of nature.

Professor Hawking today speculates that it will be safe to create micro black holes on Earth in the Large Hadron Collider, because he believes that quantum fluctuations around black holes will steal energy from the black hole. He seems quite certain about his theory, while at the same time he dismisses and ignores his own peers who write theorems disputing this theory as not supportable by science, disputes Professor Einstein who stated that not even light can escape a black hole, and apparently requires that vacuum energy does not exist. And he was recently quoted as suggesting that he should be awarded a Nobel prize for this idea. (Professor Hawking has never won a Nobel prize).

However Professor Hawking has also predicted that man might have a 50% chance of destroying man kind in the not too distant future, so Professor Hawking might consider “minimal risk” from experimentation to be perfectly reasonable. And I think Professor Hawking believes in his own theory of Hawking Radiation, so I don’t think he is too worried that the Large Hadron Collider might be catastrophically dangerous. Unfortunately many other scientists do not share Professor Hawking’s confidense in such safety theories.

:idea: Credibility of Hawking Radiation is strongly disputed:

2008 … this prediction is not without its problems… no very good responses to these concerns… completely alters the picture drawn by Hawking… http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503052v1.pdf

2008 … Max-Plank-Institut fur Astrophysik: The results indicate that on average, “low mass” black holes of less than a hundred million solar masses are still growing at a significant rate. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2004-7/hl2004-7-en.html

2004 … 9.9% average doubt, ranging from 0% to 50% doubt Delphi study of 15 physicists : http://www.lhcconcerns.com/#James_Blodgett, even before much of the peer reviewed credible rejection of Hawking Radiation was published

2003 … Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions… no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042

1900s … Albert Einstein’s theories require that black holes only grow, they never shrink, not even light can exit a black hole

Recently when asked if the Large Hadron Collider was safe, :geek: Professor Hawking said “Particles from collisions far greater than those in the LHC occur all the time in cosmic rays, but nothing terrible happens.”. What? :shock: (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking12apr12,1,3191870.story)

Even CERN’s own LHC Safety Assessment Group has conceded the that cosmic ray impacts with Earth could not endanger Earth, because unlike paricles created by head-on collider collisions, cosmic ray created particles travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity and are all safely expelled into space at relativistic speeds.

Why are we in a rush to start up the Large Hadron Collider, when there is so much uncertainty about the safety of this experiment?
Why do we have faith that micro black holes might evaporate when this is disputed by peer reviewed studies, professor Einstein’s theories and possibly by cosmological evidence that seems to suggest otherwise?
Why are we still publicly told that cosmic rays prove safety, by CERNs web site and by professor Hawking?
Why are we still waiting for a proof of safety that was promised by the end of 2007?

Unfortunately the answer may be that we are unable to prove safety or not with reasonable certainty at this time, that may still be a few years away.
Even more unfortunately, there may be scientists that are willing to take some non-trivial risk, possibly even a substantial risk, because the science that the Large Hadron Collider will provide will be so astounding.

For me, I would far rather wait 20 years to discover the same science through safer, passive methods that would not endanger the planet. 20 years to possibly save 5 billion years.
CERN is not even prepared to delay for 2 years to prove reasonable safety. What are they thinking… They may be thinking “we need to start this experiment as quickly as possible before the risks are deemed by outsiders to be too significant, before public opinion turns against us…” In my humble opinion, if CERN scientists were being responsible, they would slow down, not speed up…