Hawking Radiation

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…

11 Responses to “Hawking Radiation”

  1. JTankers says:

    The comments about Dr. Steven Hawking may be blunt. This is necessary. The safety of the planet may depend on the credibility of his theory, and many in the general public believe that Dr. Steven Hawking may be incapable of making mistakes. However, very clearly this is not the case. In fact it may be more helpful to think of theories written by Dr. Steven Hawking as creative speculation. Just creative ideas that are probably more likely to be incorrect than correct, based on his track record in this field.

  2. JTankers says:

    Interesting blog quote from Dr. Evans at: Black Holes at the LHC – again

    I recall reading Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time” many years ago and deciding it was confused and not very informative.

    Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder [Bee] said something similar at: Black Holes at the LHC – again

    At 2:19 PM, May 17, 2008, Blogger Bee said… “I didn’t like “A brief History of Time” either, and I also didn’t understand it. In fact, my disliking of Hawking’s book was one of the reasons why I studied physics”

  3. JTankers says:

    On the same Blog Black Holes at the LHC – again

    On the disputed mechanism of Hawking Radiation, which Dr. Hossenfelder basically call psedo-science as it is written in Wikipedia…

    At 8:52 AM, May 19, 2008, Blogger JTankers said…
    … most likely method that would explain how energy entering into a micro black hole in the form of matter, anti-matter or both, might be expected to cause the micro black hole to lose energy rather than gain energy?

    I find this concept extraordinarily non-plausible. So please help enlighten me as to how adding energy to a system could cause the system to lose energy…

    At 9:03 AM, May 19, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
    Bee writes: “…black hole does not lose energy because matter falls into it. …I dislike the explanation with Hawking-evaporation from particle pairs at the horizon for exactly this reason…”

    At 4:36 AM, May 21, 2008, Blogger JTankers said…
    The Wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation uses the following clearly fallacious argument since 2006. An argument that implies the existence of a yet undiscovered fundamental force of “anti-energy” or “negative energy.

    …vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process the black hole loses mass, and to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.

    The wikipedia article originally used the concept of tunneling:

    “One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to fill the energy ‘hole’ left by the pair’s spontaneous creation, energy tunnels out of the black hole and across the event horizon.”

    In that argument, double the amount of energy that entered the black hole would have to “tunnel out” in order to negate the energy that entered the black hole and to balance the created particle that radiated.

    Unless the black hole gained energy, then no negative energy nor tunneling is required. But that might require the existence of dark energy to account for the particle creation, and dark energy is still just a theory also, but gaining acceptance.

    At 9:03 AM, May 21, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
    …one does not need any particles of negative energy for the Hawking effect. You have a black hole with mass M. It emits an energy E. The remaining mass of the black hole is M-E. You can write that as M+(-E) if you wish, but this still doesn’t make negative energy particles necessary. For this you’d have to succeed in emitting an energy E > M, such that the remainder is negative. I don’t know of anybody who ever argued this would be the case.

    JTankers: Who is correct, Wikipedia’s negative in or double positive out or Dr. Hossenfelder, or some other explanation… perhaps this theory is just incorrect, have you considered that???

  4. JTankers says:

    And finally on the same Blog Black Holes at the LHC – again

    At 2:12 PM, May 22, 2008, Anonymous Tayman said…
    Hasanuddin, … says that LHC collisions are more dangerous than cosmic ray collisions because “dogpiling will occur.

    Hasanuddin wrote: ““I’ll admit that a lone cosmic ray particle striking the Earth will have more energy than two lone protons smashing head-on—but that isn’t what will happen inside of LHC, is it? LHC is designed to smash packets of 10,000,000,000 protons into packets of 10,000,000,000 in one tight spot. Using “all-things-being-equal” blinders to ignore to cumulative effects of the 9,999,999,999 other potential collisions of each packet will skew the overall estimate making LHC seem benign and harmless. Collision of packets will not occur as a one-time event either, will they? They will happen repetitively in very quick succession, which will allow for dogpiling. Is any of this similar to a cosmic ray striking the Earth—no.

    At 3:31 PM, May 22, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
    I have no idea what ‘dogpiling’ is supposed to be… Maybe he’d want to clarify what exactly he means with ‘one tight spot,’… Sorry, but I really don’t have the time to debunk everybody’s idea about what the LHC might be able to do when one doesn’t know particle physics

    At 7:10 PM, May 22, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
    …Sorry, but I really don’t have the time to debunk everybody’s idea about what the LHC might be able to do when one doesn’t know particle physics

    ??? No good response…

  5. Jerome says:

    I do not understand why we are risking the planet, if we are not sure whether the LHC will be harmless or not. The Hawking theory is the so called argument that we will be safe. It is a non proven theory and if black holes don’t evaporate, the earth will be destroyed. As for normal people, they do not understand that their lives are endangered. But no one is interested in their opinion. Our so called democracies do not need their vote here.

    We may conclude that if einstein was right we will die. If mr. Hawking is right we will live. Fact is that on october 21 the LHC will start up and that nobody can stop this. Reasons behind this are that the return on investment has to be made clear to the governments that contributed to this project. I am seriously worried that money and politics are more important than the safety of all living creatures on the planet.

  6. redherkey says:

    The unfortunate thing is that we’re using the wrong approach to this risk environment. We’re demanding proof that LHC is unsafe, rather than requiring the scientists to demonstrate that their practice is safe. Given this approach, humanity will fail (and fail ultimately).

    I manage risk for a global financial corporation. As challenged as we can sometimes be, we’d never make such inappropriate moves. We live in a world where we have a responsibility to the stakeholders of our organization to make sure we aren’t incurring outlier risk (Taleb’s Black Swans). It is our duty to remind the operations manager of our company that they have no authority to incur risks that invite exogenous, existancial risks that threaten the continuance of mankind (and all the species we travel with).

    LHC is a black swan party. It invites exogenous risk. It is an arrogant scientist’s dream, but disregards the practice of risk management. Sure, black holes were regarded as silly impossibilities at RHIC, only to be later regarded as “sure, they happen, but they’re not significant.” To switch gears from impossible to expected would result in individuals being thrown out of a profession in any other field. However, our scientific community has shown itself incapable of such self-regulation per the wholesale subscription to Gaia myth beliefs in the whole “global warming caused by CO2” religion. Sunspots? Solar influence? Impossible. Just like black hole formation was impossible.

    Science in our era is not capable of self-regulation and objective practice. LHC is a risk we cannot afford.

  7. Sam says:

    A large majority of posters to this site take this threat seriously. If this is the case, what is anyone doing about it? How does one get involved, and how does enough group action occur to defer this stupid project until the proper safety review has occured?

  8. SusanT says:

    After reading this, I am more concerned than ever. Most of the dismissive ridicule of LHC critics is based on the idea that they are all unscientific, uneducated hysterics, which clearly, those here are NOT! Yet most of you oppose the huge risk CERN scientists AND let’s not forget the governments involved, are willing to take, based on a THEORY! It’s insanity at best, and unbridled, myopic, self-aggrandizement at worst..no, it’s murder!

    There must be SOME way to stop these genius/morons! Don’t they have families who could reason with them..no wait…how about have them committed?! I lived with a physicist like these guys for many years and worked for some others at UMass/Amherst, and I was shocked at how STUPID and impractical such intelligent people could often be!

  9. ck our these links:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=170Y5GqDutg

    and this one:
    http://www.tdg.ch/geneve/actu/2008/09/16/systeme-froid-gele-faisceau-lhc

    it all depends on one question: is Hawking radiation real or not. I believe it’s not. As long as there is any doubt about that question, stop the LHC until it’s too late!

  10. christina anne knight says:

    it seems to me that that if there is a breakdown of the electromagnetic force(which means no photons to radiate), and weak and strong and nuclear forces in black holes(which means no atoms to radiate photons) then all that is left inside black holes is a form of proto-matter with gravitational potential energy and that hawking radiation can not occur because quantum effects as we know them do not apply.

  11. christina anne knight says:

    it would seem(for reasons i will not go into at this time) that it requires a great deal of mass(which represents a minimum requisite quantity) in order to create a black hole. it is impossible to create one in a particle accelerator. of course, it is do to the incompleteness of general relativity theory that both scientists, and the general public, continue to entertain fanciful ideas concerning black holes. what is clear is that black holes have a great deal to tell us about the past and future evolution of our oscillating universe.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.