Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008. The 7Tev phase of the research would then begin at this time.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experimentation
 
Billy T said:
Agreed. I have never suggested “eating two or more at a time" - this is your straw man.
Click to expand...
As has already been explained, if it can only eat one at a time then it will never grow large enough to be threatening.
...so it only is a question of how many more passes thru the Earth before there is Earth falling into a much more massive BH and finally how much longer before all of the Earth is gone?
Click to expand...
If it can only eat one atom at a time, it doesn't matter how many times is passes through the earth - it will never be able to suck in enough matter to be a problem. At least, not before the sun burns out anyway. The fact that it's slowing down makes it even less dangerous, because since it's moving slower it will hit fewer atoms/second.
My concern, as often stated, is with the Coulomb attraction between these + and – charged objects with very tiny separations.
Click to expand...
And as I have stated many times, it doesn't matter if the black hole is trying to pull in atoms with electrostatic attraction - the force of the electrostatic attaction still won't be enough for it to eat more than one atom at the same time. And so long as it's only eating one atom at a time, it will never grow large enough to be a problem.
(Surely less than 0.001 Angstrom occasionally.)
Click to expand...
It takes some extrodinary force to smash to atoms up within 0.001 angstoms of each other. Simple electrostatics won't do it. The distance between a Na+ and Cl- in sodium chloride is about 2.3 angstroms.
If you disagree, OK, but at least discuss the fact that the "electron is everywhere and nowhere" and the Coulomb attraction, not the tiny gravitational cross section of the EH.
Click to expand...
Who cares if the black hole eats some electrons and has a strong electrostatic attraction to other atoms? It still won't be able to eat more than one at a time, and so won't be able to grow very large.
*In the case of Chlorine, once the BH is inside even only the seven outer shell electrons there will be the seven positive charges attracting at least one negative charge, but a reasonable chance that the BH is also with multiple atomic charges as it may “eat several electrons before eating its first nucleus. Please do not talk more about “electrons repelling each other makes this impossible” as on this sub atomic scale, the electron is “everywhere" and "nowhere," not the “tiny billiard ball" you seem to have in mind.
Click to expand...
No offense, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about here. The fact that an electron's position can be described as a wave function and that it has a non-specific location in space does not mean that they no longer repel each other and can no longer push each other around. If a negative particle (like an electron, an anion, or a black hole that has eaten some electrons) starts to approach the area of space that an electron's wave function occupies, they will exert repulsive forces on each other. If the electron is a lot smaller than whatever is pushing on it, it simply gets knocked out of the way. The only difference is that now you're thinking of it as a non-distinct area of "smeared out" negative charge that's being forced away, rather than a specific point.

But this doesn't really matter, since you seem to have already accepted that the black hole can only eat one atom at a time. And if that's the case, there's no way that it could ever grow very large.
 
Last edited:
If it would take a long time or not, i find it nerving to imagine i'm walking about a planet that was being slowly devoured.
 
My far from infallible intuition leads me to disbelieve any discussion invoving a mini black hole devouring an electron, a proton, or a quark.

The electromagnetic attraction between a single electron & a single proton is equivilant to the gravitational force of at least a metric ton or so of mass. The force holding quarks in a neutron or proton is even greater that the electormagneitc force.

A mini black hole created by a particle accelerator would consist of less than a milligram of mass. I cannot believe that such a small force would pull an electron or a proton away from an atom. It seems even less likely to be able to pull a quark out of a baryon.

10[sup]37[/sup] to one is a monsterous ratio. It is the ratio of charge to mass, suggestive of the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force.

A theory which discussed pulling an entire atom into a mini black hole seems to require some attention. At least the mini black hole need not fight electomagnetic or nuclear attractive forces.
 
Dinosaur said:
I cannot believe that such a small force would pull an electron or a proton away from an atom. It seems even less likely to be able to pull a quark out of a baryon.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Prof. Otto Rössler is requiring any 'pulling' force, which is as noted virtually nil due to the miniscule mass. Rather, it is by 'direct impact' as noted by BillyT, in which the black hole 'touches' or 'collides' with the "smeared" wave-function of the 'particle'.
 
Dinosaur said:
... The electromagnetic attraction between a single electron & a single proton is equivilant to the gravitational force of at least a metric ton or so of mass.
Click to expand...
Thank for the number, but you need to tell the separation. I.e. at 10th whatever you assumed in your calculation (You did calculated did you not?) it is 100 times larger etc. due to the inverse square law.
Dinosaur said:
... A mini black hole created by a particle accelerator would consist of less than a milligram of mass. I cannot believe that such a small {GRAVITATIONAL} force would pull an electron or a proton away from an atom. It seems even less likely to be able to pull a quark out of a baryon.
Click to expand...
I suspect the mass would be much smaller than that. This is why I am not much concerned with the gravitational attraction. Let all agree to stop even mentioning the gravitational force "straw man" of the tiny BH. I am concerned with the fact that there is no reason why the initially uncharged tiny BH can not simply drift inside the outer shell electrons and as it passes thru the space that bound electrons can "localize in." (When wearing their "particle hat" as in the Auger effect. {I.e. when X-ray ejects deep shell electron, it may eject another from an outer shell on it way out of the atom}) I.e. why can not the electron localize inside the EH of the BH making it have one (an later more) electron charges?

Surely the probability of one doing so is at least the wave function's PSI^2 integrated over the volume inside the EH of the BH, but I suspect that it is about an order of magnitude greater due to the steepness of the gravitational field near the EH. I.e. in the region outside the EH, where space is like a very tiny "funnel into the BH." In every mile of the path the mini-BH's path thru dense matter, EVEN WITH ZERO ATTRACTION, there will be zillions of electron smears it drifts thru. How can I be assured that not one will behave as electrons do when one ejects other electrons from a solid as in the Auger effect?
For what I expect in the next pass thru an electron smear after it has eaten the first electron and is charged, please see my reply to Nasor, soon to be made.
Dinosaur said:
... A theory which discussed pulling an entire atom into a mini black hole seems to require some attention. At least the mini black hole need not fight electomagnetic or nuclear attractive forces.
Click to expand...
I think that atoms are too large compared to the mini-BH that the HLC may be able to make to be eaten whole. If Hawkings Radiation does not evaporate it, I think it will "eat" quite a few electrons before it happens to get close enough for the Coulomb attraction to pull in a positive nucleus. When it is inside the outer shell of bound electrons it will have a slight deflection of its drift path by the positive nucleus but in most cases it will just exit back thru the electron shells with a small scattering angle. If its path by chance takes it very close to the nucleus, then I do not know, and it does not really matter, if the huge gravitational gradient near the tiny BH's EH rips the nucleus apart into quarks or not. - The mass of the BH will increase by the mass of the nucleus it just ate in either case. If that was its first nuclear meal, it will be less negatively charged and probably will need to eat a few more electrons before it gets its 2nd nuclear meal, again by Coulomb attraction as still the gravitational attraction is still not significant.
 
Billy T said:
I think that atoms are too large compared to the mini-BH that the HLC may be able to make to be eaten whole. If Hawkings Radiation does not evaporate it, I think it will "eat" quite a few electrons before it happens to get close enough for the Coulomb attraction to pull in a positive nucleus. When it is inside the outer shell of bound electrons it will have a slight deflection of its drift path by the positive nucleus but in most cases it will just exit back thru the electron shells with a small scattering angle. If its path by chance takes it very close to the nucleus, then I do not know, and it does not really matter, if the huge gravitational gradient near the tiny BH's EH rips the nucleus apart into quarks or not. - The mass of the BH will increase by the mass of the nucleus it just ate in either case. If that was its first nuclear meal, it will be less negatively charged and probably will need to eat a few more electrons before it gets its 2nd nuclear meal, again by Coulomb attraction as still the gravitational attraction is still not significant.
Click to expand...
Here is the exercise that you need to do: First, decide how much mass the black hole would need before it's dangerous. Second, figure out how many atoms it would need to eat to reach that mass. Third, figure out how quickly atoms could go into the black hole. Assume that they go in at the speed of light for an absolute upper bound. Finally, calculate how long it will take for the black hole to reach your threatening size.

Hint: I suspect your answer will be "a bajillion years". Please show your work!
 
Good question -> ''decide how much mass the black hole would need before it's dangerous''

Can this even be determined from a theoretical and hypothetical outlook? If we cannot know whethe a black hole ''definately'' radiates energy, then how can we know any of the other predictions to be correct?
 
Nasor said:
As has already been explained, if it can only eat one at a time then it will never grow large enough to be threatening.
If it can only eat one atom at a time, it doesn't matter how many times is passes through the earth - it will never be able to suck in enough matter to be a problem. At least, not before the sun burns out anyway. The fact that it's slowing down makes it even less dangerous, because since it's moving slower it will hit fewer atoms/second.
Click to expand...
False - I am almost sure you state this under your "conservative" :D and false assumption that the tiny BH has mass very large compared to the proton mass. As I noted before that is not only false but far from "conservative" because only with your falsely assumed masive (compare to a proton) BH is what you say true. I.e. I agree your BH is too massive to be slowed down even if it eats all of the matter in your 1 Anstrom tube thru the Earth. Please consider a more realisitic but still probably much too massive BH such as one with the mass of a proton. It has its drift speed reduced by more than half with the first hydrogen atom it "eats" (much more it it eats an iron nucleus in the core of the Earth.- It will not continue on at the same speed and not in the same straight line thru the Earth as you are assuming.

I also agree that if only gravity is considered as you do, then there is essentially zero danger, but asuming two things false as you do is not useful. Once it is charged it does not need to "hit atoms" - the Coulomb force will occasionally pull in nuclei and it may never make it thru the Earth's iron core if it for example is more reasonably initiailly only 0.1 of the mass of a proton or less. Very soon it will just have various thermal velocites and directions of drift inside the core as the weight of the Earth keeps pushing nuclear meals to it. (collapsing into the tiny void it is making.) I.e even when it has the mass of a ton weight on the surface, its gravity force can still be neglected.

FORGET ABOUT GRAVITY ATTRACTION. The only significant way that "meals" come to the BH is first a few electrons by it wandering thru their smears, then large number of nuclei by Coulomb forces, and then when it has made a tiny microscopic void in the Earth, a large number of atoms are being "extruded to it by pressure flow," which is caused by the weight of material over the tiny void. Finally when the HB has the mass of 100 tons or so, gravity may begin to play a slight role, but not a significant one until about 90% of the Earth has been delivered to it by this plastic flow of the surrounding matter. Most terrestrial life will die by drowning when the lighter oceans completely cover the smaller, partially collapsed, Earth.

Nasor said:
And as I have stated many times, it doesn't matter if the black hole is trying to pull in atoms with electrostatic attraction - the force of the electrostatic attaction still won't be enough for it to eat more than one atom at the same time. And so long as it's only eating one atom at a time, it will never grow large enough to be a problem.
Click to expand...
"never" is a long time. :D I will agree that until the EH is about the size of an atom it will eat atoms only one at a time. (I am not sure this is true as the distortion of space is more extreme near a tiny BH's EH than even at the EH of the giant BH at the center of our galaxy. - Thus I suspect that atoms are shredded into at least quarks outside of the EH even, but do not want to argue this point, so I grant it.) Your whole argument is based on the false assumption that the LHC will make sufficiently large BH so that they will not stop inside the Earth's core and just wander around in ever smaller random thermal steps with every nucleus they eat. If they are stopped in the core and Hawking is wrong then the LHC's black hole will have the mass of the Earth some day. - When I do not know but expect less than 100 years. Even thought I am old, I might die slowing enough while drowning to see it nearly to completion. (I am a pretty good swimmer still.)

Nasor said:
It takes some extraordinary force to smash to atoms up within 0.001 angstroms of each other. Simple electrostatics won't do it. The distance between a Na+ and Cl- in sodium chloride is about 2. Angstroms.
...
It takes some extraordinary force to smash to atoms up within 0.001 angstroms of each other. Simple electrostatics won't do it. The distance between a Na+ and Cl- in sodium chloride is about 2.3 angstroms.
...
No offense, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about here. The fact that an electron's position can be described as a wave function and that it has a non-specific location in space does not mean that they no longer repel each other and can no longer push each other around. If a negative particle (like an electron, an anion, or a black hole that has eaten some electrons) starts to approach the area of space that an electron's wave function occupies, they will exert repulsive forces on each other. If the electron is a lot smaller than whatever is pushing on it, it simply gets knocked out of the way. The only difference is that now you're thinking of it as a non-distinct area of "smeared out" negative charge that's being forced away, rather than a specific point.

But this doesn't really matter, since you seem to have already accepted that the black hole can only eat one atom at a time. And if that's the case, there's no way that it could ever grow very large.
Click to expand...

No you are the one mistaken here. I have no idea why you are speaking about atoms colliding and the atomic spacing in salt etc. so I ignore that straw man. Now a few words about your also false idea about a charged HB knocking an electron out of its way:

That is possible only if the kinetic energy of the HB exceeds the energy of ionization, which is not very probably if it has less mass than an electron, Even that I think will be still much more than one can expect it to have. Even if it does initially these are inelastic collisions it will rapidly slow down to make only elastic ones as it random walks by very tiny steps inside the Earth.

What will happen as a charged BH approaches an atom is that the energy levels of that atom will slightly shift, but the electrons will still be bound to their nucleus. My experimental Ph.D. was concerned with this "atomic Stark effect" in a dense plasma. The shift of the levels when one of the plasma electrons comes near an atom that is radiating causes the wavelength radiated to be slightly changed.

If you want to read the theory, get book "Spectroscopy" by Hans Griem (He was at U of MD, when I was doing my Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins. - I supplied him with the first experimental data on radiation from an ion (Argon) - His theory is slightly different then than for a radiating neutral as the approaching plasma electron's trajectory can curve around the positive ions. (Effect can last longer.) Some of the lines I measured were more than one angstrom wide and one was also shifted nearly an Angstrom. Many were no longer symmetric in their profiles. In a solid, of course, these atomic or ionic collisons are occuring all the time and the isolated atom's levels are so spread out that the radiation from a solid is a continium, not discrete lines.

I doubt if the LHC's BH hole will long have even the kinetic energy of the air molecules in your oven when cooking a turkey (even assumng it did intitially). - Have you been having trouble with that oven air becoming ionized as the electrons in the air atom’s outer shells keep getting "knocked out" as they collide? :D If so, don't eat the turkey. - It probably has a lot of dangerous "free radicals."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AS Meeting #193 - Austin, Texas, January 1999
Session 119. Low-Luminoisty AGN and Black Holes
Oral, Saturday, January 9, 1999, 2:00-3:30pm, Room 8 (A,B,C)

[Previous] | [Session 119] | [Next]

[119.01] A Massive Black Hole in the Nucleus of M31

Z.I. Tsvetanov (JHU), Y.C. Pei (STScI), H. C. Ford (JHU), G.A. Kriss (STScI), R.J. Harms (RJH Sci.)

We have used the Faint Object Spectrograph on HST with its 0\farcs26 and 0\farcs09 apertures to sample the stellar rotational velocities and velocity dispersions in the nucleus of M31 along the line connecting the two surface brightness peaks separated by 0\farcs48. We discover a strong asymmetry in the rotation curve which reaches a maximum of -270 km~s-1 on the side of the faint peak (P2) and +160 km~s-1 on the side of the bright peak (P1). The center of rotation lies in between the two peaks. The observed velocity dispersion reaches a maximum of ~300 km~s-1 at the location of P2 and remains flat at ~150 km~s-1 across P1. Our kinematic data strongly support the hypothesis, suggested by Tremaine, that the nucleus of M31 is a thick stellar eccentric disk orbiting around a massive black hole located at P2. The bright peak is a result of crowding of stars due to slowing at the apoapsis of the eccentric disk. With simple exponential profiles for the disk model, we can fit nearly all of the photometric and kinematic data, yielding an estimate of mass of (7.0±.4)\times107 M\odot for the black hole in the nucleus of M31.

Apart from velocity shifts and line broadening, the FOS spectra of P1 and the region immediately around P2 differ only by a weak blue component that is most likely light from the extended UV-bright source in P2 yielding further support for the eccentric disk model. The spectrum of P1 plus a model star with T\rm eff = 7000 K is a good match to P2 (better than P1 plus a power law). This result is consistent with Lauer et al.\ (1998) conclusion that the black hole in P2 is surrounded by a small cluster of late-B to early-A stars, analogous to the star cluster surrounding the black hole in the center of the Milky Way.

[Previous] | [Session 119] | [Next]
 
Nasor said:
Here is the exercise that you need to do: First, decide how much mass the black hole would need before it's dangerous. Second, figure out how many atoms it would need to eat to reach that mass. ...
Click to expand...
NO THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

You are still suffering under the delusion that the BH hole's small "power of attraction" in some way (even including my Coulomb attraction which is necessary only in the very early phase of "rapidly eating the Earth") is limiting the process of eating the Earth.

Instead imagine that for some reason at the gravitational center of the Earth, CoM, a tiny volume of the core of the Earth had all the atoms suddenly disappear. Say a void of 100 of the nearest neighbor atoms to the CoM and also imagine that any atoms that subsequently entered into that tiny sphere at the CoM, for any reason also disappeared "without a trace." (I am so tired of people speaking about the weak gravitational attraction of the BH that I assume that not even the gravity of the disappearing atoms remains to attract more towards that micro-micro sphere at the CoM. I.e. by assumption, it is not a BH with gravity increasing - just by magic it remains a void.)

What do you think would happen? - That is the question.

Here is what I think would happen:

The huge pressure in the molten core would flow material into the void at about the speed of sound, which at those temperature in an iron core is much higher than in the surface air. When all that is liquid inside the Earth has disappeared, there would be a much larger void (At least 80% of the Earth's size). Some weaker spots of the crustal material would collapse into that big void, but just as the case of any gravitational collapse, they would heat and liquefy.

Please note I said not one word about the void's attaction forces etc. Their total absence does not save the Earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a crazy idea hit me about dark matter and Hawking's radiation (of which my extreme ignorance qualifies me to speak, as it does many posting here. :rolleyes:)

Tiny BH s are hotter than big ones, they radiate like a black body, but still quantized photons - very harsh gamma rays I guess. Well how can the BH radiate such a gamma if the gamma has much more energy that remains in the mass of the BH? - I.e. perhaps there is a minimum size a BH can shrink to by Hawking radiation. The "dark matter" is just these "can't get smaller" BHs.

For this thread, they serve as "energy pump" inside the Earth. They eat an atom of Earth and radiate it away to get back to the minimum size. This is the true reason that the Earth radiates more energy into space that it receives from the sun - the internal isotopic decay is not all the story. Where do I go to get my Noble prize? :D :shrug:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Due to the densit of a mini black hole, I would expect it to drop toward the center of the Earth just as a steel ball bearing drops to the bottom of an ocean, The steel ball is stopped at the bottom of the ocean because of electromagnetic interactions between the steel ball & solid material on the ocean floor.

Even though solids are mostly empty space, the electromagnetic interactions cause them to act like solid rigid bodies.

I do not think that a mini black hole would act like a small solid object. Thius its density wuld cause it to yo-yo in the gravitational field of the Earth. First it would plummet toward the center, reaching maximum velocity at the center and coasting toward the surface with decreasing velocity. At or near the surface, it would have xero velocity and would head back toward the center, repeating the first trip.

It is my understanding that passing through the smear of an electron is not equivalent to colliding with an electron. It is my understanding that quantum entities do not collide due to parts of their "smear" occupying some common small volume of space.

I think the mini black hole would have to collide with an electron which was displaying its particle personality, not its wave personaltiy. I hate to use the term "collapse of the wave function" because I think it suggests that the wave function is something real rather than a mathematical description of reality. Hoever using the usual jargon, electrons interact with other entities when the wave function collapses resulting in the electron having a position & velocity.

Everyone here seems to accept the fact that the gravitaiton force of a mini black hole is not sufficient to pull in atoms or particles. With that in mind, what is the probability of the mini black hole colliding with an electron when the electron's position & velocity have been actualized (Id est: when & where the electron is acting like a particle).

I do not know enough to calulate such a probability, but suspect it is related to the probability of the mini black hole being close enough to an electron (when it is a particle) to pull it in. The inverse square law can result in an enormous gravitational force at nearly infinitesimal distances. Such a force might very well be enough to pull in an electron.

Quantum & GR effects are approximated by Newtonian equations, which is the reason I expect the tiny gravititational force to indicate something about the probability of a mini black hole pulling in an electron.

Unfortunately, if somebody posting here knew enough to show me the equations and/or do the calculations, I doubt that I would understand without the equivalent of a semester's work in the pertient physics.

Id est: I would have to trust expert opinion rather than being able to understand. The experts do not seem concerned about the potential danger due to a mini black hole, I will not worry. Besides, I do not expect to live more than about 5 years, ten at best.

I usually proof read my posts, but did not have time to do so with this one. Sorry for any typo's & poorly constructed sentences.
 
Dinosaur said:
...It is my understanding that passing through the smear of an electron is not equivalent to colliding with an electron. It is my understanding that quantum entities do not collide due to parts of their "smear" occupying some common small volume of space.

I think the mini black hole would have to collide with an electron which was displaying its particle personality, not its wave personaltiy. I hate to use the term "collapse of the wave function" because I think it suggests that the wave function is something real rather than a mathematical description of reality. Hoever using the usual jargon, electrons interact with other entities when the wave function collapses resulting in the electron having a position & velocity....
Click to expand...
I do not think that is quite the correct POV, but none are when just expressed in words.

In words I would say that the electron does not "display" either wave or particle characterists by its self. Only in interactions can it best be considered a particle or a wave, depending upon the nature of the other partner(s) in the interaction. It might be useful to read about Auger effect. (I have not - just working from memory as I almost always do, but post first in case you are still around.)

I briefely descriped it in earlier post. It is partly why I think a charged BH can make an interaction with the "electron smear" that is bound to a nucleus in one of the permited (by Pauli exclusion) orbitals of that mutually inteacting collection we call a neutral atom. I.e. the Auger effect lets a single X-ray eject more than one elecetron from the neutral atom yet the X-ray is directly ejecting only one (from the inner K shell usually). The other one is in some sense "knocked out" by the K shell electron as it leaves. Sort of by analogy, since the negative charged BH is very much like and electron, it too should be I would guess, able to "localize" the smear into the more particle like almost point electron and eat it to gain charge.

If the BH is not yet charged, this Auger analogy does not apply apply, but surely one needs to be concerned about what happens to the tiny fraction of the smear that is inside the EH of the BH. I.e. can it "localized" the whole electron there? If not how does that part dift away with the BH or if it can not, how can it escape from within the EH? I do not have any answers to these questions. I tend to think, as stated earlier, that about an order of magnitude (at least) greater than the integral of psi^2 over the volume inside the EH is approximately the probability that the electron chage and mass remains with the BH as it drifts away. Very very low probability but BH will drift thru "zillions of smears" and eventually "get lucky." then it can use the Auger effect to "localize others more rapidly and eat them too I would think as if they "localize," then that psi^2 intergral is much closer to unity, even if still far from unity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008. The 7Tev phase of the research would then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experimentation
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN.

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008. The 7Tev phase of the research would then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experimentation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top