He lectured my course on 'Black Holes' in my 4th year and I had 2-1 supervisions with him in my 3rd year for cosmology. Someone once brought up the LHC in a lecture. He made no mention of the "OMG we're all going to die!!" things you are claiming his work supports.
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab
- Thread starter Paul W. Dixon
- Start date
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN
May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankindChildren have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.
Update on the research progress at CERN.
End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.
We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm
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. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed.
Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
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 7 Tev 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 as noted above.
Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)
This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shoen here have never been refuted.
From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankindChildren have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.
Update on the research progress at CERN.
End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.
We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm
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. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed.
Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
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 7 Tev 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 as noted above.
Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)
This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shoen here have never been refuted.
From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
I see Paul is unwilling to defend himself.
Walter does a calm and effective job - focused on the failure of LHC staff to release the revised safety study, which they promised to have complete by Jan 08. (prior one did not adequately discuss some possible routes to Earth destruction.)
I wish AlphaNumeric, who claims to know some of this physics, would respond critically to my posted discussion (at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1955247&postcount=1524 )
of the physics of how an Earth annilation disaster could happen, via the tiny black hole route. (I know too little about stranglets to comment on that route to the disaster of Earth disappearing.)
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest I missed it, then forgot about it.
Strangelets are not a danger, even the people who published the paper one of the cranks over on PhysOrg linked to which showed that strangelets can of the potential which attracts other matter commented that it's self limiting.
And I, unlike people like Walter and Reiku and Paul, can prove I know a decent amount of physics.
Standing and lecturing to someone who clearly knows nothing about physics is easy. Walter has had the opportunity to debate on this forum and others and provide the evidence he doesn't get asked to provide in the link and he's failed. Can someone point me to a single post of Walter's where he shows he has working knowledge of even undergraduate level physics? Because in the many many months, spanning more than a year, he and I have crossed paths I've never seen him post such a thing.
Little help?
Which has since been published and just ignored by the cranks. As was expected.
OK. so you missed my post 1524, why not comment now, IF YOU REALLY CAN?
Walter does know some physic, probably more than I do in this area. I will not dig up his prior post where he corrects me, at least not until you comment on post 1524's possible (but I suspect improbable) set of physics that leads to the rapid destruction of Earth. A quick summary of it is that if Hawkings is wrong about tiny black holes evaporating in a "final high energy flash," then Earth will probably not last a week after one moving with less than the Earth's escape velocity is made. As the LHC's is using colliding beams, I suspect that almost all black holes it makes will have much lower velocites wrt Earth. Certainly all will be very tiny- in the realm where one should expect quantum effects to be important.
Your argument repeating mine, posted here years ago, to the effect that we are safe because cosmic rays of much higher energy are constantly striking Earth and also make tiny black holes does NOT apply as all those tiny black holes are still traveling with essentially the speed of light and just pass harmlessly thru the Earth (and the sun also for that matter, if they happen to be headed that way).
It seems at least possible, since we know so little, next to nothing, about how "quatum theory" applies to "gravity physics" on very tiny scales that very tiny black holes could be stablized against the "final flash" by some quantum effect as atoms are against the radiative decay the accelerated charge (the electrons) orbiting the nucleus mandates if quantum effects were not stabalizing the atoms.
I once did the calculation of the radiative decay lifetime of a hydrogen atom if classical EM theory of Maxwell were not blocked by the quantum effects. I forget the exact results but all atoms would decay in very small fraction of a second, except for the fact that quantum effects are important on these tiny scales.
How do we know that quantum effects do not also apply to the tiny black holes that the LHC probably will make? If they do and very tiny black holes are also stablized, as atoms are, against radiative decay, then as stated and explained in more detail in post 1524 "Earth is a gonner."
Later by edit: Here is one post where Walter is correcting me:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1515006&postcount=1112
I have had several PM exchanges with Walter, long before you became member here. - This post was mentioned in one of them, just about the time you joined. I have seen no evidence that you understand this problem as well as Walter does. Perhaps you will display some by correcting my post 1524? I.e. explain how we know that quantum mechanics does not apply to tiny black holes and make them stable as it does for all atoms. Unfortunately, most of your posts here are essentially "pissing contest" as I have noted earlier (Dinosaur also noted this, but said so in a more subtile way.) Why not respond to serious physics posts instead, if you can?
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you have a link to it? I would like to look at it. Walter states in his very recent YouTube interview that the new version of the safety report is not yet available, but that interview may have been recorded earlier. He even suggests that the reason it has not been released in Jan o8 when promissed is that the concerns, already acknowledged to have been omitted from the original version, have no convencing answer. Walter's call for it to be released for review by physicist whose job is not at the LHC is reasonable, IMHO - I hope you are correct and it has been.
Can you back up your statement in any other way if you have no link?
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. Althought the report does not have a definite date on it, it does have several refernces in Ref5 with dates in 2008, so I assume this is the very recent one. I will begin to read it now to see if my concerns stated in post 1524 are adequately killed.
The abstract does not seem to address the slow moving tiny black hole that becomes charged, but does state that cosmic ray black holes would be stopped inside the EARTH - As I recall, this is 180 reversal from the 2003 reports calculations.
"If some microscopic black holes were stable, those produced by cosmic rays would
be stopped inside the Earth or other astronomical bodies. The stability of
astronomical bodies constrains strongly the possible rate of accretion by
any such microscopic black holes, so that they present no conceivable danger. "
More later when I have read report.
Last edited by a moderator:
on page 8 of the new saftey report I find:
"... charged and stable black holes produced by the interactions of cosmic rays with the Earth or the Sun would be slowed down and ultimately stopped by their electromagnetic interactions inside these bodies, in spite of their initial high velocities. ..."
That is reasuring if true, but I will read on to see why they say that about stable tiny black holes traveling with essentially the speed of light.
It is precisely the fact that once charged, a slow stable black hole will destroy the Earth that I CALLED ATTENTION TO IN POST 1524. Because of the dilation of "time flow" in the relativistic black hole's own frame there is very little time for it to interact with an astronomical body. - Microseconds I would guess as it goes thru Earth. This relativistic time dilation is how the cosmic ray muons get down to the surface of the Earth from the very high atmosphere where they were created. If not for time dilation they would all decay in less than 1000 meters.
On page 9 I find:
" ... ultra-high-energy cosmic rays hitting dense stars such as white dwarfs and neutron stars would have produced black holes copiously during their lifetimes. Such black holes, even if neutral, would have been stopped by the material inside such dense stars. ..."
This does resemble the earlier report that used neutron stars to stop the tiny stable neutral black holes, despite their relativistic speeds, but this report seems to state that even Earth would. (See my quote in post 1552 of the report's abstract.) Were the earlier calcualtions or these new ones wrong? (or perhaps I fail to understand?)
In any case their evidence is in Ref 2, another report, at:
http://cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PHTH_2008-025.pdf so I will go there now to read it.
"... charged and stable black holes produced by the interactions of cosmic rays with the Earth or the Sun would be slowed down and ultimately stopped by their electromagnetic interactions inside these bodies, in spite of their initial high velocities. ..."
That is reasuring if true, but I will read on to see why they say that about stable tiny black holes traveling with essentially the speed of light.
It is precisely the fact that once charged, a slow stable black hole will destroy the Earth that I CALLED ATTENTION TO IN POST 1524. Because of the dilation of "time flow" in the relativistic black hole's own frame there is very little time for it to interact with an astronomical body. - Microseconds I would guess as it goes thru Earth. This relativistic time dilation is how the cosmic ray muons get down to the surface of the Earth from the very high atmosphere where they were created. If not for time dilation they would all decay in less than 1000 meters.
On page 9 I find:
" ... ultra-high-energy cosmic rays hitting dense stars such as white dwarfs and neutron stars would have produced black holes copiously during their lifetimes. Such black holes, even if neutral, would have been stopped by the material inside such dense stars. ..."
This does resemble the earlier report that used neutron stars to stop the tiny stable neutral black holes, despite their relativistic speeds, but this report seems to state that even Earth would. (See my quote in post 1552 of the report's abstract.) Were the earlier calcualtions or these new ones wrong? (or perhaps I fail to understand?)
In any case their evidence is in Ref 2, another report, at:
http://cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PHTH_2008-025.pdf so I will go there now to read it.
Last edited by a moderator:
A quick skim of "ref 2"
(See http://cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PHTH_2008-025.pdf )
reffered to in the new saftey report leads me to greatly doubt the saftey as it is clearly distoring, if not intentionally dishonest. They are not even considering the true Columb interactions (my concern in post 1524) of a tiny stable black hole.
Quoting from page 30:
"...Collisions can slow such a black hole via two mechanisms. First, in a ypical collision the black hole will gravitationally scatter a particle in its asymptotic field, thus losing some of its momentum. We henceforth refer to this gravitational mechanism as Coulomb slow-down. Second, for smaller impact parameters, a black hole can absorb a particle, in the process possibly emitting some radiation, ..."
A more correct name by classical analogy would be "Compton scattering," (as that applies to a non-charged particle passing a charged one) not "Coulomb scatering" as the electric Coulomb force is not causing the scattering. Calling it Coulumb does not make it so - but it sure does mislead!
Thus, many page later when they become detailed on the "Coulomb slow-down," in Sections C.3 and 5.2.2, which starts on page 32, they are NOT addressing the slow down of a charged tiny black hole as their very misleading name would imply to physicists.
Never do they even consider the true Coulomb interaction with the charged particles of each atom. They totally ignore the fact that the tiny black hole, if stable, even if initially uncharged, would pass thru "zillions" of bound electron orbitals, with some very small probability in each passage that the electron could be "localized" inside the EH of the black hole. See my post 1524for more details.
Effectively they have set up the staw horse of gravitational interaction and called it "Coulumb slow-down" - Of course the gravitational interaction that the tiny LHC made black hole can achieve is insignificant, even if bound to the EARTH. - I.e. They are correct the the sun will burn out before the Earth is eaten by that tiny black holes gravity. It is easy to kill that straw horse. With enough complexity in 97 pages, with a lot of mathematics, and misleading names that ignore the true Coulumb interaction most readers will be confused.
Summary - I now no longer trust this claimed saftey! They are dishonest and intentionally misleading.
(See http://cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PHTH_2008-025.pdf )
reffered to in the new saftey report leads me to greatly doubt the saftey as it is clearly distoring, if not intentionally dishonest. They are not even considering the true Columb interactions (my concern in post 1524) of a tiny stable black hole.
Quoting from page 30:
"...Collisions can slow such a black hole via two mechanisms. First, in a ypical collision the black hole will gravitationally scatter a particle in its asymptotic field, thus losing some of its momentum. We henceforth refer to this gravitational mechanism as Coulomb slow-down. Second, for smaller impact parameters, a black hole can absorb a particle, in the process possibly emitting some radiation, ..."
A more correct name by classical analogy would be "Compton scattering," (as that applies to a non-charged particle passing a charged one) not "Coulomb scatering" as the electric Coulomb force is not causing the scattering. Calling it Coulumb does not make it so - but it sure does mislead!
Thus, many page later when they become detailed on the "Coulomb slow-down," in Sections C.3 and 5.2.2, which starts on page 32, they are NOT addressing the slow down of a charged tiny black hole as their very misleading name would imply to physicists.
Never do they even consider the true Coulomb interaction with the charged particles of each atom. They totally ignore the fact that the tiny black hole, if stable, even if initially uncharged, would pass thru "zillions" of bound electron orbitals, with some very small probability in each passage that the electron could be "localized" inside the EH of the black hole. See my post 1524for more details.
Effectively they have set up the staw horse of gravitational interaction and called it "Coulumb slow-down" - Of course the gravitational interaction that the tiny LHC made black hole can achieve is insignificant, even if bound to the EARTH. - I.e. They are correct the the sun will burn out before the Earth is eaten by that tiny black holes gravity. It is easy to kill that straw horse. With enough complexity in 97 pages, with a lot of mathematics, and misleading names that ignore the true Coulumb interaction most readers will be confused.
Summary - I now no longer trust this claimed saftey! They are dishonest and intentionally misleading.
Last edited by a moderator:
Am i to understand Billy, you No Longer Believe that the claimed saftey does not erradicate the dangers involved at particle accelerators at around 30TeV?
Not exactly. I do not trust the people who call an analysis of a gravitational interaction "Coulomb Scattering" when Coulomb Scattering can only refer to the interaction between TWO charged particles. When an uncharged particle passes by a charge, its trajectory can be changed or "scattered." This is called "Compton scattering." (Typically in practice an X-ray photon passing a high Z nucleus.)
The report miss uses the term "Coulomb Scattering" and pages after telling that they are calling gravitational Compton Scattering, "Coulomb Scattering" they create Section 5.2.2 to discuss the "Coulomb Scattering" slow down of the stable uncharged tiny black hole with detailed equations etc. They do not actually investigate the scattering of a charged black hole passing by a nuclear charge or thru the wave function of an electron orbital bound to the nucleus. (My concerns presented in post 1524.) The true Coulomb interaction is many, many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational interaction with the very tiny mass of the black hole. So naturally, they conclude with this straw man called "Coulomb scattering" that very little happens. That extremely weak gravitational attraction will pull in mass to make the black hole grow very slowly - so slowly that the sun will have long burn out before the black hole weighs a gram, even if it is gravationally oscillating inside the Earth all these eons.
Now I suspect that the black hole will not be stable and even if it is either produced with a charge or acquires one while passing thru "zillions" electron orbitals of the mater inside the Earth, it is SUPPOSED TO quickly cease to be a black hole. I am not convinced that Hawkins’s radiation will end the existence of the tiny black hole. In fact I suspect that on this tiny scale, quantum effects cannot be ignored. It seems quite possible that the final flash of radiation Hawking predicts could be forbidden by quantum mechanics. After all, if quantum mechanics did not apply all atoms would disappear in less than a second as the bound electrons lose energy by continuous radiation. (They are constantly accelerated due to their orbital motion. Change of direction even if speed is constant is acceleration and acceleration of a charge produces radiation, except on the tiny scale where quantum effects apply. I.e. the bound electrons of atoms cannot radiate away continuously as they orbit the nucleus. Like an earth satellite experiencing some atmospheric drag and losing energy and slowly spiraling into the Earth.)
I have much more faith that the extreme small size of the black hole will allow quantum tunneling effects to allow the quarks (or whatever it was made of) to "tunnel out" of the Event Horizon. Stated another way; even if the math of classical inverse square law gravity does state the even photon, much less quarks etc. cannot escape once inside the EH, I do not believe that must be true for such a small radius EH. (Less than a proton's classical diameter, I bet.) Now I also think that on this tiny scale there is no "arrow to time" - every interaction is reversible in time. I.e. if E ---> B (energy making a black hole) is possible then B ---> E is possible with equal probability /rates. Stating this another way: On the sub-atomic scale, there are no "one-way" trap doors.
I have more faith in this mechanism for quickly killing the tiny black hole than I do that the final flash of Hawkins’s radiation will as he has not considered the quantum effects - only extended the equation giving the rate of radiation vs BH mass down to very tiny masses and as mass get smaller that radiative loss rate increases - makes the "FINAL FLASH," IF THE ARE NO QUANTUM EFFECTS. (I doubt Hawkins, himself, has done this stupidity - but most who claim that Hawkins radiation will protect Earth from very tiny black holes do.)
Thus it would be an over statement to say I am greatly worried now. I just do not respect or trust the safety report. I have not looked at it carefully enough to be sure it is a dishonest and flawed as I now believe, based on may quick scan which ignored most of the equations.
To make an analogy:
Suppose in a report there was a Section 5.2.2 called "Effects of Fast Car / "Brick Wall" Interaction. Section 5.2.2 is many pages long with lots of analytic equations, which are mathematically correctly and that section finally concluded that the car would not be damaged. (Also imagine that you do not already know or understand anything about cars or brick walls, but you can follow this math. Thus, as the report authors intended, and because the math is correctly done, you would accept the conclusion as valid, and not object to being a passenger in the car going 100mph straight into a brick wall.)
But then, when rereading the report, you happen to notice a single line buried inside a paragraph many pages prior to Section 5.2.2 that states:
Hence forth in this report we will call the "flea/car" interaction the "Car/Brick Wall" interaction. That is effectively what the safety report does. It calls the gravitation interaction a coulomb interaction and concludes it is so slow that the sun will burn out long before any damage is noticeable!
Last edited by a moderator:
Now I see what you mean. Thanks for post 1556. Cheers again.
Last edited:
No, my PM to you was a request for you to repost your 1557 to make your quote of my post 1556 in it agree with the final version. (You posted before I had edited it, adding additional material, etc.)
If you like, just repost 1557 with comment: "Now I see what you mean. Thanks for post 1556." (Or something like that) I.e. there is no need to repost my post 1556, by quoting it in full, if you just reference it.
When you have done this, I will delete this post.