Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

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. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


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:
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. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/

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.

It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3 , converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation. This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere, the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed, and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to relativistic cosmology.

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
SUBATOMIC SAFETY REVISITED

As Europe's CERN particle-physics center is counting down to the official startup of the Large Hadron Collider, a report reassuring the public that the world's largest atom-smasher won't destroy the world is getting a second wave of publicity.

The report was prepared by CERN scientists and outside researchers and released in June, updating a 2003 safety study. Now the new study has been published by the peer-reviewed Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. CERN used the occasion to emphasize the mainstream view that the collider won't create globe-gobbling black holes or other types of doomsday phenomena that have put folks on edge.

"The LHC will enable us to study in detail what nature is doing all around us," CERN Director Robert Aymar said in today's news release. "The LHC is safe, and any suggestion that it might present a risk is pure fiction."

The report concludes that if the collider could create catastrophes, the much more powerful particle collisions that continually occur in space would have wiped us out long ago. "It points out that nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programs on Earth - and the planet still exists," said Jos Engelen, CERN's chief scientific officer.

Critics of the collider weren't satisfied when the report first came out in June, and they're not likely to change their mind now that it's been formally published in the scientific literature. The hysteria over the LHC and black-hole boogeymen has been rising with the approach of next Wednesday's low-energy startup, as detailed in this report from The Telegraph.

And the debate continues till....
 
kmguru said:
SUBATOMIC SAFETY REVISITED

As Europe's CERN particle-physics center is counting down to the official startup of the Large Hadron Collider, a report reassuring the public that the world's largest atom-smasher won't destroy the world is getting a second wave of publicity.

The report was prepared by CERN scientists and outside researchers and released in June, updating a 2003 safety study. Now the new study has been published by the peer-reviewed Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. CERN used the occasion to emphasize the mainstream view that the collider won't create globe-gobbling black holes or other types of doomsday phenomena that have put folks on edge.

"The LHC will enable us to study in detail what nature is doing all around us," CERN Director Robert Aymar said in today's news release. "The LHC is safe, and any suggestion that it might present a risk is pure fiction."

The report concludes that if the collider could create catastrophes, the much more powerful particle collisions that continually occur in space would have wiped us out long ago. "It points out that nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programs on Earth - and the planet still exists," said Jos Engelen, CERN's chief scientific officer.

Critics of the collider weren't satisfied when the report first came out in June, and they're not likely to change their mind now that it's been formally published in the scientific literature. The hysteria over the LHC and black-hole boogeymen has been rising with the approach of next Wednesday's low-energy startup, as detailed in this report from The Telegraph.

And the debate continues till....
Click to expand...

Seriously - I can hardly wait until several full-power runs have been made and with NONE of the scaredy-cats predictions coming true. It will be great fun to watch them all scurry away with their tails between their legs as they vanish into oblivion never to be heard from again.

This Paul Dixon idiot probably won't go away, though. All he's done for the past SEVERAL years each time the power levels have been increased on existing installations is to ignore his own previous predictions and yell, "THIS is the one!!! (Over and over again.)
 
The argument from lay persons POV is that we were able to create atom bombs...so may be at certain power level threshold...it may go "bang" - simply because a chemist thinking to produce a C4 might produce a nuclear bomb without having the understanding of....

More likely nothing will happen...because of power and mass used....but if it does...we wont be here to find out....what a way to go....:D
 
Paul Dixon created this thread in 2001. Progressively, scientists have been increasing the energy of particle collisions since then. Now we are going to see a vast increase in collisional energies in the coming months at the LHC

If Paul is wrong, he won't care. His conscience is rightly clear, and I congratulate him on a job well done.

If he's right...well....

Whenever I look at this thread I think of Bob Dylan's Oscar-winning song 'Things Have Changed (1999). It contains this line.

"If the Bible is right, the world will explode"
 
Read-Only said:
Seriously - I can hardly wait until several full-power runs have been made and with NONE of the scaredy-cats predictions coming true. It will be great fun to watch them all scurry away with their tails between their legs as they vanish into oblivion never to be heard from again.

This Paul Dixon idiot probably won't go away, though. All he's done for the past SEVERAL years each time the power levels have been increased on existing installations is to ignore his own previous predictions and yell, "THIS is the one!!! (Over and over again.)
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't read what the "predictions" are that are being made. The "prediction" for small microblackholes is that if they are made [and don't evaporate], they can't be detected until decades or millenia later. In other words, we will not know that they were made until perhaps our children's children's grandchildren find the earth suddenly disappearing. Idiots who are the cheering squad for CERN, however, don't care about truth, and promote the fraudulent hype also promoted by CERN, and believe that engaging in collisions with the earth being intact the next day would somehow prove themselves right.
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
Obviously you don't read what the "predictions" are that are being made. The "prediction" for small microblackholes is that if they are made [and don't evaporate], they can't be detected until decades or millenia later. In other words, we will not know that they were made until perhaps our children's children's grandchildren find the earth suddenly disappearing. Idiots who are the cheering squad for CERN, however, don't care about truth, and promote the fraudulent hype also promoted by CERN, and believe that engaging in collisions with the earth being intact the next day would somehow prove themselves right.
Click to expand...

Please remind me of your qualifications in the area of nuclear physics.
 
I've just been listening to Brian Cox on BBC4's 'Big Bang Machine' programme.

He clearly stated CERN has no intention of starting the LHC at low energies, but will jump in at high energies. Has something changed? Have I missed the latest news?
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
Obviously you don't read what the "predictions" are that are being made. The "prediction" for small microblackholes is that if they are made [and don't evaporate], they can't be detected until decades or millenia later. In other words, we will not know that they were made until perhaps our children's children's grandchildren find the earth suddenly disappearing. Idiots who are the cheering squad for CERN, however, don't care about truth, and promote the fraudulent hype also promoted by CERN, and believe that engaging in collisions with the earth being intact the next day would somehow prove themselves right.
Click to expand...

Not to worry, Walter, you will probably go down in history. As yet another Chicken Little.

We won't miss you at all when you run and hide...
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children 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.

We note that the current estimate of first collisional testing for the ring at CERN will be on about October 10, 2008. This will provide for the first test of this postulation of forming a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a Supernova with the initial lower energy level of CERN. Please recall that this is an experiment to determinde the possibility of forming a transition towards other dimensions, e.g., de Sitter space, as well as discovering the Higgs boson.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jj8FEmbV51mefR7brcbExIAOOtTQD931VSPO1

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. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/

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.

It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3 , converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation. This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere, the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed, and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to relativistic cosmology.

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
SciForums.com

I'm hearing like more and more reports on these hooded alien beings. I'm thinking that I experienced one of these beings being in my room on August 8th 1999 on the early morn hours. I remember it vividly. There were two hooded aliens, one was tall and one was short. The only thing I don't remember was what exactly they did to me. I'm hearing that they leave materials behind in the room as evidence that they were there. I'm still searching my room to see if anything was left behind. On that morning, I found a big blotch of 'sand' on my stomach. No, it wasn't lint, this material stuck to my stomach and was hard to rinse away. I kept some samples and had it analyzed, it was sand allright. So what's the deal with these? Anyone else experience this?
 
EnergyRecruitment said:
I'm hearing like more and more reports on these hooded alien beings. I'm thinking that I experienced one of these beings being in my room on August 8th 1999 on the early morn hours. I remember it vividly. There were two hooded aliens, one was tall and one was short. The only thing I don't remember was what exactly they did to me. I'm hearing that they leave materials behind in the room as evidence that they were there. I'm still searching my room to see if anything was left behind. On that morning, I found a big blotch of 'sand' on my stomach. No, it wasn't lint, this material stuck to my stomach and was hard to rinse away. I kept some samples and had it analyzed, it was sand allright. So what's the deal with these? Anyone else experience this?
Click to expand...

Thanks for asking this here, it not like this thread has any other purpose. I remember them specifically call each other by the names "Ignignokt" and "Err"... I also don't remember them being too bright, I mean it hard to be stupider then those other aliens that are constantly shoving things up my ass but these guys were!
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
Please remind us why we should bother responding to someone who hasn't read the referenced material.
Click to expand...
Please remind us where you backed up your claim that the Hawking process can tunnel material into a black hole if the black hole is surrounded by a region with $$T_{ab} \not= 0$$. I asked months ago for you to back up that claim, perhaps I missed you posting it?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
...I asked months ago for you to back up that claim, perhaps I missed you posting it?
Click to expand...
I know you enjoy these pissing contest you frequently engage in but as you continue to ignore the physics in both post 1580 and the earlier one it condenses (post 1566) you are in a "glass house" here throwing stones at Walter for ignoring your request, not for physic or discussion of physics as I am asking you, but for "qualifications."

As Einstein once remarked, paraphrasing slightly, it is not the number of people who agree with you or dispute your POV that determines the truth but whether or not their physics is correct. Let stop these pissing contests and discuss the physics. Especially whether or not the tiny black hole, if it should be stabilized by some quantum effect when extremely tiny instead of continue to shrink by Hawking radiation (sort of like atoms are stabilized against rapid radiative decay by quantum effects) then how long before it becomes a charged black hole and one can ignore the gravitational interaction that is the only one considered in the safety report or by you. The electrical interaction between positive nuclei and negatively charged black hole is at least

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the

gravitational interaction considered by you and the safety report and that many times more important.

Again I ask you to look at post 1580 and understand the error you make by only considering the gravitational interaction.

If you have some reason to think that the tiny black hole will not capture any of the "zillions" of electrons whose orbitals it passes thru with each meter of its travel inside the Earth, please tell why it will not become negatively charged.

In the foot note to post 1566 I outline the physics of how to estimate the rate at which the tiny black hole will become charged as it travels thru "solid" mater. Do you find some error in my physic?

I am not wanting a pissing contest with you, so if that is either all you like to do and / or you cannot, or do not wish to discuss physics, just continue to ignore my requests for discussion of the physic of charging a tiny black hole. (As outlined in posts 1566 and illustrated in 1580 with an analogy.)
 
Billy T said:
Let stop these pissing contests and discuss the physics.
Click to expand...
You and I have been down this road already. You don't want to discuss physics, you just want to whine about how the safety report uses terminology in a way you haven't seen before. OMG if you've not seen it, it must be wrong!! :rolleyes:
Billy T said:
The electrical interaction between positive nuclei and negatively charged black hole is at least

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000 times stronger than the

gravitational interaction considered by you and the safety report and that many times more important.
Click to expand...
Except that even when you consider the huge difference between the EM and gravitational forces, you find that the black hole is still largely unaffected. In deep inelastic scattering we have to push the electron to energies of the range of GeV before it'll start plowing through the nucleus, despite them attracting via electromagnetism and even then the electron has to be aimed precisely at the nucleus, it doesn't magically bend into the nucleus just because it's EM'ly attracted to it. A negatively charged black hole will bend even less because it's mass is many many times more than the electrons in DIS. And even when it does go through a nucleus, it's many many times smaller than a single proton or neutron so it would only pluck out a single quark, perhaps, not eat the entire nucleus.

Basically, it's moving so fast and has so much momentum that unless it is going precisely head first into a particle, be it or they charged or not in any way, it's not going to absorb anything.

If you think the difference is important, quantify it. Don't just wave your arms in the air screaming "We're dddoooooooooooommmmeedddd!!!, do the physics. You want to discuss physics, physics is about quantifying things. If you think the quantified results of the safety report are wrong, do your own quantified results. If you can't, you're just like Walter, all talk with nothing to say.

If you don't want a pissing contest, stop waving your **** all over the place.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You want to discuss physics, physics is about quantifying things. ...
Click to expand...
I did at least have one number but admit it was only a conservative guess as I do not know the mass of the tiny black hole so I cannot compare its electric to gravitational forces accurately. In contrast you have nothing but "hand waving" in your post - not even one number! So below I will compress your post to shows these number-less assertions you make and request that you give a few numbers for them.

As far as you claim about my whining about terminology, Yes, I did initially object to the safety report hiding in middle of a distant paragraph the fact that they were going to call the gravitational force a coulomb attraction or interaction and they never even mention that in the entire section in which they did the analysis of this so called "coulomb interaction."

We will just need to disagree on why they did this, but I think that was intentionally very miss leading - an effort to make the skimming reader (the report is long so most do just skim it) think that they were considering the electric interaction / attraction in the section, with dozens of complex equations, which very few even read and they call the "coulomb interaction" Section 5.

None the less BECAUSE you used this concern of mine about terminology to distract or avoid any discussion of the physics, I stopped using the term "coulomb" long ago in ALL of my posts, just so your diversion to a terminology discussion would stop, but you still drag it out here again! I.e. Now, and in all recent posts, to distinguish between the analyses of the gravitational interaction from the electrical interaction I use these terms only and avoid ever using the word "Coulomb." I have even asked you to stop using it -I.e. let's not be concerned with the NAME is the way I requested this, but be concerned with the physics.


AlphaNumeric said:
...A negatively charged black hole will bend even less because it's {1} mass is many many times more than the electrons in DIS. And even when it does go through a nucleus, it's {2} many many times smaller than a single proton or neutron so it would only pluck out a single quark, perhaps, not eat the entire nucleus.

Basically, it's moving so {3} fast and has so much momentum that unless it is going precisely head first into a particle, be it or they charged or not in any way, it's not going to absorb anything. ...
Click to expand...
Numbers please for {1}, {2}, & {3}above. I.e.

(1) What mass can the LHC make? and what mass are you assuming when you state this? If you tell the assumed mass then I can tell the electric to gravitational force ratio accurately.

(2a) How many times smaller is the black hole than the proton? I assume you are using the classical radius one unit of charge must be shrunk down to have the work done against its own electric field equal to the mass energy of the proton, but pleas just tell what is the size of the proton you are referring to when making this comparison of the sizes. (Perhaps you are using some empirical value rather than this classical theoretical value?) Just be clear -I.e. lets use numbers as you suggest.

(2b) I assume that the size of the tiny black hole is the diameter of its Event Horizon, EH. That is obviously determined by your answer to the first question about mass, but please give it also.

I think the effective size for the possibility of capture is much larger as there does exist quantum tunneling effects on this tiny scale. Frankly, I am not sure how to estimate how much greater than the EH this greater “effective size” of the black hole is, but as it will be passing thur "zillions of atoms" I think this larger size should be used.

I will suggest that if the tunneling probability exceeds one chance in a million or more, we should use that larger than EH value - lets agree to call it EH6, if the chance per pass of capture is 10^-6, and call it EH 7 if the chance of capture per pass is 10^-7 etc. with EHx having the obvious meaning of a size that has 10^-x chance of capture on each "near miss" of a nucleus. This is still not clearly defined as it will of course depend upon the impact parameter of the “near miss.” What I am really speaking of is the EHx when it has been averaged of millions of randomly chosen impact parameters only a few of which, the small ones, will be important. Obviously, EH7 > EH6 >> EH.

With numbers we can discuss more intelligently the physic don't you agree?

Now, as I do like numbers, I did previously note that a one way pass thru the Earth, assuming nothing significant does happen, would take about 45 minutes. (Recall I justified this by the fact that low Earth orbit requires about 90 minutes and that the orbit period depends only on the semi-major axis, not the eccentricity so the tiny black hole even if in the most eccentric orbit that one can imagine, I.e. a straight line thru the Earth's CoM will have a periods of this order. A little longer as when it is passing near the CoM but still approaching it, is is not being accelerated by much of the Earth's mass, I.e. it is basically just "coasting" on the speed it acquired earlier in the fall towards the center; but likewise after it passes the CoM it is not being de-accelerated much either. To first order, these effects cancel, but in the second order there will be a slight slowing or increase of the transit time. I quantatively discussed this before and noted that if it is released at the surface in a circular orbit, the orbital period is less than 90 minutes, so surely a 45 minute transit of Earth time is a quite reasonable guess, possible it takes only 40 minutes, but I think 45 is more likey.)

All of this is just to ask you if you have any idea what is "x" in EHx so that during the 45 minute transit thru the Earth the probably of capture of a proton is say 1% (or more generally. "y")

That is I agree that EH is likely to be smaller than the proton diameter but what is important is Py the probability of capture a proton on each pass thur the Earth. There will be a very large number of times when the tiny black hole passes close to a nucleus during each the 45 minutes of transit and very many transit in the life time of some of the readers active here (not to mention their great grandchildren)

Finally on {3}:
(3) What speed are you thinking of in this statement? I think the most reasonable speed to consider, certainly the most conservative speed from a safety POV, is zero. I.e. the LHC simple makes a tiny black hole at rest and it begins to fall under the influence of gravity towards the center of the Earth. Admittedly exactly zero initial speed is unlikely - same as any exact speed such a precisely 100 mph is unlikely, but it is important to consider a very slow speed passing thru the earth, as these tiny black holes surely will not be traveling near the speed of light as are those which were generated by cosmic rays. They were formed by COLLIDING beams and will be basically (compared to C, at least) be at rest in an Earth's reference frame.

Can you agree that the initial speed to consider in the safety analysis is zero? If not why not?


Yes let’s discuss some physic.
You give numbers too. I have not seen even one in all of your posts, but perhaps I missed one? Thus, I think you have ONLY hand waving statements.

In closing, I want to again state as I have in many prior post that I think it highly improbably that Earth is at any risk. So please stop trying to "tar and feather" with me with a "chicken little" etc, label. I just think the important pysics should be discussed not a gravitational attraction by the extremely tiny gravity of this extremely tiny black hole which will not even exist of a microsecond if the usually rules of quantization do not apply to stabalize it.

To understand quickly why I want to discuss the electrical, not the gravitational interaction please just read relative short post 1580, which contains the blue text analogy below:

Suppose you were standing between the rails of a railroad track with feet set in mass of concrete and a 100 car long train was coming straight at you at 150mph.
On the front of this train there is a flea. (called; "tiny black hole's gravity." The train is called: the "electric force express.")

Now some one then says to you:
"Do not worry. I have done the calculations correctly in my safety report. - Collision with a flea, even at 150mph, is harmless."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, isn't there supposed to be a big difference between micro black holes and massive or supermassive ones?
The entropy-area relation is twice that of a massive BH; I think that micro-BHs should dissipate as Hawking radiation twice as fast as massive ones do (the 'size' of small BHs is much less than a proton). Here's a recent paper that discusses this:
In Einstein’s general relativity, the black hole entropy is given by quarter of the area of the event horizon, $$ S_{BH} = \frac A {4G}, $$ known as the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area formula, which inspires the proposal of holographic principle of gravity.
...
Among numerous investigation of small black holes, there is an interesting general property first observed in [13] and later in [14, 15, 16]: the black hole entropy and the area of stretched horizon are related as

$$ S_{BH} = \frac A {2G}\;\;\;\;\;\;\; $$ (1)

This adjusted relation indicates that the higher curvature terms contribute an equal amount of entropy as Hilbert-Einstein action (scalar curvature). This is an important observation and it is natural to ask how general or universal this revised relation (1) is between the entropy and horizon area and what the physical implications behind the relation are, if any.

--Entropy Function and Universality of Entropy-Area Relation for Small Black Holes
Rong-Gen Cai et al.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0712.4212v2
Click to expand...
Would this imply that extremal BHs have half the area of massive ones and so would dissipate twice as fast, if the Hawking process is constant, or am I talking out of my elbow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top