I have on occasion used the term ‘the neutron star paradox’ amongst LHC safety critics to denote the existence of neutron stars, as micro black hole capture should invalidate their existence if micro black holes were stable, according to official safety reports. The oft used counter-argument being that of superfluidity, which I personally dismiss as bunkum (zero viscosity cannot slip and slide your way out from the dark side of an event horizon).
It would be more appropriate to consider the magnetic field of the neutron star such that cosmic rays are always deflected by the Lorentz force from such stars, or perhaps some solar wind type effect may do similar (though this has at least partly been argued against in safety assurance already). The alternative (and infinitely more plausible) explanation of course is that micro black holes (TeV scale, at least) do not exist, though dozens of papers on arXiv and other journals argue otherwise (and CERN scientists willfully anticipate the creation of approx. 10,000 of these over the course of LHC experiemnts). The slightly less plausible explanation is that Hawking Radiation Theory is actually effective, with the only other explanation being that MBH accretion models are flawed. Otherwise we would not have stable neutron stars in the Universe… they would all be black holes by now.
I thought I’d kick off a thread of discussion here — if anyone has the appetite to participate — on discussion of ‘The Neutron Star Paradox’, as you will see from my previous post on the flux of (hypothetical) stable micro black holes, this is quite central to LHC safety assurance.
Posting e-mail discussions between Otto and myself today (with Otto’s approval):
Tom sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012:
..zero viscosity is no protection against MBH capture… once an MBH shoots through something like this, a part of it will inherently fall within the MBH event horizon — so they are locked together.. zero viscosity cannot get something back from the dark side of an event horizon. I am happy to discuss this very simple conclusion with you either on emails or on Lifeboat… whichever you prefer…
Otto sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012:
“This is very important. Quantum mechanics is different. You cannot possibly separate a Cooper pair, for example. They simply do not exist separately. In the same vein, you cannot snap a neutron from a neutronstar’s core.
Also, the horizon is infinitely far away, so nothing ever enters the horizon in finite outer time.”
Tom sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012:
Yes — but I think you missed my point. “The horizon of the MBH is infinitely far away for a particle falling into it due to it’s gravitational pull”. However, if the MBH is in motion this is a different sceario — if the MBH is passing through an object, then by definition, a part of that object passes through the MBH event horizon.
If an MBH traverses a neutron within a neutron star, then similarly a part of that neutron passes through the event horizon of the MBH. It cannot escape back out from the event horizon of the MBH, or else by definition it would not be an event horizon. If you state that you cannot snap a neturon from the neutron star’s core, then the only conclusion is that the MBH becomes stuck i.e trapped.
Otto sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012:
“I have to disagree for once a little bit. A black hole is like a non-approachable virgin: No one and nothing can come close to its horizon unless in infinite outer-universe time.
Your second point — that this would mean the mBH gets stuck — also unfortunately is not justified, to the best of my knowledge. The individual particles (parts of Cooper pairs and generalized “Cooper clouds,” if the name is acceptable) do not exist in quantum mechanics. Therefore, they cannot individually do anything with the mBH like braking iit. It simply does not see them. This is what frictionlessness means.”
Tom sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012:
“No one and nothing can come close to its horizon unless in infinite outer-universe time.”
Consider an MBH travelling at a relativistic speed towards a neutron star. Due the density of the neutron star, superfluidity or not, It cannot get through the neutron star without a portion of space-time occupied by that neutron star traversing through the MBH’s event horizon, and the MBH is not going to repel any portion of the neutron star to avoid this either. If you argue that the MBH goes right through it… then it has to go into and back out of the event horizon in very quick time… invalidating your ’ infinite outer-universe time’ concept.
“individual particles (parts of Cooper pairs and generalized “Cooper clouds,” if the name is acceptable) do not exist in quantum mechanics.”
Of course they do. They are just binded by gravity in a manner that makes them behave as such in this state.
“Therefore, they cannot individually do anything with the mBH like braking iit. It simply does not see them. This is what frictionlessness means.”
If the binding force between the neutron stars is too great for the traversed portion to escape with the relativistic MBH, then the MBH is held back — it is stuck. What is certain is that it stays within the MBH if it is traversed by the event horizon… and this is unaviodable if the MBH passes through a neutron star. Otherwise, please cite your expected MBH trajectory…
Otto sent on: 13 March 2012 17:15 :
Quote: “without a portion of space-time occupied by that neutron star traversing through the MBH’s event horizon“
A very interesting statement. But it uses an intuition which is not that of relativity theory. If you had argued — as Penrose once did — that a certain normal region of spacetime can thoroug h outer influences be forced to become part of the interior of a black hole (because around this region enough mass is being unnoticealy accumulated), I would have agreed. Even though then for those poor people inside, time would eventually go so slow that in the outer universe, an infinite time would have passed.
But here, no problem like this occurs as far as I can tell. You can take one volume of space and transport it through another, without the two having to make any connection in between. The black hole has an interior that is absolutely separated from the its outside. And so has many a shell around the black hole. So it is possible to transport the outer shell through an external volume of space, without the inner shell or shells ever having any contact or connection with the outer space.
Even though I find this a pity. It would be much more“just” if your argument held true. But I do not see how that ciould be.
If you argue that the MBH goes right through it… then it has to go into and back out of the event horizon in very quick time… invalidating your ’ infinite outer-universe time’ concept.
This would be so in the absence of my just given argument.
> The individual particles (parts of Cooper pairs and generalized “Cooper clouds,” if the name is acceptable) do not exist in quantum mechanics.
Of course they do. They are just binded by gravity in a manner that makes them behave as such in this state.
This “of course” is without justification, as far as I can see. “They” do not exist. If Cooper pair elements existed individually, they could not behave in the way they do. I have thought and written much about “indistinguishability” (which also exists classically). It goes back to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence of 1716. Its place in quantum mechanics is compounded by the “micro time reversals” that I discovered. So the whole matter is maximally difficult and interesting. Almost everything still can and must be elaborated in detail (So far I can deal with indistinguishability classically only in one space dimension; a co-worker had to go to Taiwan to survive, having no time to work on his diss. In orthodox quantum mechanics, it is Everett’s theory which comes closest intuitively. That is, it is the most correct version, albeit the ideo of different “worlds” existing is a misunderstanding, it is only different “cuts” (or “branxches” as Everett said).
The whole thing is very difficult — speak: unclear — , but orthodox mainstream non-Everett pühysicists are of the ssame opinion: An individual particle in a Cooper pair does not exist.
> Therefore, they cannot individually do anything with the mBH like braking it. It simply does not see them. This is what frictionlessness means.
If the binding force between the neutron stars’ neutrons etc is too great for the traversed portion of the neutron star to escape with the relativistic MBH, then the MBH is held back — it is stuck.
The frictionless particle can change its speed only under the influence of gravitational forces, inside the neutron star, and through friction in the outer crust.
This is again common physical opinion, not just mine.
There is no “portion of space” that could be carried away. Space is not a substance with Einstein.
What is certain is that it stays within the MBH if it is traversed by the event horizon…
Nothing can traverse the venet horizon before an infinite time has passed in the outer universe. This means: never.
and this is unaviodable if the MBH passes through a neutron star. Otherwise, please cite your expected MBH trajectory…
Here both the apparent irrationalities of quantum mechanics and of relativity enter. I agree with you that both must (and can) be explained classically eventually. But the notion of micro-time reversals is very counter-intuitive. So is that of an infinite extension of space, inside a small finite bounding surface.
(But is wonderful that such “healable absurdidites” exist in nature. Both the quantum revolution and the spacetime revolution are far from being understood, that is, finished.
You are the first scientist who may be strong enough to force this revolution to take place and be accepted.
Kind regards,
Otto
P.S. Should we put this dialogue on Lifeboat?
Oh, Otto again with his strange ideas about infinite absolute times.
In general relativity particles can reach the horizont. That Otto sets one distance defintion as the only real one and so on was already rejected by high ranked experts in the field years ago. He never understood their arguments (he himself admitted that once) and therefore still believes in his wrong R-theorem conclusions.
Again Rössler sits in the trap of his own dogmatism.
If your mbhs are frictionless in terms of strong nuclear forces and extreme gravity then they are harmless to less dense earth matter.
otto never resolved this. He simply states the same bullshit again.
“you cannot snap a neutron from a neutronstar’s core”
But to snap a quark from a nucleus bound by the strongest known force is easily done, Otto?
But in the case of extreme dense stars where the force is even more important suddenly not?
This is a classic statement for once by eq: (Quote)
“Oh, Otto again with his strange ideas about infinite absolute times.”
It is indeed an — and perhaps the central — ingrained mistake of virtually the whole general-relativistic profession, not to know that something like an almost objective universal time existing in the universe — that valid at “space going to infinity”.
This unphysical idealization is quite well appproximated at quite short outer distances from the earth — or outside of a small black hole — for example.
I will have to remind my friend Roger Penrose of not having stressed this point in his beautiful book “Road to Reality” — and for perhaps not knowing humself about this important approximative standard’s physical existence.
For example, he has this wonderful paradigm of many external masses encroaching more and more tightly on an inner region of space with its own nhabitants, mentioned above in the discussion with Tom this afternoon. It is most trivial and interesting to keep in mind that while in their own time, not much will happen to those encroached-upon people, they will all become infinitely slowed in relation to the “outside universe.”
This single ingrained oversight might eventuallly prove to be the deepest reason why the — too consensualistic — relativistic community of very few people across the planet apparently got used to forgetting that nothing can reach a horizon in finite outer time — as Oppenheimer and Snyder still were very much aware of in their seminal 1939 paper.
So again: thank you, dear unknown eq.
The other two arguments given by eq above are unfortunately involving misunderstandings on his part. I say this here only in the — often shattered — hope that a real scientific discussion can come about with the community on this blog. Since a discussion between a scientist and many anonymous other discussants unfortunately cannot be called a scientific discussion since honesty is a vital ingredient in the definition of the latter.
(Only if historians later get interested in such a situation for some reason does the whole thing become an instance of objective scientific discussion — although the anonmous previous participants are not rehabilitated.)
Otto — about our discussion — you misquoted me — I never stated a “portion of space” could be carried away by an MBH: If the binding force between the neutron stars’ neutrons etc is too great for the traversed portion of the neutron star to escape with the relativistic MBH, then the MBH is held back — it is stuck.
Basically — as nothing can escape from within the event horizon of a non-radiating black hole, anything that gets in the path of such a relativistic MBH is consumed by it (or in your view of the world — approaches it in infinite time?). This would result in the MBH failing to escape the neutron star as I attempted to explain above — it would become embedded.
If you can, please elaborate how the superfluidity characteristic you believe is at play would allow MBH to get through a neutron star without having a force to push anything in infront of its trajectory out of the event horizon’s path and so avoid being consumed…
ottos argument is even inconsistent. On the one hand he insists that nothing can reach the horizont because of his (wrong) version of GR (which is, as shown, not GR any more).
On the other hand it should be possible to eat the whole planet in finite outer time. But the neutron star could not be eaten. If this infinity argument applies for N-stars, it should also apply for other objects.
I guess you can see why I still consider superfluidity as a weaker argument than magnetic field repulsion and solar wind like effects as the true reason why neutron stars may be immune to cosmic ray produced micro black hole accretion. In either case, one would need to better assess if this is robust enough as a proof, or just a paradox…
Dear people
Can someone tell me the parameters of a conventional horizon of a conventional black hole and can someone tell me especially the degree of time delay at the conventional horizon of a black hole?
And can someone answer me the same question for conventional micro black holes?
An infinite number of thanks, Niccolò
(Ps.: Naturally “conventional” means without Hawking radiation.)
——-
Dear EQ I thought for example you? Best regards, Niccolò
——-
Wouldn’t a micro Black Hole be inert and not react with other matter in a significant way, making the likely at the center of some stellar objects, if two objects are inside they might just join together at the center. No problem for the age of a planet or star unless the LHC is creating millions of them or next to a helium atom molecule near absolute zero in the liquid Helium coil perhaps some wrapped perpendicularly around the LHC.
Dear Mr. Kane
No problem of the age of a planet or a star, because nature does probably not (or very, very seldom) produce micro black holes, slow enough to be entrapped by gravitation. Natural MBHs would perhaps just traverse the astronomic body for once and escape into the wide space.
But white dwarfs and neutron stars seem to be not a sound basis as a guarantee for the safety of collider experiments too. There are some unsolved phenomena in the universe.
Please see my comments here too:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/lhc-critique-press-info-instead-of-a-neutral-risk-assessment-of-the-lhc-new-records-and-plans-for-costly-upgrades-at-cern/comment-page-1#comment-105842
Thank you.