But if so, it means the end of earth soon. This frequently published result is contradicted by no one in physics. The lobby just bets on the media remaining quiet.
It is ironic that so many physicists take their children hostage. This is because the media do not ask them why they are not afraid. For then they would start to stutter and their children would begin to ask questions. Even Stephen Hawking could no longer afford to skirt the issue.
The ultimate reason, of course, is Einstein. He alone can help. The “happiest thought of my life,” as he always said, has a further consequence (c-global). Ask your teachers about it. You will learn they have no idea. This is at the root of the problem: irrational dogmatism. Worse to date than in the middle ages because the consequences do not hurt a minority of women: this time around everyone is the victim.
The poor witches on the stakes probably foresaw it all since no one else had a closer look at the nature of human society. So only in Auschwitz later on, after the doors were closed. Please, do change your attitude, poor consensus-based society without a heart: Why not show the world that you love your children, my dear physicist colleagues? Do stand the trial that you are under in the face of a watching globe!
In June it might already be too late. So please, forgive me the urgency of my tone. Old men sometimes behave like this if no one is able to find the so vitally needed counter-information. None of my colleagues who unlike my friends John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt are still alive dares say a word. If I were younger, I would probably understand their cowardice.
On the other hand, you see: It is normal that scientists do not care about the results of others. Max Planck said that it takes 30 years. Problem is only that we do not have those 30 years for once.
Why NOT have the UN or a single good journalist of high standing investigate? It costs nothing, after all.
And if a danger is infinite, taking it easy is somehow not justified, right?
i know the likelihood rossler you have more of a chance of get hit by a bus than the lhc cern making micro black holes
I cannot contradict you numerically — the number is unknown. But you did not contradict me that if the risk is finite, CERN is making a survival error.
Right?
I must back up Otto on one point — A possibility of making micro black holes is deemed reasonable by CERN of course. Production rates have been explored in detail.
Ref. Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes , Giddings & Mangano 2008. Appendix E, Figure 4 (page 71), Black hole production rates at the LHC.
What is in question here is whether such MBH evaporate or not if produced at the LHC. — though astrophysical measurement tell us that the former is the case, i.e. if possible to produce such micro black holes, it appears that these must also evaporate. ;)
no i just say rossler that you need to stop making out that this is fact when it is far from fact
I find it amazing that predicting an outcome based on somthing that we know nothing about in empirical or theoretical physics and yet go build one; to be a form of arrogance and stupidity that will end the earth and leave a hole where we existed.
Don’t get carried away. Even Otto doesn’t claim to know for sure that black holes will be produced.
And if so, the future rests on someone who has a great deal to lose if he’s wrong — Stephen Hawking.
We have an accepted finite probability that they will be produced, and I have a proof contradicted by no one that they do not evaporate.
A situationlike this has never before existed in peacetime history
well if the do otto and your right then we will not no for a few years yet. lets hpe you are wrong or they can not be created
Yes.
But why not ask them why they neglect published proof of their incurring a danger.
BUT otto there are thousands of people working with cern and the lhc every one of them much more qualified than you and every single one of them say there is no danger
No, dear James: None of them says that my proof of danger were wrong.
Please, check.
But thank you for having kindly given your opinion.
no they say there is no danger they do not talk about what you say
Oh BTW they started doing collisions today at 450 GeV, so 900GeV collisions. Working as planed coming of a 2 year off period.
Thank you for the information about their readiness to commit the crime against humanity.
Like the German-wings pilot prepated his assault on the passengers…
James: thank you for the special information.
No one said anything like that to me: Where can I find it, please?
otto you say But if so, it means the end of earth soon
you can not make a statement like that soon could mean a week a month help the readers out here
You are right. Soon means an unknown small number of years here.
What are your thoughts on the video and its subject matter’s relation to the LHC collisions, Otto?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/humans-create-a-temperature-250-000-times-hotter-than-the-sun-right-here-on-earth/259055/
Thanks.
Very nice video. And still childish temperatures in comparison.
On a point often laboured here about gravitational time dilation, it should be noted that Hawking already considers this in the black hole solution. As phenomena at the event horizon of a stable black hole cannot occur in finite outside observer time, that is why the source of all the outgoing radiation was identified in theory as from quantum fluctuations at an intense and microscopic point right at the moments up to black hole formation.
An interesting consequence of this is that local to the ‘formation’ of a black hole, in dilated time, it radiates ALL its mass as thermal energy at that microscopic point in time just prior to this formation, and ceases to exist in an instant. It never becomes a true black hole, and to the outside observer this dilated microscopic instant spans the lifetime of the ‘almost’ black hole — short in time for MBH, far longer for the more massive BH.
It is nice that you show your way of understanding Hawking.
What you say is, although in sync with accepted opinion, illogical (not your fault). Everyone seems to have fallen into this trap ever since 1939.
I can demonstrate this using your correct statement
“As phenomena at the event horizon of a stable black hole cannot occur in finite outside observer time…”
These words are words of gold. They need a brief thinking pause to be apprehended.
“Outside time” means essentially universe time, right? Namely that of most everyone who does not happen to be close to the horizon of a black hole , right?
Now what does “universe time ” mean? Answer: Universe time is our time, earth time (give and take a few partial percent), right?
Does in this rough outside time an astronaut or a stone or anything ever arrive at the horizon of a black hole?
Does or did anything ever arrive at the horizon of any black hole ever, before infinitely much time will have passed in the whole outside universe?
The answer is no. Do you — or does anyone else — contradict me here?
I predict that you won’t, and thaz no one else would. Only all the textbooks do. And Hawking does. And ten thousand CERN physicists do.
Is that not interesting?
Thank you Tom
Yes — A simple ‘textbook’ black hole cannot be created in finite observer time. We often talk of textbook black holes as a simplification of the idea, but the understood reality is quite different. What we deal with is as you coined it yourself ‘almost’ black holes.
You would be in agreement with Hawking on this. In recognising the infinite time dilation at the horizon, Hawking concludes that all the radiation from such formations are therefore from effects which occur before such a black hole has fully formed — The black hole has fully evaporated before it condenses to within its event horizon. What we witness as an observer is from dilated time approaching the horizon, not at the horizon.
Nice that you do not contradict me.
And nice that you try to rehabilitate Hawking.
Maybe he has learned something in the meantime.
But his radiation is gone as soon as one half of the quantum fluctuation has not and can not have disappeared behind the horizon, as he had assumed.
So the whole radiation is no longer existent. Any attempt to cling to a substitute is pointless.
Yes — and as you know I’m not the biggest fan of Hawking Radiation as a theory — hence my greater interest in astrophysical reassurances. However one should note that the ‘one half of the quantum fluctuation disappears behind the horizon’ description of how HR works is a simplified model (In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, for example — though this model has similar issues. ). At best the other half of each quantum fluctuation at any moment can only accelerate towards the event horizon while its partner radiates, feeding the next moment of fluctuations, and the next, until the BH has fully evaporated. All before the event horizon is reached.
In any case, the basic observation I wished to make was that HR has already considered gravitational time dilation, so to challenge it one needs to get further into the detail of how this ‘problem’ for HR has been side-stepped with various reinterpretations.
Quote: “the other half of each quantum fluctuation at any moment can only accelerate towards the event horizon while its partner radiates…“
This is not true. There is NO REASON for the two half-fluctuations NOT to re-unite in time and disappear — unless one partner has already irreversibly disappeared behind the horizon, as Hawking correctly saw.
So nothing special happens here at all — only fluctuations that recombine as usual in time.
Hawking will confiirm this once he accepts that in the lifetime of the one half fluctuation, the other half can and hence must and does return.
The importance of the horizon in the separation of pairs from quantum fluctuations — This is the point I will have to disagree with you on Otto — and not for the first time. I consider the massive gravitational forces at play hold them apart once separated — and whether the event horizon is involved as largely incidental (which I appreciate you will disagree with me on). Otherwise Hawking Radiation would not work (which we do agree on). We must return to this ‘achilles heel’ discussion point at some future date.
Okay — you have a theory of your own saying that for a certain arbitrarily chosen value of curvarture, quantum mechanics ceases to be applicable.
Who could contradict anyone with a new axiom?
Otto — I am not citing a new axiom, and certainly not suggesting quantum mechanics arbitarily ‘ceases to be applicable’ in certain conditions. As with any behavior in science, it is forces & energy (gravitational in this case), not boundaries, which have cause and effect. I merely provided casual analysis of the method in which Hawking Radiation can work under the constraints of existing, and accepted, reinterpretations.
Since there is no evidence of quantum gravity whatsoever, isn’t it obvious that gravity first requires large mass to exist at all? Who says all mass exerts gravity on other masses unless one is extremely large? What evidence is there of this? Why else would gravity be so weak in relation to the other forces?
Any explanation, if any of this or otherwise, would be greatly appreciated.
A “method in which Hawking Radiation can work under the constraints of existing, and accepted, reinterpretations”:
It would be great if you could give a reference to this allegedly existing “method”, Tom.
You are right, Kash, that one must always look for evidence that accepted laws like gravitation do extend to the boundaries of knowledge. In the present case, very low masses are at stake.
However, there is no evidence so far that gravity will cease at maximally small mass values, to my knowledge. The question, nevertheless, is most original.
On the specific point about virtual particle-antiparticle radiation emitted from just outside the event horizon due to gravitational effects one can take casual points made here for example — Hawking Radiation-An Augmentation Attrition Model. K. N.Prasanna Kumar, B. S. Kiranagi, C. S. Bagewadi. 2012. Governing equations from page 21. ;-)
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/ans/article/view/j.ans.1715787020120502.1817/2663
Thank you very much for the nice paper.
It is based on the usual assumptions of it being possible to come arbitrarily close to the horizon in finite outer time (which is incorrect).
Only so can it suggest that the Hawking mechanism works even there (this quite a few papers assume even though Hawking himself never said so).
But it suffices to admit — as I told you before above — that all events and particles “outside the horizon” are always infinitely far from the horizon in the sense that they will never come close in finite outer time since the horizon does not even exist in finite outer time.
Thank you for having tried. You are the only supporter of CERN’s decision to ignore 7 years of physics (before doubling the largest energy density ever before reached in the universe on a fixed spot down on our earth). No one else ever even attempted an excuse. This makes you are a hero in my eyes no less than in those of CERN.
Otto — I am not a supporter of any one or decision, I am merely analysing the situation — but thank you for the kind words. However — it is of course possible to come close to the horizon in finite observer time — just not to the horizon. That is the basis of my point.
Thank you.
But mentioning observer time is misleading. The pbserver gets in in a small finite time — but only according to his own clock, and only if no other black hole came close during the infinite time the infinitely slowed-down observer needs to get down (provided the universe is stiill there by then).
Everyone in physics appears to be grabbed by the wrong opinion that the small observer time of the in-falling observer possessed equal rights to the outside time. It is a tragic error.
No — I referred to outside observer time, not local time. The lifetime of the MBH/BH in outside observer time, or outsider time as you call it, maps back to an intense and microscopic point at the moments up to (failed) black hole formation in local time near the horizon — as I clarified in earlier comments. As we refer to activity close to the horizon, and not at the horizon, there is no infinity involved, and hence no contradiction.
I quote: “up to black hole formation in local time near the horizon”.
But: ‘Black hole formation in local time’ never occurs in the infinite future history of the universe, as we saw. Right?
Yes — Hence I refer to ‘failed black hole formation’ just as you refer to ‘almost black holes’. However — it does seem that such simple deductions do not tally well with Prof Hawking’s writings in for example his recent (2014) paper ‘Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes’ where he considers Black Holes as temporal entities which contain mass within apparent horizons. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf I suspect we have made an oversight, or I misunderstand ‘apparent horizons’ , and I invite the reader to identify that oversight.
Maybe I should confess that i not only insist on everyone taking seriously the infinite temporal distance of black hole horizons from the outside (which alone proves they never arise in any finite universe), but also know that this infinite temporal distance is accompanied by an equal spatila distance (since c-global retrieved implies this).
This pulls away the last waste basket fromwhich one could draw miraculous events about black holes like particle emissiomns or fancy firewalls etc.
They simply are unstoppable monsters crackable only by bigger brethren. I mentioned this in my co-authored book chaotic Harmony, for example.
That’s a bit dramatic of a conclusion Otto, if these ‘unstoppable monsters’ as you call them ‘never arise in any finite Universe’. ;-)
Meanwhile, we have discussed how an ‘almost black hole’ as referred to earlier can both arise and evaporate with equal ease in that same finite Universe.
No, this is a misunderstanding: They are never finished in finite outer time, but they are nevertheless (via the Birkhoff theorem which says that outside a radius that comprises all the mass in its interior, all external gravitational effects are the same as if the mass had been contracted even more) just as dangerous as if they were finished.
THE DARKER SIDE OF CERN
There is a lot of serious decision on CERN all over the internet. Many believe they are trying to open a door/ porthole into another dimension.
What’s up with the statue of the god Shiva just outside of CERN’S office? Shiva is known as the destroyer god. What does the destroyer god have to do with CERN?
The town that the LHC complex is situated-Saint Genis Pouilly-was in Roman times called Apolliacum, the town and a temple being dedicated to Apollyon.
APOLLYON. The Greek name, meaning “Destroyer,” given in Revelation 9:11 for “the angel of the bottomless pit” As bottomless pits go, I cannot think of anything more bottomless than a black hole.
Is it just a coincidence that CERN is short for the horned God Cernunnos? In Revelation 9 a door is opened in the earth and out comes Apollyon the destroyer.
Is it coincidence that the LHC was located in the very place where a temple/town dedicated to the king of the bottomless pit or is it by design?
CERN is responsible for birthing the internet and do you want to know what they call their computer? THE BEAST, the beast from the bottomless pit perhaps?
It was also reported that in 1999 CERN proposed and carried out quantum Vortex experiments searching for Solar Axions. Axions are hypothetical particles that are components of dark matter. In order to find these Axions CERN proposed the use of a decommissioned magnet called SATAN.
There are, of course, no coincidences!
Thank you, Bruce, for having brought-in a both humanistic and humorous perspective in continuation of a millennia-old tradition.
Otto
I forgot to mention my co-authored book “Chaotic Harmony.”
And I would like to mention ottorossler on WordPress.com as an opportunity for further exchanges.
Sorry, I meant: https://ottorossler.wordpress.com