Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

[DCWhitworth]

A 'black hole' produced by the LHC would not be unsafe. It would require a lot of very unlikely things to be correct for a stable micro black hole to be formed.

1. They must actually be possible.
2. The LHC must be capable of creating them.
3. They must not be unstable.

The first two are not very likely, the third is exceedingly unlikely to be true.

Even if all these three things were true and a black hole was created it would accrete matter so incredibly slowly that it would take millions and millions of years for it to absorb a single grain of sand.

[photino]

Stephen - sure, beyond a certain point maybe it's a matter of taste which (correct) line of argument one personally finds most convincing, depending on the evidence and theoretical tools used. But I must say I find it astonishing that one could regard the process of black hole *production* (which relies on putting together general relativity and quantum mechanics, extrapolating into a regime where there are no 'observed facts' so far, PLUS on the assumption that large extra dimensions exist (a much bigger "if")) as warranting legitimate safety concerns -- while not allowing the same tools which went into one being worried in the first place to be used in removing the worry!

(Edit: To avoid any misunderstanding, by "no observed facts" I mean that no one has ever observed the formation of a micro black hole, anywhere, ever - just like no one has so far observed Hawking radiation.)

[Shadowdraxx]

erm to re-qoute something i said earlier even in the very thread possibly:


To believe in mBH production in the LHC you must believe in the extra dimensional aspects of string theory, if you believe in them you HAVE to believe in Hawking rad, the two are intertwined, you cannot not have one without the other.

This is the point the doomsdayer crew come along select one of the aspects and not the other (in this case hawking rad).

So from here they build aspects of theory upon other aspects of other theories and say this *could* happen as in aaahhh you cant say it wont happen can you???

but to science when investigated, taking these over the top claims seriously what is the outcome?

Erm still no doomsday

[MagneticTrap]

Ivan

where am i ment to buy a Submarine? and you know maybe like if you wanted to you could come with us i will buy the food and some drink we will go out partying does this sound good to you??????

Dear Emmylou! Submarine will not save us. There is no sense to live a couple of extra days after all humanity would die. Let’s better try to stop LHC and the probable global suicide. And after that I would go with you to any island for a couple of months.

For who can't read russian, this is the translation of Fortov's article in English:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1063-7869 ... 966a961552

The article says in the conclusion:
"...the constantly broadening and newly emerging opportunities in experimental high-enery-denstity physics give hope for reproducing in laboratory conditions ultraextreme substance states..."

He doesn't appear worried to me.

That will lead to Earth explosion and to our death.

…I note that in this article, Fortov is very positive about the LHC!

The relevant passage Ivan cited is on page 25. The connection of the (highly speculative) primordial wormholes, and the possible positronium production within them, to what can happen at the LHC remains entirely unclear to me. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a doomsday scenario there…

Wormholes have space-time metrics, which is close to Kaluza-Klein space-time with extra-dimension, uniting gravity and electromagnetism. “Positronium production” is in fact the x-bosons production from ruined ordinary matter. LHC will start this process and will lead to explosion of Earth.

…Ivan, if you have indeed worked out a complete model with calculations, I would suggest you write it up and post it on the physics arxiv. For this you do not need to be a member of a university. That would be much better (and much easier to understand) than snippets posted to a forum.

In order to do that I need couple of endorsers, who will give his signatures for my adequacy.

March_Hare, even if a mini-BH was at rest it would be no danger because its temperature would be extremely high (for an uncharged black hole, it would be inversely proportional to the mass, and the mass is tiny). It will therefore radiate and lose energy, hence lose mass. This means it gets hotter! A runaway process. That's why Hawking called his famous paper "Black hole explosions" ...

Black holes are impossible and safe.
Magnetic holes are possible and can explode the Earth.
“Black holes evaporation” is error.

Stephen, if you don't believe in Hawking radiation, there are other chains of reasoning - for instance based on astrophysical evidence...

Another lie. Where is Phaeton?

I've read all the safety reports hundreds of times and I agree with their conclusions. I just said using Hawking radiation to determine weather or not everyone in the world will die is a bad idea, since it's still theoretical (despite having a good background).

Safety reports contains three crude errors and one lie assertion.
“Hawking radiation”, in fact, describes the luminosity of stars and Sun.

… black hole *production* … extra dimensions…no one has so far observed Hawking radiation…

You did see the “Hawking radiation” in the form of solar light.

Magnetic holes are “black holes in Kaluza-Klein space-time with extra dimensions, uniting gravity and electroMAGNETISM”. Magnetic holes are 10^36 times stronger than gravity holes.

…To believe in mBH production in the LHC you must believe in the extra dimensional aspects of string theory, if you believe in them you HAVE to believe in Hawking rad, the two are intertwined, you cannot not have one without the other.

No. MBHs with extra dimension are MMHs which are very dangerous. Extra dimensions are natural and clear.

Let’s speak about “Hawking radiation”.

Bell paradox. If two rockets, connected by a string, are accelerated with equal acceleration, then the string would be torn. Or accelerations of rockets must be different.

Unruh and Hawking used this property and come to similar conclusions:
Unruh: T=hbar*a / (2pi*k*c).
Hawking: T=hbar*g / (2pi*k*c) = hbar*c^3 / (8pi*k*G*M).

The second part of Hawking formula describes the temperature of black hole of mass M.
The first part of “Hawking formula” can easily be received from the second part, using Neutron mechanics.
Unruh formula and Hawking formula (the first part) describes the temperature of a vacuum surrounding a particle, accelerated relatively vacuum with acceleration a(Unruh) or g(Hawking).

A particle has a mass and its Compton wavelength, which are connected by equation: mc^2 = h*c / L = hbar*c /R.
Using this formula, we can change the Unruh/Hawking formula:
T = m*a*R/ (2pi*k);
T = m*g*R/ (2pi*k);

Now I rewrite this formula, throwing out the numerical coefficient: dT/dr = mg/k.



This is a formula of gravitational temperature gradient, which does not lead to heat exchange between layers. This idea is very old. AFAIK, the first person, who discussed it, was Loshmidt. But it was forgotten because the formula dT/dr = 0 is simpler. From the other hand, if you substitute the values into this formula you will receive the experimental value of temperature gradient in Earth, which is about 10-30 Kelvin per kilometer.

So, there is no any “black hole evaporation” but there are Eternal sources of energy in Ever Young Universe.

In order to understand the similarity of Unruh and Hawking formulas compare different sides of the figure.



Left side. Unruh. A rod, accelerating relatively vacuum with acceleration a. Unruh temperature is in point R=R_particle.

Right side. Hawking. Earth crust with a rod in it, accelerating relatively vacuum with acceleration g; that is the same as the vacuum accelerates relatively you in the opposite direction! Hawking temperature is in point R=R_particle. On the other depth the temperature will be different. But which layer is the most effective radiator?


In fact that was only a small part of a story.

About 1998 I had received a formula of stellar energy sources. According to my formula the energy output of a star is proportional to M^4/R^5. Couple of years ago I understand that my formula is analogues to Hawking formula, which lead to analogues proportionality: M^4/R^6. You can see that proportionality ar not the same. The cause: Hawking formula connected with surface temperature; my formula is connected with distribution of matter along the radius of a star.
Mass proportionalities are the same and almost coincides with observational value: L~M^3.9.

But the greatest difference in approaches: I hate religious Big Bang model and believe in Ever Young Universe.

It is very pity, but bigbangers will explode the Earth in 20-40 days with great probability.

[photino]

Wormholes have space-time metrics, which is close to Kaluza-Klein space-time with extra-dimension, uniting gravity and electromagnetism.

IF what you mean by this is that you are interpreting a Reissner-Nordstrom metric as a KK system (fair enough), then you are probably misunderstanding the Einstein-Rosen bridge (which is probably what you mean by wormhole). It does not in any way act like positronium.

“Hawking radiation”, in fact, describes the luminosity of stars and Sun.

erm...what??

You know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

This just goes to show that you should (if anything) write up your claim stating clearly which well-accepted theories you are using and which accepted theories you are discarding. Because on the basis of standard physics this makes no sense at all.

Magnetic holes are “black holes in Kaluza-Klein space-time with extra dimensions, uniting gravity and electroMAGNETISM”. Magnetic holes are 10^36 times stronger than gravity holes.

What's your spacetime metric for this magnetic hole? What do you mean by "stronger"?

A particle has a mass and its Compton wavelength, which are connected by equation: mc^2 = h*c / L = hbar*c /R.
Using this formula, we can change the Unruh/Hawking formula:
T = m*a*R/ (2pi*k);
T = m*g*R/ (2pi*k);
Now I rewrite this formula, throwing out the numerical coefficient: dT/dR = mg/k.

There is a mistake here. You substitute m*R = hbar/c. Since the right hand side is a constant, this means m is a function of R (as should be obvious - given what the Compton wavelength is). Thus your calculation of dT/dR as stated is incorrect and in fact dT/dR=0. It's not "simpler", it's just the result.
(Quite apart from the physical question of why this ad hoc additional particle you introduce should affect the temperature in the first place.)

And you accuse the independent scientists who wrote the LHC safety reports of "crude errors"?

But the greatest difference in approaches: I hate religious Big Bang model and believe in Ever Young Universe.

It's not "religious". If you disagree with it, you have to (at minimum) explain all the astrophysical data the big bang model explains so well. I very much doubt you can do this.

It is very pity, but bigbangers will explode the Earth in 20-40 days with great probability.

If we are still around in 40 days time, will you accept your theories have been empirically disproven?

[CharmQuark]

Dear Emmylou! Submarine will not save us. There is no sense to live a couple of extra days after all humanity would die. Let’s better try to stop LHC and the probable global suicide. And after that I would go with you to any island for a couple of months.

Awwwwwww Ivan that sounds really good where would we go somewhere hot??????

[Stephen]

It is very pity, but bigbangers will explode the Earth in 20-40 days with great probability.

If we are still around in 40 days time, will you accept your theories have been empirically disproven?

No. He said the same thing before the first collisions in November. If I remember correctly, he stated something like this -
"I give 30% that the magnetic collapse will start below 1 TeV.
50% that the magnetic collapse will begin at 3.5 TeV.
70% that it will start at 7 TeV.
30% I leave to my mistake."

[spencer]

MagneticTrap, good day sir

i have been perusing your work, that contains various probabilities of a catastrophic failure, pertaining to operations of this nature, and i understand your concern.

i can easily comprehend the ramifications of the different outcomes that you present.

In order to derive good answers, it would be foolhardy for any responsible scientist not evaluate as many outcomes as possible.

As you have stated outcomes in terms of probability, this would indicate that you may believe in positive results from LHC experiments.

You appear, to me, to have a very active mind and I am curious about your thoughts and views pertaining to the effect of positive outcomes, regarding LHC experiments.

Thank you and enjoy

[Allan]

Hi Ivan

Have you ever consider writing for Hollywood? With your overactive imagination and their propensity for producing disaster films, I see you as good match for them.

Allan

[chriwi]

Why Hollywood? From his way of combining scinece and fiction and maybe also from his nationality he reminds me of my favourite writer: Isaac Asimov

[Stephen]

Ivan hasn't updated his site in a long time. I wonder what he's up to. I'm uneasy when he's gone for too long.

[MagneticTrap]

Ivan hasn't updated his site in a long time

No. Today I updated my Russian-language page about black holes and Hawking Radiation. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/letru1.html
Yesterday I refreshed my English-language index-page. http://darkenergy.narod.ru I uploaded there a picture, which is inappropriate here.

That picture is my answer to ORION’s post viewtopic.php?f=4&t=323

The LHC is active and electricity is flowing through it. The work is going ahead at full speed and on schedule. The CERN teams are in CERN Control Center (CCC) and other control centers. There are also teams down in the tunnels performing nQPS refurbishment and visual inspection of various parts of the LHC. The Electrical Quality Assurance (ELQA) teams are performing electrical tests. The sectors 8-1 and 1-2 are already traveling to 6,000 amps (3.5 TeV). The beams are arriving on the doorstep of the LHC in a few days - the start of February. On February 15, the LHC will be handed over to the MPS and beam commissioning teams from the hardware commissioning teams. A complete checkout of the LHC will be done through February 17 and 19, and the pilot beams will enter the LHC on February 20th.

I think that CERN makes a crime against humanity.

[Stephen]

My bad, I haven't checked it today. Comparing CERN scientists to Nazis is a bit too much, don't you think?

[Allan]

Hi Stephen

I think just about anything Ivan says is too much. The little bit he says that even sound like it could have a scientific principle behind has been discredited years ago. I think calling him a crackpot is being way to kind. He needs a padded cell IMHO.

Allan

[DCWhitworth]

My bad, I haven't checked it today. Comparing CERN scientists to Nazis is a bit too much, don't you think?

Godwin's Law !!