 |
There are currently, 648 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth
Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 @ 20:45:24 UTC by vlad
|
|
 Paul J. Werbos, Dr. writes: Good morning!
Many people on this list are excited by the positive possibilities for new technology. That's valid and important. Equally valid are the fears and risks being discussed on other lists.
We may be approaching a time when certain TYPES of experiment really should be performed somewhere other than the surface of earth, just as a reasonable precaution.
On the other list, many are discussing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) under construction in Europe.
They argue that the risk is too high of creatng small black holes that would then gobble up the entire earth.
I have not taken a stand on that issue, in part because I do not really know ... would the LHC really have some chance of doing things that have not been done already, exactly the same way, in the earth's atmosphere dozens or thousands of times already? But still... there may be experiments possible that WOULD do new things...
and so, it is worth discussing... and thinking more about...
What would a small black hole do, if created?
Just to start the discussion..
===============================================
A lot of people have been very dogmatic about the belief that a small black hole would, of course, just evaporate quickly. The sheer religious enthusiasm of that belief -- and the Will to Defend -- should be a warning sign to those who have not looked further.
Let's look just a little further here.
Hawking has actually discussed many different ideas in his career, some more valid than others. (I would say the same about Einstein. Can one really agree with what he said about quantum theory, and what he said about the photon, at the same time?) This is not about personalities.
One of Hawking's ideas, popularized by Bob Forward and picked up as dogma by many others, is that small black holes must in fact be "white" -- must radiate away all of their energy quickly, because of the effect of quantum zero point energy.
Within the world of quantum gravity and cosmology, there is considerable empirically-based discussion of these issues. (For an example, google on "quintessence dark energy.") One idea is that the mysterious evidence of an unexpected degree of expansion in the universe can be explained by the presence of that quantum zero point energy as a source of gravitation. If zero point energy is there, one WOULD expect it to be a source of gravitation, one way or another.
The problem is that the observed gravitational effect... is many, many orders of magnitude less than what the usual zero point energy theory assumes.
This being so... why should we be so confident that the decay of a small black hole would be so rapid as what Hawking has suggested? If the actual decay rate is something like 10**-50 as fast as he suggests...
Someone on this list said something like: "New physics theory says they might produce a black hole. But new physics theory also says it will evaporate." But "new physics theory" is not a single thing. It's different theories, different terms in the equations...
------------------------------------
There is another way to look at this.
The "canonical" original version of quantum theory, described in texts like Mandl and Shaw (and in Weinberg), starts out by deriving a canonical Hamiltonian by plugging in... well, let me not elaborate here. After deriving that Hamiltonian, it notes some embarrassing terms of infinite energy. It argues that we can just throw those away, because we shouldn't expect them to have physical effects. After that... it is the reduced, "normal form Hamiltonian" which actually yields the high-precision predictions we have heard about for quantum electrodynamics. The normal form Hamiltonian has no zero point energy. At that level -- there is not really a good empirical reason to believe that the zero point energy is there at all. It is far from well established, at best.
Lots of people will then tell you "what about the Casimir effect?" The well-established Casimir effect, between parallel plates, does not provide any evidence whatsoever that zero point energy exists. It is exactly equal to the attraction one would have predicted long ago from simple well-known dipole-dipole interactions, as shown by Landau et al many many years ago. Some crazy enthusiasts have said: "we can debate how much of this attraction is due to dipole-dipole interactions, and how much to zero point energy." No, we can't. The magnitude of the Vanderwaals interactions is well established, and the measured Casimir effect is equal to it. The unexplained gap is unequivocally zero.
Rational supporters of zero point energy can say: "For the planar system, an improved zero point model predicts zero (or unmeasurably small) net effects above and beyond the usual Vanderwaals effects. But it does predict different, measurable effects in other situations." As I understand it, that is where the serious research on Casimir is now focused. What do these alternative models say about small black holes? I don't know, but my quick impression is that 10**-50 times the Hawking decay prediction may well be in the right ballpark.
But there are some aspects of these issues that no one has fully analyzed yet, and perhaps some of us ought to...
=============
Best of luck to us all,
Paul
------------------------------------------------
Again, there are some aspects I do need to re-examine here... traditional ways of thinking about time can confuse the issue of the magnitude and nature of "white noise" effects, and .. there are certain master equations that need to be revisited, also with Fokker-Planck replaced by Itoh, or rather forwards-backwards Itoh..
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by DT on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 @ 23:22:45 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | The LHC, at full power, will be creating collisions with energies of around 10^17 eV, almost 1000 time more powerful than previous accelerators.
Unlike atmospheric collisions, both particles will be travelling with energies between 5-7 TeV. When a proton strikes the atmosphere, only the incoming proton has this incredibly high energy. Thus, very little resistance, or opposing force, is generated that could effect the incoming proton.
This lack of opposing force is why micro-blackholes are not created in the atmosphere, there is nothing with enough mass-energy that would serve to compress the proton.
So, the claim that atmospheric collisions are proof of the safety at the LHC are false. Its a misrepresentation of the scientific facts. High energy proton-proton collisions are extremely rare throughout the cosmos and I know of no recorded examples.
In addition to this, we do not fully understand the various stresses and forces that would be applied to a proton during a collision at the LHC. We do not know if this could reveal yet another previously unknown field, force or particles that could interact with the collision. Further, we don't know if such a collision could result in a breakdown of known physics, resulting in completely unpredictable behaviour.
We do know one thing, if a stable micro-blackhole develops, we are all dead. There is no stopping it.
Hoping that Hawking's unproven conjecture of evaporation is accurate, is very high risk.
There needs to be wider debate on how we mitigate the risk from this experiment. There must be a practical method of resolution.
|
|
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by JTankers on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 @ 03:58:26 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://BigCrash.org | I wrote LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) the question below, I am waiting for an answer... I will post here where received.
(Besides
the point that cosmic ray impacts would travel too fast to be captured
by Earth, why do we believe that these impacts with stationary objects
would be as powerful or even more powerful than head on collisions,
particularly with respect to transfer of energy...)
The basic question is:
Why then would an almost c to 0 impact (cosmic ray to Earth) be as
powerful as an almost c to almost -c head on collision in a head-on
particle collider.
(Why would this not be similar to a speeding
race car crashing into a stopped race car [transferring energy to the
stopped car] versus two speeding race cars crashing head-on traveling
in opposite directions [energy absorbed by both cars].)
I do not understand how cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere could be as powerful as head-on particle collisions.
I am waiting for an answer... I will post here where received.
The full email is:
From: [...]
To: lhcsafetyassessment.group@cern.ch; lsag@cern.ch
Subject: Please Answer My Question, Head-on collisions
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:32:57 -0500
Dear Sirs,
[...]
Assuming that re-evaluations of Michelson Morley experiments might be
true (below, indicated but results to too small to verify with
certainty), that an object at rest on Earth would truly be in a
preferred reference frame.
Why then would an almost c to 0
impact (cosmic ray to Earth) be as powerful as an almost c to almost -c
head on collision in a head-on particle collider.
(Why would
this not be similar to a speeding race car crashing into a stopped race
car versus two speeding race cars crashing head-on traveling in
opposite directions.)
I do not understand how cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere could be as powerful as head-on particle collisions.
[...]
Sincerely,
[JTankers]
The re-interpretation of Michelson Morley experiments appears to be
indicated as a definitely non-zero result, but one magnitude too small
for full acceptance and final confirmation.
2006 Trying to prove... [ http://www.springerlink.com/content/77255576453177tu/ [www.springerlink.com]]
Following the ideas of Ll. Bel expressed at ERE's 91 we give a
definition of rigid congruences in both General and Special Relativity,
and we try to make the definition plausible. To this end we recall
Fermat's principle in General Relativity and we show that this
principle allows us to reinterpret the ldquoquotient metricrdquo as the
quadratic form which defines the optical length in a gravitational
field. We apply the definition to the Earth-Sun system in the
post-Newtonian approximation. Furthermore we compute the Fermat tensor
and the corresponding relative variation of the speed of light in a
Michelson-Morley-like experiment performed on the Earth's surface.
According to all measurements to date, this quantity is extremely small
(10–13). Consistently with these results, negotiations regarding the
repetition of the Michelson-Morley experiment, in its modern version
(laser interferometry ), are being achieved in order to test these
results.
2002: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=985414 [ieeexplore.ieee.org]
it is concluded that due to Earth's rotation, the shift in interference
fringes in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. However, by
virtue of the round-trip propagation path, this shift becomes second
order and hence is too small to observe within the present accuracy
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5075/56/2/170/node3.html [www.iop.org]
Thereby, based on the local-ether model or on the Sagnac effect in GPS
and intercontinental microwave link, the variations in the round-trip
propagation times are not exactly zero, but are currently too small to
cause a detectable shift in the interference fringe, when the optical
arms are changing their directions. This reinterpretation of the
Michelson-Morley experiment is fundamentally different from that based
on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in
magnitude. |
|
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by DT on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 @ 09:28:31 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Not to distract from the real dangers that need to be considered with the LHC. I have provided an example of how a new field could slip under the radar, or a least a complete understanding of it.
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1059
Just consider this a side-note, a thought experiment. |
|
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by DT on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 @ 10:08:49 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Looks like you angered the censorship gods at Google. Every trace to this article was wiped from the News listings. Have a look at the before and after pics:
Before censorship:
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/8817/beforerp1.gif [img391.imageshack.us]
After censorship:
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/3390/aftersg3.gif [img391.imageshack.us]
Even searching for the title returns no hits, they simply deleted it.
It seems that any article questioning the safety of the LHC is being purged from the web by Google.
...and there was me thinking that we westerns were somehow different from the Chinese government. |
|
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by JTankers on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 @ 17:15:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://BigCrash.org | (moved...)
What is the biggest spin in the safety argument? Today from CERNS public safety site:
Cosmic
rays are particles produced in outer space in events such as supernovae
or the formation of black holes, during which they can be accelerated
to energies far exceeding those of the LHC.
This
statement is intended to make you believe that cosmic ray impacts are
"far more powerful than anything that will be created by the Large
Hadron Collider".
But that is very far from the truth.
Lets
break down what actually happens, so that we can understand why the
Large Hadron Collider will generate destructive forces GREATER than
TWICE the forces generated by cosmic rays hitting Earth or stationary
particles in our atmosphere.
Cosmic
rays are particles traveling almost at the speed of light (almost c)
and hit a stationary particle, lets call this energy E.
If the E
collission manages a very rare direct hit, E still transfers (bleeds
off) some of the energy to the stationary particle, like a speeding car
hitting a stopped car. All particles then fly off into space at
relativistic or near speeds.
In head-on collider collisions, we
have two object traveling almost at the speed of light (almost c) and
hit each other in a head on collision, lets call this energy E for each
particle, or E * 2.
When precisely controlled head on collisions
occur, the particles not only contain approximately TWICE the energy, E
* 2, but the particles can not bleed off their energy, similar to
head-on car collisions when a car crosses the center line. We then have
spectacular particle destruction and novel particle creation, and some
of the created particles will be moving slow enough to be captured by
Earths gravity.
Don't be fooled by the spin, deeply vested interest in a project is not justification for misleading the public. |
|
|
Steven Hawking = Illuminati Stooge. (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 @ 19:51:51 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I can't believe this experiment is even moving forward because of this man's so-called 'beliefs'. He is an Illuminati stooge who continues to spew misinformation to this very day. It's also kinda silly that he gets so much credit for being a so-called expert on 'black holes' when he obviously doesn't know shit about them. Black Holes are simply highly condensed 'ripples' of Zero Point Energy - they are the engines which sustain our reality.
As a scientist, myself, I do want the experiment to proceed, regardless of the outcome - if we do end up destroying ourselves, it simply means we never deserved to exist in the first place. Obtaining the data and knowing what's out there is a hell of alot better than not knowing and continuing to live a life of ignorance - which is what the majority of us do on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Re: Black holes, zero point energy, and risks to Earth (Score: 1)
by fullofnrg on Friday, April 11, 2008 @ 21:20:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I'm afraid that we are too late. The black hole has already been created and continues to grow. It is the research black hole that sucks the money out of our pockets for assinine, expensive machines like these and happens even without our knowledge or approval. Hear that large sucking sound? Seems like feeding the planet or helping mankind would be money better well spent instead of proving some elementary particle exists so that somebody can say "See, I told you so". What is the cost to benefit ratio? Probably zero I would think except for those employed to make or run the thing. Maybe in the future when all other problems in this world have been eliminated would this research deserve a look or the time and expense associated with it. I think mankind needs to prioritize a bit better. As far as I'm concerned maybe they should just blow us all up and get it over with. Maybe in the next go around in a few trillions of years the next thinking species will think a little more deeply,wisely and cost effectively. My thoughts.... |
|
|
Gauging a Collider’s Odds of Creating a Black Hole (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 @ 23:12:36 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | |
Published: April 15, 2008
In Walker Percy [topics.nytimes.com]’s
“Love in the Ruins,” the protagonist, a doctor and an inventor, recites
what he calls the scientist’s prayer. It goes like this: “Lord, grant that my work increase knowledge and help other men. “Failing that, Lord, grant that it will not lead to man’s destruction. “Failing that, Lord, grant that my article in Brain be published before the destruction takes place.” Today
we require more than prayers that a scientific experiment will not lead
to the end of the world. We demand hard-headed calculations. But whom
can we trust to do them?... More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html?ref=science [www.nytimes.com]
|
|
|
|
|
