Jul 15, 2011

CERN’s Continued Belief in Hawking Radiation Main Reason for Its Use of Force

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Why does CERN continue refusing the scientific safety conference demanded by a Cologne court last January? Insiders say it is Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation – a 38 years old hypothesis – was disproved 4 years ago by the gothic-R theorem of general relativity, followed in 2010 by the simpler Telemach theorem of the equivalence principle, and independently by the 2009 paper “Gravitational space dilation” by professor Richard J. Cook of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

CERN’s only defense consists in not quoting those findings known to it since early 2008 and in never updating its already fraudulent safety report of late 2008 – a reproach it accepts ever since.

The UN Security Council has been asked to enforce the logically necessary scientific safety conference before CERN may or may not continue with its according to current knowledge earth-jeopardizing nuclear experiment.

I am waiting for the Security Council’s decision and so does the whole of humankind.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Peter Howell says:

    So instead of answering simple questions about your findings, you go on with your unproven rant against CERN and science. You’re a disgrace.

  2. Hansel says:

    Rössler admits that he is no scientist at all. He is an agitator.

  3. Hansel says:

    Of course he has not disproved hawking radiation. There is nothing in this (also disproved) R-paper which adresses hawking radiation at all. There is not a single word or equation concerning the quantum effects.

  4. Hansel says:

    “fraudulent safety report”

    Oh, good to hear such accusations out of the mouth of a man who is proven to be a liar…

  5. PassingByAgain says:

    Oh yeah, the UN Security Council must be very busy right now discussing the implications of the “gothic-R” theorem!!!

    I hadn’t figured out until now how delusional Rossler really is…

  6. riskalert says:

    But *maybe* there is an existential danger here. Why would the precautionary principle not be correct in this case? Oh, and the great silence conditions the probability of extinction considerably upwards. Is my logic not impeccable?

  7. Thank you, riskalert.

  8. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler: since you are still around, why don’t you answer the questions on the other thread? Let me recap them for you:

    1) are the variables “T_tail” and “T_tip” in your eq.(1) the same as the variables “tau” and “sigma”, respectively, in eq.(30a) of Einstein’s 1907 paper?

    2) if that is not the case, what is the difference between e.g. your “T_tip” and Einstein’s “sigma”?

  9. Maybe you saw the Figure in my 1998 paper “Gravitational Slowing Down of Clocks…” quoted higher up in one of the threads?

    Or you saw these 5 words in the quote just given.

  10. robomoon says:

    Most of responses to this thread and previous blog messages were concentrating on a better understanding of math logic. Unfortunately, the amount of responses related to math and the time required has exceeded any reasonable capacity one can cope with. However, most of the recently demanded solutions only require a better use of foreign languages and qualifications to correspond to authorities without advanced math calculations. What commenters in here should much more demand are activists who qualify for: asking distinguished scientists to give their public answers. Asking the Executive President of the UN Security Council for a statement. Asking CERN for updating its Safety Report of late 2008. There are more questions to ask, but connections are the key. Will connections to investors who did the funding for the LHC be required for a Security Conference too? Nevertheless, something more simple to gain could be varied communications pathways like a response to http://peaceandhealthblog.com/2011/05/18/hubrissurvival-of-m…s/#respond too, but a connection to the author http://peaceandhealthblog.com/author/gunnar38/ might be just better. Who in here can make connections with the IPPNW against the great danger in particle experimentation?

  11. Robert Houston says:

    CERN physicists have long predicted that “the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second” (Barrau and Grain, CERN Courier, Nov. 12, 2004). But not to worry, we were told, because the black holes were expected to evaporate instantly due to Hawking radiation. In recent years, however, the consensus on Hawking radiation has been broken by a number of respected physicists who have questioned whether it even exists and, if so, whether it would extinguish a mini black hole.

    Thus, independent of the studies of Prof. Rossler, physicist V.A. Belinski of Rome University has emphasized “the impossibility of any quantum evaporation process taking place in the Schwarzschild black hole” (2006). American mathematical physicist Adam Helfer concluded, “The possibility that non-radiating ‘mini’ black holes exist should be taken seriously” (2008). Even one of Hawking’s former backers, Canadian physicist Wm. Unruh, has stated, “whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question…” (2004).

    Moreover, a number of studies concluded that Hawking radiation would not dissipate a black hole; physicist Tony Rothman of Princeton, for example, has supported the finding of Russian physicist Vilkovisky “that black holes lose only ten perecent of their mass to Hawking radiation before evaporation ceases” (Abs). See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2368v3 .

    Even CERN’s top safety theorists, Giddings and Mangano, while pledging allegience to Hawking radiation conceded in a 2008 technical report that “it is certainly true that elements of the original derivation [by Hawking] of black hole radiance rely on assumptions that are apparently not valid.” But since it’s never been detected in stellar black holes, the only basis is Hawking’s theory. Columbia physicist Brian Greene summed things up: “Are we willing to bet the fate of the planet on an untested insight?” (NY Times, 9/11/2008).

  12. Eleni Koutso says:

    This question is for EQ, TRMG and Peter Howell.

    Forgive my starting late in this discussion, and my poor knowledge pf physics (my field is linguistics, but I am an amateur astronomer) but as I understand, Professor Rossler maintains that cosmic ray collisions cannot be a valid argument for LHC’s safety since:
    1.) all black holes created thus will be traveling at nearly the speed of light, since the cosmic rays that spawned than were moving very fast
    2.) these black holes will keep moving fast since they are not charged, hence a lack of a way for them to stop in matter without accreting it

    My question is this:
    If Professor Rossler is correct, are there any natural processes that would allow teravolt collisions that form black holes that are not moving at almost the speed of light? If a trillion teravolt cosmic rays collided with the Earth (all moving at nearly the speed of light), would 100.000% of the black holes thus created be moving too fast to be captured by the Earth? Would there ever be some kind of scattering?

    What about the energetic environment inside of an exploding supernova?

    If these questions have been addressed earlier in this discussion, please forgive my ignorance.

    Eleni k

  13. robomoon says:

    Is the UN Security Council completely informed now about more than eight physicists and further natural scientists who gained important theories about dangerous black-holes as told by the most reputable physicists and natural scientists who are also commenters at this blog?

  14. Does the security council have a mail address?

  15. PassingByAgain says:

    Yes, it’s [email protected]
    but why don’t you give them a phone call instead?

    Look, there’s no point in hiding in a different thread every time you get pinned down in a discussion. Seriously, it’s quite pathetic.

    Why don’t you come back to the other thread and finally answer the question:

    What is the relation between the variables “T_tip” in your eq.(1) and “sigma” in Einstein’s eq.(30a)?

  16. Robert Houston says:

    @Eleni Koutsos
    Assuming that micro black holes are uncharged, which in fact is the conventional view, then those formed by cosmic rays would be moving at near light speed and could not be stopped by Earth’s gravity or density. This was the conclusion in a 2008 technical report by Giddings and Mangano of CERN, and their answer was summarized in CERN’s public safety report under Microscopic Black Holes: “Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.”

    If micro black holes were positively charged, then they may be slowed by the electromagnetic forces of the Earth and stars but, as with positively charged strangelets, would repel subatomic particles and thus be unable to accrete matter.

    In 2008, CERN relocated the cosmic ray safety argument to dense stars, such as neutron stars, but these are protected from cosmic rays by magnetic fields up to a trillion times stronger than the Earth’s and are known to be in a state of superfludity, ignored by CERN but rendering them transparent to neutrinos and thus probably to micro black holes as well.

    Supernova explosions, about which you also asked, are believed to be the major source of high-energy cosmic rays.

  17. Eleni Koutso says:

    Mr. Houston,

    You misunderstand my question — asking whether there is any natural process that can form these black holes not moving fast initially, NOT fast black holes being slowed down.

    Maybe two cosmic rays colliding with each other head on (out in space), or other places where energetic particles collide with each other (not stationary matter), so the result of the collision is moving slowly. Cases not covered in any of CERN’s safety reports.

    Thank you,
    Eleni K

  18. robomoon says:

    We are happy because of scientists like Prof. Rossler who has intensified research in particle physics to raise awareness about the greatest danger for our planet and us, the living beings. It has to be very important to support his research which value for the sake of being alive cannot be estimated high enough. I am sorry, because I posted a fairly provocative question in hindsight to the UN that caused Prof. Rossler to post a reply regarding the problem to contact them personally. Meanwhile, someone has be so kind to post their email address. But next to this, the excellent research and mathematics by Prof. Rossler should spread much further but the Lifeboat blog. They should be available in very different blogs and many other channels of information with various languages around the world. Feel the danger to realize what has been told before about diseases that change the mind more than we can see: we are in the middle of the dark ages with therapies against mental- and emotional illness, the greatest disease where the patients mostly do not find out by themselves they are sick. No wonder that International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War http://www.ippnw.org have not publicized a greater risk next to nuclear war: the meanwhile too much growing risk of unbearably dangerous particle experiments. So those who are providing them, also researchers with their supporting investors, are feeding a fatally wrong ideal in normal natural science, physics, and mathematics.

  19. PassingByAgain says:

    robomoon, did you really believe that I gave you the correct email of the UN security council??? Have you tried to contact them? Who answered, Obama or Medvedev? Anyway, say hi to Barack on my behalf.

  20. robomoon says:

    Wonderful, un.org is a good choice, although http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/SCcontact.html has un.int for the Permanent Mission of the US.

  21. Robert Houston says:

    @Eleni Koutsos
    Mssrs. EQ, TRMG and Peter Howell to whom you directed your question have been preoccupied with devising new insults for Dr. Rossler. That’s why I’m the only one here to deal with serious issues such as you raised.

    The possibiity of collisions in the cosmic ray flux producing very slow-moving micro black holes was examined by Giddings and Mangano of CERN and found not feasible. Cosmic rays are not really “rays” but isolated particles, quite different from the bunches of 100 billion protons collided at once in the LHC with narrow magnetic focusing. For the near light-speed cosmic ray protons to produce slow-moving products they would need to collide exactly head-on, at precisely the same speed, AND with precisely the same energy. Such conditions could occur only in a collider, not in nature.

  22. Eleni Koutso says:

    Mr. Houston,

    Thank you for clarifying. I guess you were right.

    Eleni K

  23. Hanselllll says:

    He is of course not right. I reccomend to you to read the G&M paper (Astrophysical Implications of hypothetical stable black holes…) complete and not only Houstons well known cherry-picking (selective citations can prove all and nothing) versions.

    For example he suggests that all collisions in a collider like the LHC happen “at once”. If you examine cerfully the real conditions of a collider, the size of the particles, the velocities, the collision angle (yes, there are NO exact head on collisions and the angle IS relevant at this speeds), the distances between particles in one bunch and between the bunches — then it should be clear that not a single collision takes place at exactly the same time and location. An effect like this is by the way not even desired in the collider-design because the scientists want to observe statistically independent collisions. Additionally protons are not hard spheres but a conglomerate of quarks and gluons.

    The physics and therefore the products of a collision is dependent on the center of mass energy of the colliding particles. Because of that a comparison of collider collisions and natural collisions is completely valid as long as special relativity is valid.

  24. G and M cheated by not quoting the evidence lying before them against their neutron-star safety argument.

  25. Hansel says:

    G&M were not cheating because there is NO evidence against the neutron star argument.

    You have claimed to have evidence. But strange as it is always with you there was nothing behind your claim. You are not even able to write a paper meeting lowest scientific standards about it.

    You have to apologize for accusing them to have cheated.

  26. Anthony L says:

    “He is of course not right. I reccomend to you to read the G&M paper (Astrophysical Implications of hypothetical stable black holes…) complete and not only Houstons well known cherry-picking (selective citations can prove all and nothing) versions.” — Hansel

    He is right. All high level physicists I have spoken to admit it freely. Your comment further “explanation” is verbally challenged gobbledegook, contradicting a straw man — Hosuton did not say what you are attacking. The G and M text says precisely what he says it says.

    This is a fine example of how you cannot be trusted as a Rossler critic, which is unfortunate, since your claim is that your view can be trusted as textbook stuff while Rossler is, you claim, a crackpot. Compared with this comment he looks like a professor at the University of Edinburgh, the most reliable institution in higher education.

    You will have to do better if you are to retain your position as Robin to TRMG’s Batman!

  27. Anthony L says:

    Sorry, it was TRMG who used the “lame” line, not PassingBy. Both on the same level holding opinions on topics they haven’t researched properly, it seems.

    It looks as if there is no hope for any satisfactory resolution here, then, as Roger said. We were all hoping for Alsatians chasing Rossler, and all we got are Pekinese.

  28. Anthony L says:

    (The above was destined for the Korean Two Fingers thread, sorry)

  29. Hansel says:

    I addressed Houstons straw man argument of precisely exact same energies in collisions taking place at once and so on. If you want to search for straw men than look into his postings.

    “The G and M text says precisely what he says it says. ”

    Yes, if someone cites as selctively as Houston. Yes, cosmic rays are not found in the form of LHC-like bunches. But that does not matter because in both cases we are dealing with collision events statistically independent from each other AND with comparable center of mass energies.

    BTW: Even if I were wrong with this it would have no effect on the Rössler critic. Science is not based on personal credibility but on facts. And the fact is that Rösslers paper is inconsistent. That was proven several times on this blog. If you have difficulties with that kind of very basic algebra you should perhaps go back to school rather than discussing things beyond your level of scientific knowledge.

  30. Anthony L says:

    “If you have difficulties with that kind of very basic algebra” — Hansel

    No difficulties, thanks, with basic algebra. Just your messy and bitty informal quarrels with Rossler’s definitions of his terms, and whether a certain statement is an equation or simply a scheme of coexisting variables without a known relation between their values except whether one is bigger than the other.

    In effect you keep claiming the better credentialed and publicly committed Rossler is a donkey who gets the simplest thing wrong, in your anonymous book, but it is suggestive to me of a Pekinese wrestling with his pants leg and claiming it prevents him from driving his Ferrari.

    Maybe it does, but let’s see it laid out in a way that suits the level of scientific knowledge of the politicians and media reporters you would like to convince (since you have never denied that you are acting as a hit squad for CERN, whether known or unknown to their staff).

  31. Robert Houston says:

    So after his usual song-and-dance exclaiming that I’m wrong about everything (“He is of course not right”), Hansel finally admits that my basic fact is correct: “Yes, cosmic rays are not found in the form of LHC-like bunches.” He then claims this is irrelevant. But of course it’s extremely relevant to achieving sufficient luminosity to produce slow-moving black holes.

    Also relevant are the requirements that the speed and energy of collided protons must be the same to result in a dramatic slow-down of the products to below escape velocity, as is possible in a collider (e.g., with both beams at 7 TeV) but not in cosmic ray collisions.

    Hansel also falsely suggested that I was wrong in writing of “the bunches of 100 billion protons collided at once in the LHC…” The design scheme for the LHC is that there will be 2800 bunches of protons (currently up to 1380) and that each bunch of 100 billion protons is just a few centimeters long and 7 meters apart. According to CERN’s LHC Guide, “When the bunches cross, there will be a maximum of about 20 collisions between 200 billion particles. Bunches will cross an average of about 30 million times per second…so the LHC will generate up to 600 million particle collisions per second.”

    Eleni Koutsos had asked about the possibility that collisions between cosmic ray particles could result in very slow-moving black holes. My answer was conventional and based on the conclusion of Giddings and Mangano of CERN, who wrote that “neutral black holes produced during head-on collisions of cosmic rays within the galaxy will freely escape the galaxy, not being trapped by either collisions with the interstellar medium and stars…” (p. 16). Obviously, all quotation is selective for one cannot include a 47 page paper in a comment. Check it yourself.

    Also, check to find the words “superfluid” or “superfluidity” anywhere in the G&M paper. Not once are they mentioned. Yet superfluidity is a fundamental feature of neutron stars, already long known when they wrote in 2008 — a feature that puts in grave doubt their basic safety assumption that the density of such stars could stop a microscopic black hole. This is a clear example that, as Dr. Rossler put it, “G and M cheated by not quoting the evidence lying before them against their neutron-star safety argument.”

    NASA’ s recent finding of “direct evidence” of the superflluidity of a neutron star was based on its being “transparent” to the transit of neutrinos from its core into space. This finding greatly reinforces Dr. Rossler’s 2008 hypothesis that the superfluidity of neutron stars may render them transparent to the transit of microscopic black holes. Dr. Rossler is to be commended for his keen insight in correctly perceiving this crucial flaw in the neutron star safety argument, a flaw that G&M deceitfully hid.

  32. Anthony L says:

    Houston’s post above is the style of bunkerbuster they audience is looking for here, instead of endless quibbles where Rossler simply denies he is using the terms and relations you say he is.

    Looks as if this particular bunkerbuster has bust Hansel’s bunker, but let’s see. Certainly at least two of the Rossler critics here are beginning to look like trolls who will pop out of their caves even after a 1000lb bomb has been dropped on them.

    We must admit Hansel’s claim — that beam collisions wouldn’t produce mBHs if cosmic ray collisions hadn’t — looked like the silliest thing said so far on the Rossler threads. But perhaps we misunderstood.

    If so, and he corrects our impression, when will he and others allow Rossler to correct their impression of his Eq#1 and move on?

    Otherwise we will have Rossler playing whack-a-mole till the end of time (local clock).

  33. Hansel says:

    Houston, learn about the differences between neutrinos which nearly has no mass and hypothethical microscopic black holes which are much more massive.

    There must be a reason why no one except Rössler is claiming that massive particles could not get stuck in a massive body like a neutron star. As a small hint, it is not your conspirancy theory.

  34. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Anthony L: Forgive me for having played along this game for so long. Please, contact publicly Nocolai or t’Hooft. Otherwise your profession has lost its face the most on this blog.

    P.S. It is fun to be allowed to be outspoken. I owe this privilege to you as my teacher — I had not looked at this thread from the outside perspective before as you showed me how to do.

  35. Robert Houston says:

    It was established in 1998 that neutrinos do have mass. In 2010, scientists in England calculated the neutrino mass to be 0.28 eV — small but not zero. Microscopic black holes have been compared to neutrinos in initial size. Their mass depends on rates of accretion.

    Giddings and Mangano of CERN found that accretion and other mechanisms “cannot efficiently slow down neutral CR-produced black holes in Earth…and ordinary stars” (p 16). Yet an ordinary star like the Sun is about 70,000 times the diameter of a neutron star.

    Regarding neutron stars, G&M concluded: “Thus, the black hole should rapidly penetrate the crust and enter…the core.” (p. 25). How far would it go if the effect of superfluidity were considered? Clear through and out? By failing to take this effect into account, G&M indeed “cheated.”