Mar 16, 2015

Black-Hole Nuclear Physics

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The interaction of quarks and gluons with near-point shaped black holes that are passing through, either slowly or at ultra-relativistic speeds, predictably implies radically different cross sections.

I do not believe that any CERN physicist can answer this question quantitatively so far.

Nevertheless ten thousand CERN physicists gladly bet the planet on their admitted lack of knowledge regarding this point.

I hope the world media will pay attention to this fact.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. bill johnson says:

    Back around the time of the first run you had a publication in a journal correct? Anything else since then that people may not have seen?

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for harking back. There are quite a few publications following the first two of 2008. The first of the two appeared in a conference volume edited by P. Plath and E.C. Haas, the other in a conference volume of the International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics.

    The first – titled “Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk” – was an abridged version of the main 2007 paper titled “Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: [gothic-] R-theorem derived in Schwarzschild metric.” That paper after acceptance by the editor of the high-impact journal “Chaos, Solitons and Fractals” had to wait 5 years until the unjustly ousted editor had founded a new high-caliber journal. The paper was during this whole time on the web and could even trigger an important 3-D generalization (in a German-language paper by the anonymous author “Ich,” titled “Distances in the Schwarzschild metric”). This both humorous and deep paper got lost because the portal “achtphasen.net” was unfortunately removed from the web along with hundreds of valuable blog comments (including an important long discussion series with an anonymous member of the Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitation Physics). Someone may someday feel motivated to retrieve this important forum from the 2010 version of the worldwide web.)

    This early phase ended with the publication of the seminal R-theorem paper in a refereed journal. It was followed by a stream of published papers in other refereed journals: first in 2012 in the “African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research,” then in the “European Scientific Journal,” then in the high-impact “International Journal of Technical Research and Applications.” In this last 2015 paper, the connection to earlier work of 2005 done by a doctoral student is drawn. Background material can be found also in my (co-authored) 2014 book “Chaotic Harmony” with Springer Heidelberg.

    Many of the results obtained during the past years were concentrating on the fundamental 2007 result of global constancy of c. The latter could after from the Schwarzschild metric be retrieved also from Einstein’s seminal gravitation paper of 1907 which is responsible for the “non-global c” of the canonically written general theory of relativity. Note by the way that the wikipedia article which claims that c were globally constant in general relativity is misguiding (my apologies to the author).

    One impact of my results concerning black holes lay with the retrieved global character of the speed of light c and the consequences that this entails for the features of black holes. Nevertheless the deep impact of those new properties on the behavior of micro black holes inside matter (earth, white dwarfs) was featured explicitly last time only in the second conference paper featured above. Now, the freshly found formal question posed here connects back to those old results. It owes a great deal to the discussions with Tom Kerwick, the specialist for white dwarfs. Second, an exciting video interview kindly conducted with me yesterday by a professional journalist was instrumental to finding the above question.

    I feel that the particle-physics type fundamental question found today could prove to be the most stringent one. I therefore look forward to director Heuer’s kind reply to the above question sent to him. It is obvious that the question needs to be answered before up-scaled p-p collisions can start.

  3. Antonio Vargas says:

    @Otto E. Rossler

    A. Are your fears not the least bit eased with continued success of the many colliders including the LHC?

    B. If you are truly so fearful for the fate of mankind, why would you not do something about it other than sit here and post your scientific arguments that apparently no one agrees with?

  4. Antonio Vargas says:

    @Bill Johnson — You are always quick to quash Otto E. Rossler’s posts. Are you a physicist by any chance? Is there a reason why you spend so much time at this blog if you do not believe in the fear and disparity some of the scientists here try and impress upon people?

  5. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. Vargas:

    Thank you for the perceptive question.

    A. The built-in delay of any grave danger before becoming manifest is unfortunately interfering with the safety argument that you have in mind.

    B. You see, the ship’s boy whose eyes see farther by happenstance is looking for crew members like yourself for help or assurance.

    To me, the most natural thing to do is ask for the specialists to at last say a word of a counterargument. It is their business.

    Seeing the whole world being non-responding — I mean the scientific world — is maximally frustrating. Of course they believe I am not right, and the CERN members are in addition bound by contract not to discuss the safety issue, but belief is not science.
    There is no Snowden at CERN with a greater love to his country/planet than to his superiors’ rules. They may be right: but they should say why. I mean: I may not be the only one who wants to know.

    I cannot understand that the media do not ask for a public statement from CERN regarding the safety of its experiment for 7 years in a row by now. This despite the impending doubling of the whole unprecedented feat. The media report “Big Bang on earth,” but they do not listen to their own words even. And the readers do not put 2 and 2 together either, like the last time in the middle ages.

    In my eyes (at my momentary limited level of knowledge which I beg to correct), this is the worst carelessness of history since Alamogordo.

    How would you proceed against a wall of silence?

    I so much appreciate your convincing question.

    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler

  6. Antonio Vargas says:

    @Otto Rossler

    A. I do understand it would take time for matter to accrete, but the simple fact that we have been doing these sort of experiments for an extended period of time should offer some solace. Considering that at literally every energy level you have heeded some sort of warning.

    B. Drastic times call for drastic measures. If you truly believed this would be the downfall of man you would have done something about it. Wether it was physically attend the location of the experiments and attempt to stop it or any other extreme measures.

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Now I am a bit disappointed.

    A. There were two energy levels at stake 7 (and later 8) TeV, and soon 14 in the worst case. The former existed for 4 years.
    There is not the slightest all-clear call, unfortunately.
    B. You forgot that this is “only” probabilities. In such a case where the whole world makes a stupid bet, you have no chance to find sympathy anywere. After all, what is asked for is reasoning, not panicking.

    But maybe you have a way to remind people of how to act rationally? Please, do tell me.

    It is true that I sometimes think that if I were younger, I would find the right catching and moving words. Or if I found the right words in theological terms. I dearly need advice.

    I directly addressed Stephen Hawking. If you could finf a way to contact him, that would make tremendous sense.