Eric E. Johnson | The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World

Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser der Achtphasen,

ich habe mir erlaubt, eine kurze Analyse über o.g. Publikation zu erstellen: http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1663

Mag die Idee eines solchen juristischen Reviews sehr gut sein, so ist dafür aber eine korrekte zugrundeliegende naturwissenschaftliche Basis erforderlich. Dies ist wie ich an einigen ausgewählten Beispielen dargelegt habe bedauerlicherweise nicht der Fall; insbesondere ist das vermutlich als originell gemeinte Kapitel über die "8 (Weissen) Zwerge und 2 Helden" bezüglichkeit der Neutronensterne völlig fehlerhaft. Auch wurden bei der Referenz auf die Arbeit Toby Ords et al. die Resultate übernommen und die erkannten Fehler nicht berücksichtigt.

Sei der Vollständigkeit halber noch erwähnt, dass sich Hawkingzerstrahlende Schwarze Löcher nicht wie auf Seite 820 unten geschrieben in "Nichts" auflösen, sondern eben in Hawkingstrahlung.


Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg

Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser der Achtphasen,

anbei noch ein paar weitere Fehler in der Argumentation von Professor Johnson:


1.) Seite 850: "The 2008 LSAG report instead relied on the cosmic-ray argument as developed by Giddings and Mangano. Why did the LSAG Report retreat almost entirely to the cosmic-ray argument? Although the report doesn’t say, it is not hard to guess."

Man braucht nicht zu raten, es genügt, die allererste Textzeile der Sicherheitsanalyse, also im Abstract, zu lesen: "We analyze macroscopic effects of TeV-scale black holes, such as could possibly be produced at the LHC, in what is regarded as an extremely hypothetical scenario in which they are stable and, if trapped inside Earth, begin to accrete matter."

Und wer es ein bisschen genauer wissen möchte, sei auf den ersten Absatz der "Introduction" verwiesen:

"It has been suggested [10,11], however, that black hole decay via Hawking radiation may not be a universal feature, and could for example depend on the details of the Planck-scale degrees of freedom. While this suggestion is not based on any complete microphysical picture, and furthermore appears contradictory to basic quantum-mechanical principles"


2.) weiter unten auf Seite 850:

"For example, Giddings and Mangano conceded, “[W]e cannot guarantee that Earth is an efficient target for trapping hypothetical [cosmic-ray]-produced black holes in all scenarios.” LSAG, on the other hand, presented Earth’s continuing existence as ruling out any danger: “Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already—and the planet still exists.”

Hier genügen es, den Originalsatz bis zum Ende zu lesen:

"we cannot guarantee that Earth is an efficient target for trapping hypothetical CR-produced black holes in all scenarios, white dwarfs and neutron stars do provide very useful targets." (fett hervorgehoben durch mich)


3.) Seite 851: "The SPC’s summary description of LSAG’s work was favorable to the point of mischaracterization:

"For black holes, the LSAG report goes much beyond previous reports, on the
basis of the GM paper. Replacing some highly plausible theoretical concepts
of the previous reports with irrefutable observational data on cosmic rays and
on astronomical bodies such as the Sun or compact stars, interpreted using
firmly established theory, further layers of safety are added to the previously
existing ones, excluding any possibility that the highly hypothetical
production of black holes at the LHC could create a danger of whatever
kind.

This, of course, is wrong. The Giddings and Mangano paper never purported to exclude risk based on the existence of bodies such as the Sun, doing so instead on the basis of white dwarfs and neutron stars."

Leider irrt Professor Johnson auch hier:

Auf Seite 10 der Arbeit von Dr.Giddings und Dr.Mangano wird auch die Sonne als Sicherheitsargument herangezogen:
"The stopping distance grows with M, and a more careful estimate shows the Earth provides enough stopping power for black holes with unit electric charge up to a mass of the order of 7 TeV. For larger masses, one can appeal to the stopping power of the Sun. (...) The continued health of the Sun on multi-billion year time scales - during which many such black holes would have been produced and stopped - thus apparently immediately rules out any risk from charged TeV-scale black holes.
(...)
To summarize, hypothetical stable charged black holes should stop in the Earth for masses up to about 7 TeV, and in the Sun if heavier. The multi-billion year longevity of Earth and Sun apparently provides a good safety guarantee."


Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg

a) Unvollständig deutlich gemachte Datenlage im LSAG-Report ?

Ein beteiligter Wissenschaftler der CMS-Corporation (LHC) ist Mitverfasser einer wissenschaftlichen Schrift, die eine wichtige Aussage zum Vergleich zwischen Kosmischer Strahlung und dem LHC-Experiment enthält. Dieses Aussage beinhaltet ausdrücklich die Möglichkeit exotischer Ereignisse
j e n s e i t s des Bereiches der kosmischen Strahlung ("Pb-Pb-events").
Im LSAG-Report wird jedoch durchweg der Eindruck erweckt, als ob die Aspekte möglicher Ereignisse durchweg durch die Kosmische Strahlung abgedeckt wären.



b) neue aktuelle astronomische Entdeckung - ggf. Bezug zum Gefahrenszenario Nr. 3, beschrieben in 2008 von einem deutschen Astrophysiker

Bislang n i c h t erwartete g e r i n g e Dichten der Planetenmaterie neu entdeckter Exoplaneten wurden in Wissenschaftsnachrichten am 5.10.2009 gemeldet. Diese Überraschung (geringe Dichten) wurde von astronomischen Fachleuten herausgestellt.

Es wäre ggf. zu untersuchen, ob in Ausnahmefällen hier als Ursache das sog. Szenario 3, ein ziemlich stabiler, lang anhaltender Energieerzeugungsprozess, bedingt durch z.B. ein Eddingtonlimit i.V.m. einem kleinen schwarzen Loch, auszuschließen ist, d.h. also keine innere Aufheizung der Gase, die zur Verdünnung führt.

R.U.

the (w)hole risk-discussion onto possible catastrophic events has had much to much focus onto micro-black-holes: The main risk is, that at the LHC there will be quark-gluon-plasmae as there haven't been any in the universe since the so called big bang.

... what makes me angry is, that CERN is stultifying critic ad hominem.

@ http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html (all down the site just above the downloadsection) CERN still today presents the calculations of Plaga and Rossler as erroneous - but CERN just did not actualize this very populistic desinformations since summer 08.

Plaga answered already Fri, 26 Sep 2008 and explicated his warnings again on Sun, 9 Aug 2009. ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 ) His document: "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders" is an important one - pls. download the pdf: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1415v3

Rossler published, 20 Jan 2009, a second version of his calculations where he corrected some error of his previous paper - until today his gothic-R-theoreme with the probably most frightening scenario is NOT disproven: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf

But the (w)hole risk-discussion onto possible catastrophic events has had much to much focus onto micro-black-holes.

The main risk is, as Sancho puts out correctly, that at the LHC there will be quark-gluon-plasmae as there haven't been any in the universe since the so called big bang.

CERN commits desinformation of the public, not only by stultifying critic but also by talking about cosmic-rays that would be similar or even stronger than what at the LHC is intended to happen:

1) Nearly everybody of our readers knows it, but the uttermost of the rest of humanity not: a part of the products of collisions at the LHC won't have enough velocity to leave Earth - collisions of particles from cosmic-rays onto particles of the stratosphere, on the contrary always had, since 4.5 billion years, enough velocity to leave Earth and the solar-system due to the fact, that particles of the stratosphere are quasi at rest and so the products of the collisions have always and in anycase enough velocity to leave Earth and the solar-system.

2) but of even more importance: the collisions at the LHC will happen in extremly much higher density as by nature: the density of the collisions at the LHC will be 10'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 (10^28) higher than ever has been due to cosmic rays onto Earth's stratosphere!

http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2009/08/21/r_u_vergleich_lhc_cr

(Sometimes in super-novae there are happening collisions in such a high-density as at the LHC (but only for for short times and never that parallel) - the outcome of such natural highenergetic collisions in lhc-like densities is a neutron-star: extremly condensed matter - not barebale for any kind of organic life).

And this makes the danger: those collisions in highest density with highest energies will create (quasi-stable) quark-gluon-plasma-conditions where all kind of not forseeable recombinations of quarks could happen ---> Earth could indeed get transformed into a piece of strange matter.

It would be foolish to say there must result any dangerous catalystic outcome resulting of those quark-gluon-plasmae - but on the other hand it is just not true, when CERN and his specialists are claiming there wouldn't for sure be any risk at all.
...
They obviously are bluffing; they themself just can not know, what there will be in those 'unchartred waters' behind the 'new frontiers' of physics.

I apologize for my english, thank you for reading.

achtphasen @ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24611/#comment-216088

Re: Making Particle Accelerators Safe

there was no idea of possible micro-black-hole- creationing in collider experiments in the eighties when the planing of the lhc had been.

only in the nineties there were first theorethical calculations about the possibility of creating micro-black-holes in accelerators due to extradimensional extragravitation.

from then until now was quite a lot of time to think about a containment for eventually created stable and not-charged micro-black-holes in accelerators - but obviously nobody has found a solution until now.

the theory of Stephen Hawkings that those micro-black-holes must immediatly decay is just a theory - although Stephen Hawkings indeed is a great theorists, his theory of imediat radiation of micro-black-holes is unproven - this theory could possibly be proven exactly by doing this experiments at the lhc - but what is the price for this prove?

the price of the chance of finaly proving hawkings-radiation (and other benefits of better knowing how mass/materia is built) IS the officialy neglected risk of creating masses of either potentialy stable strangelets or potentialy stable micro-black-holes staying in Earth and either transforming or accreting Earth's matter.

To calculate accretion-rates of eventualy stable and uncharged micro-black-holes is in fact not much more than impressioning hokus-pokus; because nobody realy knows about all the parameters that have to be included in such calculations:

If stable micro-black-holes would be created, then their accretion-rate will depend on parameters nobody knows: not 'only' the number of extra-dimensions but also the topolgies of extradimensions and the big question about how calcuable time can be in the quantum-realm.

As an example:
- all 30'000'000th part of a second their will be, at average, 20 collision-events in each of the detectors. Thus sometimes there will result even more collision-products all 30'000'000th part of a second - so possibly 2 or more micro-black-holes will be created at almost the exactly same 'location' in spacetime.
(With a distance smaller than the planck-length.)

There is NO statement neither in the LSAG nor in G&M's huge calculations about the chances that some of those potentially created micro-black-holes could eventually conglomerate and thus accrete many much more of matter than calculated by CERN.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24611/#comment-216109

Hier als Anmerkung nur am Rande:
Eine grundsätzliche Gefahreneinschätzung aus der Feder eines Physikers (ca. 1979):

Otto Robert FRISCH, 1904 - 1979, ein Neffe von Lise MEITNER, Atomphysiker und Mitarbeiter im Manhattanprojekt (Atombombenentwicklung in den USA), äusserte sich zu Risiken in Laboratorien in "Woran ich mich erinnere", eine deutsche Übersetzung seiner Lebenserinnerungen, 1981 erschienen in der Wissenschaftlichen Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart, dort auf S. 61:

"Tatsächlich glaube ich, daß tödliche Unfälle in einem Laboratorium recht unwahrscheinlich sind, da die Leute dort wissen, daß sie aufpassen müssen.

Viel gefährlicher ist der Glaube, daß alles sicher ist: Das ist nie der Fall."

Hervorhebung von mir, R.U.