die im CERN arbeitenden Menschen sind nicht eigentlich verrückt, sie alle haben Familienangehörige, einige haben auch Kinder … die meisten tun was ihnen gesagt wird und weitergehend brauchen sie sich nicht zu besorgen.
Einige Entscheidungsbefugte aber sind wohl wissentlich verantwortungslos und wollen diese Experimente unbedingt durchführen - oder haben diese Experimente schon durchgeführt, sie schulden niemandem Rechenschaft und haben den weltgrössten Spielplatz zur Verfügung.
Es wird damit gerechnet unzählige (1/sec oder 1/min) kleine ‘Miniatur Schwarzlöcher’, zu erschaffen die sich entsprechend der ‘HawkingRadiation’Theorie innert kürzester Zeit auflösen sollten. Die ‘HawkingRadiation’Theorie aber wurde nie bewiesen! 1974 geschrieben von Stephen Hawking ist sie bis heute nicht verifiziert, nie wurde die Zerstrahlung kleiner oder grosser Schwarzer Löcher beobachtet. die ‘HawkingRadiation’Theorie ist eine unbewiesene Theorie aus den 80er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts! Dennoch wird diese Theorie demagogisch anmutend als beruhigend gesichertes Faktum auf der CERN - Safety at the LHC Website angeführt:
Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink, evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes. If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay
Professor Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G. bringt eine äusserst beunruhigende Theorie in die leider noch immer nicht vorhandene Diskussion:
...
This vertical distance near a black hole has no name so far. One sees that it diverges
(becomes infinite) when ri approaches the Schwarzschild radius rs. This reflects the wellknown
fact implicit in Eq.(1) that light emerging from the Schwarzschild radius (at ri = rs)
takes an infinite time to reach an outside point ro and vice versa [8]. The reason is also well
known: the speed of light, c as a function of r, approaches zero as r approaches rs in the
Schwarzschild metric [8].
What could be shown in reference [7] is that the distance described by Eq.(2) is real. That
is, the infinite time it takes by Eq. (1) to cover the distance between rs and ro is in accord with
the interpretation that c is constant throughout. This “constant-c interpretation“ of Eq.(2) is
compatible with a proposal made by Max Abraham in 1912 [9] in response to the first nonconstant-
c theory proposed by Einstein in 1911 [10]. The variable-c feature got then
incorporated four years later into general relativity – which indeed might never have been
found without it. Now, the variable-c property unexpectedly turns out to be redundant in a
special case: Eq.(2) formally implies that closer and closer to the horizon, space gets more
and more strongly dilated in compensation for the lacking decrease in c [7]. The same locally
isotropic size change had been demonstrated before in the much more special context of the
equivalence principle [11].
The new taking-literally of Eq.(2) is tantamount to an infinite downward-extension of the
Einstein-Rosen funnel (the upper half of the famous Einstein-Rosen bridge). Three
previously unknown facts follow from the re-interpretation of the unchanged mathematics: 1)
infinite proper in-falling time; 2) infinitely delayed Hawking radiation; 3) infinitely weak
chargedness of black holes. All 3 contradict accepted wisdom, so the standard calculations
must have involved an undiscovered false step at some point since the mathematics is
unchanged. Indeed for one of the three (the first), a straightforward proof could be found that
the non-constant-c traditional interpretation makes the same prediction [7]. This proof, which
invokes a standing vertical laser wave between ro and rs, can be extended to the other two.
So much for Eq.(2) and its implications. What are the consequences for miniblack holes?
The validity of points (i–iv) above is affected. Firstly, point (i) – failure to be produced –
becomes indistinuguishable from the other case that already formed miniholes remain
undetected. Hence there is a certain risk now that the experiment will be unnecessarily
cranked up to unwittingly produce heavier miniholes than intended.
Secondly, point (iv) gets altered by new matter-eating properties of miniblack holes: The
linear growth rate asserted ceases to be valid since it was based on the assumption that the
eating-up of a charged quark does not alter the chances of the next encounter. In
contradistinction, the new unchargedness implies that a change in the environment is
generated by every single eating act. Only when the minihole eats exactly one negative
charge (electron) per positive charge (1.5 positive quarks) eaten is there no imbalance
induced. But to assume such a symmetry would be unrealistic since the effective eating
cross-sections differ for electrons and quarks due to their strongly differing speeds (classically
speaking). To fix ideas, the encounter rates may be assumed to be much higher for the (on
average) positively charged quarks. At first sight the pertinent implication of “one orphaned
electron per day“ sounds innocuous enough – a new eating rule cannot possibly modify the
million-year prediction of point (iv), one feels. Nevertheless the linear prediction made under
point (iv) above breaks down.1)
Nonlinearity comes in many forms. Some have no qualitative implications, others have a
knack for “self-organization.“ This fact enabled the origin of life [12]. Could it be that nature
harbors a second “pet attractor“ – one that raises its head whenever a black hole with its
nonlinear eating habits is placed into eatable matter? The answer to this question appears to
be yes. Everyone has seen pictures of the most spectacular self-organizing nonlinearity in the
cosmos: the beautiful saddle-focus – a disk of in-spiralling matter with an orthogonal giant jet
of charged particles being ejected from the middle on either side – called a “quasar“ [13].
Quasars typically contain a 1-billion-solar-mass black hole at the center of their in-spiralling
accretion disk of matter and the jets of charged particles extend over millions of light years.
But quasars do not stand alone: Microquasars look just the same even though they contain
only a single star – after upscaling by a factor of one billion (cf. [13]). Can this astounding
self-similar hierarchy – the only of its kind in nature – perhaps be continued downwards?
There is no doubt at present that a planet – roughly a million times smaller in mass again
than a microquasar – will once more “look the same“ downscaled by another factor of a
million as a “picoquasar,“ if given the chance. Indeed at the end of the millions of years of
linear growth predicted by point (iv) above, a violent continuation like this one was not
exluded [3]. Once nonlinearity is acknowledged as putting an end to linear growth at some
stage, however, the same onset can no longer be ruled out to occur at some earlier stage.
This is the “early self-organization hypothesis“ of black hole growth. Although nothing but
a possibility-in-principle, it compellingly implies that the down-scaling of quasars does not
stop at the one-earth-mass level, or a tenth, or whatever. No one has any idea at present how
far the quasar-generating principle continues down the line. What is certain is only that each
further step implies a proportional “reduction of the linear waiting time“ after which the
minihole ceases to be a pussycat and becomes a planet-eating monster. The decrease in
waiting time could make up a factor of a thousand or a factor of a million or very much more.
No matter how trivial it may appear, this scaling-induced “acceleration“ is our main result.
Let us be a bit more specific. Since we started out from a nonlinearity valid at the
lowermost end of the ladder, the self-organizing attractor from the upper end can in principle
be thought to downscale all the way through. The limit at the lower end would then be our
minihole itself.
2008-05-16 | achtphasen | 08:09:28 | 
| comment
