|
Original Message
|
[link to www.technologyreview.com]
The talk now is of an LHC upgrade to increase the machine's luminosity and its energy to some 16.5 TeV. Safety should be a central part of these plans and yet it is not. The public should demand to know why.
[link to arxiv.org]
The possibility of creating microscopic black holes is one of the most exciting predictions for the LHC, with potentially major consequences for our current understanding of physics. We briefly review the theoretical motivation for micro black hole production, and our understanding of their subsequent evolution. Recent work on modelling the radiation from quantum-gravity-corrected black holes is also discussed. The latest experimental investigations, excluding the formation of black holes with masses up to 4.5 TeV, are further supporting the highly speculative character of the topic. As a consequence, we may ask why microscopic black holes are still so important, ten years after their production was conjectured. The answer lies in the fact that microscopic black holes have the potential to reveal deep insights into fundamental physics, in particular quantum gravity.
From AlJazeera News, but it's a very well done and compelling
Professor Otto Rössler voices his worries about experiments at CERN after HIGGS discovery...starts at 8:20 into vid
Rössler was awarded his MD in 1966. After postdoctoral studies at the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology in Bavaria, and a visiting appointment at the Center for Theoretical Biology at SUNY-Buffalo, in 1969 he became Professor for Theoretical Biochemistry at the University of Tübingen. In 1994, he became Professor of Chemistry by decree.
Rössler has held visiting positions at the University of Guelph (Mathematics) in Canada, the Center for Nonlinear Studies of the University of California at Los Alamos, the University of Virginia (Chemical Engineering), the Technical University of Denmark (Theoretical Physics), and the Santa Fe Institute (Complexity Research) in New Mexico
Rössler has authored around hundreds of scientific papers in fields as wide-ranging as biogenesis, the origin of language, differentiable automata, chaotic attractors, endophysics, micro relativity, artificial universes, the hypertext encyclopedia, and world-changing technology.
...The link below contains a compelling interview with Professor Otto Rössler. Have pasted a few discussion points from article...recommend reading the entire article
[link to www.science20.com]
Gillis: How did you arrive at the idea that mBH, if produced at the Large Hadron Collider, could accrete matter?
Early on, the idea that the LHC could be dangerous did not arrive in my brain. A Relativist friend of mine who was correcting this paper on my new interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric, asked me just as a joke if this wouldn't have repercussions on the LHC. I didn't know what the LHC was. It forced me to think whether this was a good question or a joke. Then it might mean that black holes or mini black holes cannot evaporate. The mathematics are the same. I tried to falsify (disprove) it, but I couldn't.
Another thing that occurred to me is that we can now predict the existence of non-point shaped black holes using El Naschie’s Fractal theory. Once we know they are string-shaped then we can ask what is their size. It occurred to me only a few days ago that we might use El Naschie’s theory to calculate their size.
Gillis: Are you suggesting that you think electrons are actually elementary black holes?
No, it is everybody else who implicitly thinks so. They could of course also be clouds of smaller charged particles, in principle, although I doubt it. This would only reiterate the problem.
Gillis: Then you agree that like all particles in String theory, electrons are string-shaped and not point-shaped in real space?
That is too hard a question for me to answer definitively. In real space, there would only be a size increase, I guess. But so perhaps, more or less the same one for all mini particles, from neutrinos to mini black holes?
Gillis: There are still no experimental confirmations of String theory, not from collider data or any other experiments. CERN is hoping to find evidence of Strings at the much higher energies of the LHC.
Yes, it is one of the two big goals, besides the Higgs.
Gillis: There are a lot of String theorists at CERN. Given that String theory supports the formation of mBH at much lower energies than what you would need to produce a Planck mass size Black Hole, perhaps within reach of LHC collision energies, then why isn’t CERN taking this seriously? They did earlier, with their "Micro Black Hole Factory". Now the recent safety assessment by CERN, the LSAG report, discounts them, quoting Einstein’s Relativity, that they are an impossibility.
They’re less enthusiastic than they were before. The String theorists don’t believe in String theory anymore. That was my impression when I met Dr Landua at CERN, but maybe I misunderstood him. They don’t talk about black holes anymore since I started saying they are dangerous. They even abandoned String theory just to say they don’t believe in them anymore.
Gillis: What do you think the probabilities are of mBH being produced at the LHC with proton to proton collisions at 10 TeV, before winter this year?
I would almost say something like 10%. Maybe 16% or 16.6%. Russian Roulette has 6 probabilities.
Gillis: You mentioned Dr Rolf Landua earlier. You had an interview with him at CERN this July 4th about your black hole theories. What happened?
It was an amiable meeting. When I arrived at the airport there were two ladies from Zurich expecting me. In order for me not to be alone. They were LHC activists. They accompanied me to CERN. When Landua came, he offered all three of us a ride to the ATLAS Detector. So there were four of us at the meeting later in the CERN cafeteria, with the view of Mount Blanc. He promised, since he couldn’t disprove my Relativity argument, that he knew several famous people in Relativity working at CERN that would talk to me. I was happy that there would be another discussion. Before we left, I reminded Landua of our next meeting with the Relativists. He didn't recall suggesting one, that it wasn't necessary. He said he would send my paper along to an expert. The matter is still pending. If I am wrong, I want at least to know where I am wrong.
Gillis: Dr. Landua agrees with you, that this experiment is important? That it could show that superfluidity protects neutron stars from mBH?
On this point it seems. But unfortunately, superfluidity will not protect this planet from artificial sufficiently slow mini black holes, likely or possibly produced at the LHC.
Gillis: Did the subject of a possible bosenova implosion and explosion come up in your discussions?
Superfluid Helium II is a quantum superfluid with strange properties, and generally considered to be a Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Yes, but the question of this superfluid being dangerous as such, because of the risk of bosenova formation at the LHC, I did learn only from you today: It did not occur to us. This is an important point, and should also be tested experimentally by CERN, I feel. They will of course be accidentally testing it when they switch on the LHC. This local catastrophe if occurring would inadvertently protect the planet at large.
Gillis: That a bosenova could destroy the LHC? You're not joking?
Not at all. My friend Artur Schmidt told me about the historical rule that whenever there is a technology jump by a factor of ten -- the LHC's energy will be by 8 times higher than ever before achieved, so it qualifies -- always major accidents happen owing to humanity's built-in lack of clairvoyance.
A bosenova or bose supernova is a very small, supernova-like explosion, which can be induced in a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) by changing the magnetic field in which the BEC is located, so that the BEC quantum wavefunction's self-interaction becomes attractive.
In the particular experiment when a bosenova was first detected, this procedure caused the BEC to implode and shrink beyond detection, and then suddenly explode. In this explosion, about half of the atoms in the condensate seem to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, remaining undetected either in the cold particle remnants or in the expanding gas cloud produced
Gillis: Then you support my idea that a possible bosenova explosion could threaten the LHC and Geneva? And a safety test should be performed by CERN on both superfluid heliums?
Recently I learned that Helium I is also used at the LHC, to cool both beam cryostats, in the main ring. I published an article recently on my findings, in ScientificBlogging, Superfluids, BECs and Bosenovas: The Ultimate Experiment
Gillis: On that score CERN would show Einstein the door today. Is that why you’re appealing to the public and politicians? In mid-August you’ll be seeing the President of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin. What do you hope to achieve?
I’m trying to get a friendly contact with him, so he understands how I think. And that I’m not an enemy of CERN, which probably everybody believes. I’m the only friend of CERN I see around. Everybody else is trying to destroy it. Including themselves. They have this nice argument. We all have children. Would we do this experiment if we didn’t believe we were safe? But if they are ready to sacrifice their families, they are still not allowed to do it with the planet. CERN still hasn’t answered my questions, or refuted my papers, though they are publicly available on the Internet.
[link to lifeboat.com]
|
