[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]
There is not the slightest alleviation of danger so far. All I can record so far is a stalling in favor of letting CERN continue till the end of the year – its present goal. No immediate safety discussion with CERN is planned by any organization if I am told correctly.
I would very much like to understand the mechanism: How is it possible that so many grown-up persons collude in a game of hide-and-seek: What do they gain by refusing to think and, most of all, discuss?
Their neglect of rationality is unprecedented. Imagine: A whole profession being too weak to find a single counterargument against the reproach of trying to vaporize the planet into a black hole in a few years’ time – with not a single member speaking up in objection!
Historians of the future – whom I congratulate if still existing – will be unable to believe their records: A phase of humankind’s history in which the fear of sizing up a danger in time vastly outshines the danger itself – even though the latter is infinite.
Is this really a planet of grown-up persons who have children whom they ought to care for? Please, dear director Heuer of CERN: Do kindly present to the planet a single scientist who defends your stance by a scientific argument offered against the published proof of danger. For those who forgot:
1) black holes do not evaporate (Telemach)
2) black holes are uncharged and hence un-sticky and undetectable at CERN (Telemach)
3) minimal black holes must be very small for leaving white dwarfs unscathed when produced on their surface at nearly the speed of light (observation)
4) black holes leave neutron stars unscathed owing to the latters’ superfluidity (quantum)
5) black holes grow exponentially inside matter by the quasar hierarchy theorem (chaos)
Any of these 5 results if shown to be false exculpates CERN with respect to black-holes
Or maybe you can formulate a counterargument yourself, dear director Heuer?
I forgot to say that the empirical proof of string theory, implicit in Telemach’s unchargedness of black holes theorem (“charged particles like electrons cannot be maximally small since they would then be uncharged for being black holes – so they must be ‘bored-open’ somehow in accord with what all string-related theories predict”), makes an experimental success at CERN regarding black hole production way more likely than originally hoped for.
You sir, are clearly a lunatic.
pure nosense. unfounded, not even qualitative crank science at its best.
Otto–
About your 5 point criticism of CERN in your most recent post — I believe I have answered this to you sufficiently with my opinion already in many blogs — i.e. not requiring new debate unless you offer new/insightful opinion on the G&M analysis. For the record — here is a quick breakdown again of my opinion on these however —
“1) black holes do not evaporate (Telemach)”
A disproof of Telemach does not provide a safety assurance as in scenario 1 hawking radiation may be ineffective due to some other process or in scenario 2 one could question the effects of hawking radiation on the environment — eg heating/micro-explosive effects. If Telemach was correct, then this on its own would be a safety assurance as it would dispell the concerns of scenario 2, and concern re scenario 1 is protected by white dwarf observations and the as yet non-disproven G&M analysis.
“2) black holes are uncharged and hence un-sticky and undetectable at CERN”
Black holes could be detectable by unaccounted loss of mass/energy in collision experiments. Whatever about unchargedness, however, I would agree that CERN are not in a good setup to detect non-radiating MBH — albeit not a concern (see below). They could easily detect MBH in scenario 2 mentioned above, of course.
“3) minimal black holes must be very small for leaving white dwarfs unscathed”
Minimal black holes are very small. CERN calculate a radius in region of 10^(−34). I would think this counter-intuitive as a 4-dimensional MBH of similar energy would have a radius in the region of 10^(−51) as I have already stated on a number of occasions. Their increase is due to hypothesised extra-dimensional warping at the quantum level, and I have not, nor has anyone else, including you, found a weakness in this derivation (except for your allegation that G&M derivation is baseless and fraudulent). It is my opinion that even if minimal MBH were in region of 10^(−51) that white dwarf would capture these based on size of atomic nuclei traversed. I’d be interested in reviewing anyones re-analysis of the G&M derivation of white dwarf capture rates based on a small size MBH down to and including a size of 10^(−51) — even if this is far below the planck-size and so implausible.
“4) black holes leave neutron stars unscathed owing to the latters’ superfluidity”
I discussed this at length with you in blogs before why I do not believe the superfluidity argument can apply to MBH event horizons. In any case a disproof of superfluidity action on MBH is not a safety assurance as one could argue against nuetron star capture in same manner as argue against white dwarf capture. As the white dwarf capture is an easier analysis (no suggestion of superfluidity clouding the argument) I have focused on the white dwarf safety argument in recent debate with you here.
“5) black holes grow exponentially inside matter by the quasar hierarchy theorem”
A disproof of this would not guarantee safety either as a non-exponential growth may also be a concern. In any case, a safety argument lies back with analysis of white dwarf longevity. As I expressed in a recent blog, the G&M derivation of hypothetical stable MBH capture rates on white dwarfs dispells safety concerns, and no-one has disproven anything there — as it shows such hypothetical stable MBH existence (or growth) are therefore disproven indirectly by the observational evidence of white dwarf longevity.
In summary — only the disproof of white dwarf MBH capture is necessary to raise a safety concern, though the G&M derivation of capture rates in white dwarfs remains unchallenged. The other points are far less relevent. The G&M paper already considers the scenario of non-radiating hypothetical stable MBH, due to ‘Telemach’ or otherwise.
Sincerely–
Tom.
The point is that extradimensions are required for mbhs to be created.
If there are no extradimensions, no black holes at this energies.
ghdihacfk – even though anonymous — said something important. A pity he cannot be persuaded to reply again with a voice that has resonance — unless he shows his face (which I locate in Golm).
The sentence as stated is ALMOST correct: Something is bound to explain why electrons are charged despite their being very small. For if they were point-like – as often assumed by particle physicists –, they could not be black holes because of the Telemach theorem. So the most important element of all string-etc.-like theories – that “something” is “boring open” charged prticlces – is correct. You can call this fact “string theory qualitatively confirmed” – as our witness wants to convey.
However, deriving any quantitative answers from this fact – as string theorists would like to do – is totally unqualified. And as the readers of this blog can realize, no string theorist — not even an anonymous one — on the planet does so. He only insinuates something like this — and pays for his doing so by covering his face.
Tom, you are a fresh thinker and a good character. But you have been lured onto a false trip.
You, #1) believe in the truth of nonsense – that string theory provided any unique basis for quantitative calculations – and you, #2) overlook the switch-like transition towards exponential growth after the first capture inside matter of a charged particle by a microblackhole.
These two oversights of yours have turned you into an effective supporter of CERN’s – advocating continuation of the acutely planet-sacrificing experiment.
This is a tragic development. Especially so since Markus Goritschnig and Niccolò Tottoli are following you owing to your being more informed technically than they are.
We should talk for once.
Take care,
Otto
Thank you Otto — though it was your opinion I had hoped to influence. I understand however that this may be an impossible task. There is no development on my part, tragic or otherwise — I have always been pro-debate and remain so — as I believe do our associates — if at a minimum to avoid people less familiar with the debate having misplaced trauma — but also with the infinitely more important reason that a concern somewhere may hold ground (as unlikely as this may mostly seem).
As for allegations that I embrace or dismiss certain theories lightly — I do not agree, but one has to formulate an opinion. Please understand that being pro-debate does not mean one is an advocate of anything more than diligence. I await a scientific rebuttal of G&M capture rates of hypothetical stable MBH on white dwarfs.
We both try to influence each other’s opinion — not to win but to get closer to the truth. Thank you for this answer.
I shall be maximally open to your trying to convince me that the white-dwarf survival harbors a safety insurance for our planet.
Mr Roessler,
you have no knowledge about the basic assumptions of string theory either. Thanks for showing that.
You have still no arguments. Your case is closed, was never a case.
GM do not use string theory calculations, Mr Roesslers argument is a classical strawman
A few hours ago there were a few more comments here.
From my saved pages:
ghdihacfk on April 30, 2012 6:07 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The point is that extradimensions are required for mbhs to be created.
If there are no extradimensions, no black holes at this energies.
Ottos answer to that is somewhat inappropriate…
Still no man or woman with a view he or she would be ready to defend?
As you have never attacked (except on the characterless personal level) there is nothing to defend.
The world and Kerwick are still waiting for your counterproof to GM. According to your own criteria there was never something like that. What you have mentioned so far about GM was pure nonsense — probably you have read another paper.