Large Hadron Collider

[Tinman]

^ A da napravimo 1 poll?

[mustang]

cik sad da vidim vanzemaljce! ima da ih pocistimo ko hirosimu i nagasaki.

[Schmeling]

Za one koje interesuje, tekst Ota Reslera:

A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemmaby Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, F.R.G.Abstract. A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take years until we know whether or not we are doomed. The story line has all the features of a best-selling novel. The reader is asked to contribute constructively.IntroductionA surreal situation is described as being present: the greatest conceivable danger ? the end of both history and future. This author still stands almost alone with a few hard results that completely change the status of a currently running public endeavor. What can and must rationally be done in what order?The most economic way would be to find out where the error lies in the perceived new danger. Since time is running out, the help of other scientists needs to be solicited. This proves not easy. The two major science journals refuse to publish but equally steadfastly refuse to give a scientific reason for their verdict. The unwillingness of the scientific community to falsify the danger takes the public hostage. This remains true even if the whole danger is only a mirage. To publicize the danger because time is running out is a big decision. The legal term for doing something like this is ?instigation of irrational panic.? Can anyone take this on his or her shoulders?Most likely, of course, the silent scientific establishment is well-advised to ignore the danger. Nevertheless a younger-generation Nobel laureate in physics recently suggested I should go on ? even CERN would profit from the publicity. But at the expense of many ordinary citizens being unnecessarily scared to death, I added.All I suggest to do is to convene an independent safety conference within the remaining four to ten weeks time. This is very little to ask, but exactly this bit is being refused. Why? It looks as if my scientific proposals are so far-off that anyone who ever had a physics course grasps this immediately while everyone else is deeply impressed by the arguments. Or is this just a crime story made up to boost the publishing rights of an unnamed person?The Rational DilemmaThe scenario looks unbelievable enough: that a prestigious group of ten thousand mostly young and enthusiastic scientists should unwittingly prepare the greatest conceivable risk to the planet. Both ?Trinity? and ?Eniwetak? ? the two previous Russian-roulette feats of our species ? would be dwarfed by this third instance, without the protagonists? noticing.You will have realized by now that I do not have a 100-percent proof to offer ? just probabilities. The latter can be summed up in 7 points. Those points I have put into the Appendix for conciseness. Here let me at last say what we are talking about. The experiment in question is called the LHC (?Large Hadron Collider?) and is the most expensive and prestigious non-military scientific endeavor ever. Hadrons (protons) are to be hauled against each other at 14 times the power of the previous generation of accelerators and 7 times the maximum energy ever achieved (2.000 Giga-electron-Volts).The experiment at CERN is completely normal science as far as an understanding of every single element is concerned. Only the implications are unusual here since an unexplained natural threshold (called the electro-weak unification barrier) will be surpassed for the first time. This excites string theorists ? perhaps the most sophisticated brand of theoretical physicists ? since they have a way to predict that even these minuscule energies (compared to the Planck energy thought necessary before) will be sufficient. Mini black-holes could then arise for the first time in history.Now my group has discovered that black holes possess a new property (lack of evaporation). The two possibilities ? that string theorists are right and that we are right ? taken together make for a volatile mixture. In such a case it is the most rational thing for the world to convene a scientific conference to discuss the joint implications before the experiment is allowed to become overcritical.If this plea is heeded, everything is going to be alright. For we will then all know how the leading experts of the world sum up both their mutual consensus and their currently unresolvable dissent. In either case everyone will see clearly what is the most reasonable response to take. Since rationality will be back, no dilemma will remain.This statement concludes the rational dimension. What about the two other dimensions?The Moral DilemmaThis second aspect arises because of the following fact: If anyone points out the rational danger, he or she cannot possibly know what this information will entail in the longer run. People could be misled into panicking, for example. But only if the experiment becomes overcritical before a scientific consensus has been achieved (our current situation unless a miracle happens). Or else after it has been done with the dreaded outcome so that the catastrophe takes its course.Unexpectedly, there exists a third dismal possibility: that the experiment proceeds and no mini black holes are found. This profoundly distinguishes the present situation from Trinity and Eniwetak (the first atomic fission and fusion explosions which fortunately did not engage the atmosphere). While the probability of a dismal outcome is perhaps no greater this time than it was in the previous instances (?1 percent?), it will not be possible to return to business as usual after the event, this time around: the danger will not be over once the scientists declare that their attempt to produce mini black holes has failed since they found no trace of them. For if mini black holes do not evaporate as predicted, they also leave no decipherable sign of their existence ? at first. So a negative and a positive outcome are indistinguishable.This difference to its predecessors makes the current experiment a guaranteed success: at causing an unprecedented amount of human suffering. For there will be no way to explain to anyone that he or she is safe nor to apologize for the suffering to expect. The rational fear unavoidably caused can only be made to go away by convening a post-facto scientific world conference that proclaims absolute safety. Unfortunately, every scientist who would not agree with this preassigned verdict would act irresponsibly. Since this will be obvious, no one would ever again believe a single word from a scientist. Anti-scientific fundamentalism would have won ? even if the experiment proves innocuous in hindsight.Hysterical irrational responses from the part of the up-until-now uninformed majority of persons and countries on the planet would be preprogrammed for years to come. This medieval angst is a danger almost as great as the experiment itself. No one will be astonished in retrospect that 10,000 scientifically trained minds were unable to anticipate this predictable consequence since this rational deduction belongs, not to the realm of the natural sciences, but rather to that of the humanities and arts. The oversight would nonetheless not be forgiven. This second catastrophe can only be avoided through rapid action ? the very safety conference already proposed above.The Spiritual DilemmaThe third dilemma is the most disturbing, perhaps. The experiment started operation on April the first 2008 (end of the official countdown) and is currently in the process of being booted-up in a step-by-step manner to reach a planned 70 percent performance level this summer: 10,000 GeV (or five times beyond the threshold of danger). Suppose for a moment that this way of proceeding took place, not today but at any earlier time in history. Spiritual questions would then inevitably have posed themselves.Today, even thinking of this possibility (?sin??) sounds crazy. Indeed, no spiritual world leader ? pope, emperor, helmsman ? was or is ready to speak up on behalf of their worldly and spiritual constituencies despite the fact that they were informed in time. Why is this so?There is an intelligible reason for this third phenomenon, too: It is nothing but probabilities that are at stake here. To decide on such matters is traditionally entrusted to the military ? this is what they have been hired to deal with in the first place: sandbox games. Only Gorbachev and Raissa deviated from this preformed path once. Their example illustrates the danger we are presently in: They realized that the equilibrium of deterrence implied a remaining finite risk of bilateral annihilation, but no one currently appreciates their decision. This shows in a nutshell that humankind is no longer able even to notice when it is rescued: Kindynagnosia ? the inability to recognize danger ? is a collective disturbance caused by mental synchronization. Human beings are still, or once again are, the proverbial lambs of the spiritual. Who would not love them for their innocence?An Enlightened Response Is Called ForThe spiritual dimension goes still farther. Everyone knows today that for the first time in history we possess the tools to do away with the cruelest inequalities on the planet. The computer and the Internet have made this miracle possible: Work done once can be multiplied and transported free of charge. Information has become cost-free. Nevertheless project Lampsacus remains unknown for 14 years (Google and Wikipedia which implement elements of it notwithstanding). In a historical parallel, thecomputer-facilitated medical revolution is increasingly withheld from the less well-to-do public even in privileged countries while student fees are re-imposed in defiance of a UNO decision without protest. No one seems to feel his own human rights any more and hence also not those of his neighbor. The notion of cruelty ? something that must never happen in the universe ? has slipped from public consciousness. Most everybody agrees that someone who rescues people from drowning (like Elias Bierdel) is a ?Schlepper.?If the notion of dignity (for what is killed by cruelty is dignity) has miraculously slipped from public consciousness: why should anyone be expected to stand up for the future of his neighbor?s children since his own children and their future are no longer on his mind? Showing love is almost a taboo topic. But it is the young child ? the toddler ? who invents benevolence out of nothing because no one in the cosmos is wiser or greater. Possessing benevolence and being a person are one and the same thing.Make the test and ask your child whether the LHC emperor has any clothes on. He/she will ask you back to explain what you mean since Hans-Christian Andersen is no longer well known. The returned question will enable you to tell the truth: ?Darling, no one seems to know for sure ? only after a scientific conference will anyone be able to say.? Then your child will ask you what you did to make this conference happen. Will you reply: ?Darling, I am not a scientist??To conclude, I ask you to forgive me for stirring up your waking day. Buddha would do the same thing (now I am crazy!) and Jacob and Martin Luther. Notwithstanding the fact that most hopefully ? knock on wood ? the danger does not exist. The Appendix demonstrates that we still can find out in time. A petition inviting every parent to sign is on the Internet (just google ?Honey, I shrunk the earth!?).AcknowledgmentsKensei Hiwaki, George Lasker and Hugh Gash encouraged me to write this paper. I thank Gottfried Mayer for his early criticism and Artur Schmidt, Joachim Frank, Andy Hilgartner, Roland Maurmair, Wolfgang Fedyszin, Gabriele Schr?ter, Heino Breilmann, Enrico Pellegrino, Michael Langer, Frank Kuske and Dieter Fr?hlich for discussions. For J.O.R.Appendix:Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to a new theorem in the Schwarzschild metric (??-theorem?) [1].2) Black holes are effectively uncharged because of the ?-theorem [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence nonpointshaped mini-objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely.3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: ?miniquasar principle? [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened ? perhaps down to ?50 months.? This contrasts with the ?50 million years? obtained assuming linear growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN?s analogous ?5 billion years? [4].4) CERN [4,5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with planetbound protons. This is correct. However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are ?symmetrically generated? and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence ? in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their natural cousins.5) CERN?s counterargument could still hold true for more compact celestial bodies than the earth ? such that their lifetimes would be drastically reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are 105 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 105 greater than earth?s. They remain safe if no more than 104 eating-type collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them (so it can pass through). Why? Because the energy of 14.000 GeV pumped into two colliding protons at CERN is 14.000 times the rest mass of a proton (1 GeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton) likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum conservation, only about 14,000 (104) collisions with a resident quark can be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of the LHC energy without losing its almost-luminal speed. If this bound applies to white dwarfs, no more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible.6) The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter collision intervals let this prediction appear justified.7) Finally, neutron stars have a by another factor of 109 greater density than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without friction. The superfluidity extends to the ?inner crust? [6].In order to exclude that man-made mini black holes endanger the earth, it will be necessary to falsify the first of the 7 points, or if this is not possible the second, and so forth. Until this task has been solved, no one can shoulder the responsibility to give the ?green light? to the LHC?s crossing the 2.000 GeV barrier, as this is currently planned to do within a few weeks. It thus appears that only an immediate safety conference can save the LHC experiment.

Naravno, ochekujem od forumskih "nauchnika", Venoma, Al Kvarizmija, Joe D-a i posebno Vasudeve, da jednim mocnim zamahom svojih intelekata^tm objasne^tm gde je tachno Resler u krivu. @Mei: shta ti mislish o ovih 7 tachaka?

[mokuci]

sve je u redu!

[mei]

@Mei: shta ti mislish o ovih 7 tachaka?

Dodala sam reference u spoiler na koje se O. Rossler poziva u dokumentu koji si postavio u prethodnom postu, posto nedostaju.

1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to a new theorem in the Schwarzschild metric ("?-theorem") [1].

Prvo, autor tvrdi da mini-crne rupe ne isparavaju pozivajuci se na teoremu koju je sam smislio (pogledati spoiler). Medjutim, to i nije od prevelikog znacaja, posto su fizicari vec razmatrali slucaj neraspadajucih mini-crnih rupa u najgorem mogucem scenariu (videti na primer link na rad iz mog prethodnog posta).

2) Black holes are effectively uncharged because of the ?-theorem [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence nonpointshaped mini-objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely.

Pozivajuci se ponovo na sopstveni rad, autor tvrdi da su mini-crne rupe nenaelektrisane. Fizicari su takodje razmatrali oba slucaja - i naelektrisanih i nenaelektrisanih mini-crnih rupa.

3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: "miniquasar principle" [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened ? perhaps down to "50 months." This contrasts with the "50 million years" obtained assuming linear growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN's analogous "5 billion years" [4].

Tvrdnja da mini-crne rupe rastu eksponencijalnom brzinom opet potice jedino od samog autora (njegov rad je referenca [2]). Licno nemam dokaz, ali iskreno sumnjam da njegove kalkulacije nisu vec opovrgnute od strane teorijskih fizicara.Cak i da rastu eksponencijalnom brzinom, opet ostaje pitanje dugovecnih belih patuljaka (i neutronskih zvezda, mada vidimo [nize] da autor i protiv njih ima usamljene tvrdnje)

4) CERN [4,5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with planetbound protons. This is correct. However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are "symmetrically generated" and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence ? in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their natural cousins.

da, u ekstremnom slucaju nenaelektrisanih, neraspadajucih crnih rupa nastalih od kosmickog zracenja Zemlja ne predstavlja dobru sredinu za zaustavljanje. medjutim beli patuljci i neutronske zvezde "hvataju" ove mini extra-D objekte. privlacenje materije u belim patuljcima i neutronskim zvezdama je mnogo brze nego na Zemlji. autor tvrdi da bi Zemlja kolapsirala za 50 meseci. Ukoliko je to tacno, sledi da bi vecina belih patuljaka i neutronskih zvezda do sada kolapsirala.

5) CERN's counterargument could still hold true for more compact celestial bodies than the earth ? such that their lifetimes would be drastically reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are 105 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 105 greater than earth's. They remain safe if no more than 104 eating-type collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them (so it can pass through). Why? Because the energy of 14.000 GeV pumped into two colliding protons at CERN is 14.000 times the rest mass of a proton (1 GeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton) likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum conservation, only about 14,000 (104) collisions with a resident quark can be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of the LHC energy without losing its almost-luminal speed. If this bound applies to white dwarfs, no more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible.6) The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter collision intervals let this prediction appear justified.

sto se tice tacki 5) i 7), autor sugerise da mini-crne rupe koje se krecu velikim brzinama u veoma gustim objektima (belim patuljcima), ipak ne rastu eksponencijalno jer nemaju dovoljno vremena da interaguju. Kalkulacije fizicara pokazuju da mini-crne rupe bivaju "uhvacene" od strane ovih objekata. Gustina objekta je vazna, jer je tzv. "impact parameter", tj. relativno rastojanje od mini-crne rupe do nukleona smanjeno, tj. veca je verovatnoca da se mini-crna rupa priblizi na rastojanje gde gravitaciona interakcija izmedju nje i kvarkova u nukleonu postaje dovoljna da dodje do grav. sazimanja. Imamo kalkulacije O. Rossler-a, nasuprot kalkulacijama fizicara iz CERNA (i ne samo iz CERN-a).

7) Finally, neutron stars have a by another factor of 109 greater density than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without friction. The superfluidity extends to the "inner crust" [6].

ne znam nista o radu iz reference [6], ni kako je je autor izveo zakljucak da objekti prolaze bez ikakave interakcije kroz neutronske zvezde usled kvantne koherencije suprefluidnog karakera. u svakom slucaju, izgleda da je (skoro) usamljen u svom zakljucku.

References [1] O.E. Rossler, "Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: ℜ-theorem derived in Schwarzschild metric." Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (in press). Preprint on: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf [2] O.E. Rossler, "Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk" (submitted on September 27, 2007). Also on the above URL. [3] www.BBC.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/universe/VOTE/ [4] M. Mangano, in: interview with Michael Liebe, golem.de (in German), www.golem.de/0802157477.html [5[ R. Landua, in: interview with Andreas S?ch?, pm-magazin.de (in German), www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TjYobXKebM [6] G. Col?, "A microscopic quantal calculation of the superfluidity of the inner crust of neutron stars" (Abstract). www.mi.infn.it/~colo/TRENTO/Abstracts/gori.txt .

[Venom]

Naravno, ochekujem od forumskih "nauchnika", Venoma, Al Kvarizmija, Joe D-a i posebno Vasudeve, da jednim mocnim zamahom svojih intelekata^tm objasne^tm gde je tachno Resler u krivu.

Vrlo loshe opisano - jedini koji bi mogao da se opishe kao nauchnik, "nauchnik", ili najpreciznije couch nauchnik si samo i jedino ti.

[lessa]

jednu medalju za meimanje za znanje mada jeste vise za strpljenje i takt

[Schmeling]

@ Mei:1. Autor tvrdi da, po teoremi koju je razvio njegov tim, "black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime". Shta to konkretno znachi, za nas laike, odnosno na kojoj pretpostavci je zasnovana ova tvrdnja (da ne isparavaju)? 2. Zashto (kako) su MBH nenaelektrisane, tj. (opet) koja je pretpostavka (verovatno ista kao kod 1.) uslov za ovo?3. Shta znachi "fundamentalna razlika" izmedju prirodno i veshtachki generisanih MBH, odnosno shta tachno znachi tvrdnja da su veshtachki generisane MBH "simetricno stvorene"; zashto bi "simetricno stvorene" MBH bile opasnije od prirodno stvorenih MBH? 4. a) Da li se Resler u svom radu sluzi naucnim metodima?b) Da li je Reslorov "najgori scenario" "nemoguc" ili only "skoro neverovatan"?

[Schmeling]

Vrlo loshe opisano - jedini koji bi mogao da se opishe kao nauchnik, "nauchnik", ili najpreciznije couch nauchnik si samo i jedino ti.

Ja sam se na pochetku teme deklarisao kao laik. Zato sam odmah i zajahao nesrecnu Mei, kako bih saznao shto vishe o ovome. Na drugoj strani, ti si deo grupe kojoj je, kao da je popila sve znanje ovog sveta, sve ovo kristalno jasno i samorazumljivo. Ne samo to, nego dopushtate sebi da na tvrdnje ljudi koji su ceo zhivot posvetili nauci (kao shto je Resler, takav kakav je), gledate sa nekakve visine i reagujete shprdnjom. Postoji jedan naziv za takve kao shto si ti, ali necu da ga napishem, da ne bih bio banovan.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Kao i obično, izvlačiš stvari iz konteksta i reprezentuješ ih onoliko pogrešno koliko tebi to odgovara. Prof. R?sslera niko od fizičara ne uzima za ozbiljno između ostalog i zato što referencira samo svoje radove kao dokaz za sopstvene tvrdnje. Prof. Evans tvrdi da je R?ssleru pokušao da ukaže na elementarne greške u kalkulacijama, ali bezuspešno. Slično o R?sslerovoj teoriji govore sva zvučna imena današnje fizike. Da si se malo potrudio da potražiš i drugu stranu priče pre nego što si počeo da mašeš R?sslerom, ne bi sad morao da crveniš od blama.A što se tiče utemeljenosti strahova od LHC, evo komentara mnogo kompetentnijih ljudi od biohemičara u penziji:

BBC: Give us some good news. We are not gonna disappear into a black hole, are we?Chris Llewellyn Smith: No, we are not. First of all... BBC: You're sure?Chris Llewellyn Smith: Absolutely sure. The chance we produce a black hole is minuscule, it's one of the wildest speculations. But even if we do, it can't swallow up the Earth. There's a lot of high energy particles raining in on the Earth from outer space. They are few and far between, otherwise we wouldn't have to build this machine in Switzerland, we'd just study them. But the Earth is large, it's been there a long time, and effectively we've conducted the LHC program about a 100,000 times over since the 4.5 billions years the Earth's been here. And it still is here.BBC: And those little particles that are smashing into each other in the atmosphere and in space, are doing it at the speed you are going to reproduce in this experiment? Because the whole point of this experiment is you're gonna do it just under the speed of light...Chris Llewellyn Smith: Yes, they are going actually not much faster, 'cause you can't go faster than the speed of light... but they are wound up to... up to a 100,000 times more energy, actually.BBC: But look, tell me this - even if there is a minuscule - to use your word of "minuscule" - risk of something horrible happening - why risk it?Chris Llewellyn Smith: Ah, I said there's a minuscule chance of us producing a black hole...BBC: Ah, ok...Chris Llewellyn Smith: ... If we produce a black hole, it's not gonna be doing any harm anyway.

There are no such risks.

šta o svemu misle neka zvučna imena van CERN-a?

The LHC is absolutely safe. If the collisions in the LHC produced a micro black hole ? and it is unlikely ? it would just evaporate away again, producing a correctoristic pattern of particles....Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth?s atmosphere and nothing terrible happens. The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on

Znajući tebe, sad ćeš da izvučeš prof. Wagnera iz rukava...

[Aion]

Ja imam jedno pitanje oko ovih malih crnih rupa:Ako se u nekom eksperimentu stvori mini crna rupa, i ako ona odmah ispari, da li ce detektori moci da registruju ovaj dogadjaj? Da li je moguce razlikovati mini crnu rupu od neke masivne neutralne cestice (naravno pod pretpostavkom da ona ne bude stabilna)?

[Schmeling]

Kao i obično, izvlačiš stvari iz konteksta i reprezentuješ ih onoliko pogrešno koliko tebi to odgovara. Prof. R?sslera niko od fizičara ne uzima za ozbiljno između ostalog i zato što referencira samo svoje radove kao dokaz za sopstvene tvrdnje. Prof. Evans tvrdi da je R?ssleru pokušao da ukaže na elementarne greške u kalkulacijama, ali bezuspešno. Slično o R?sslerovoj teoriji govore sva zvučna imena današnje fizike. Da si se malo potrudio da potražiš i drugu stranu priče pre nego što si počeo da mašeš R?sslerom, ne bi sad morao da crveniš od blama.A što se tiče utemeljenosti strahova od LHC, evo komentara mnogo kompetentnijih ljudi od biohemičara u penziji:šta o svemu misle neka zvučna imena van CERN-a?Znajući tebe, sad ćeš da izvučeš prof. Wagnera iz rukava...

S tobom je zaista nemoguce voditi civilizovanu raspravu, poshto imash obichaj da podmecesh, omalovazhavash, falsifikujesh...No, kako sam izuzetno dobre volje danas, uputio bih te na objashnjenje koje sam dao vasudevi pre par dana, a koje se odnosi na odnos pojmova sigurno (safe) - moguce (possible) - verovatno (probable). Kad to prostudirash, mozhda cesh prestati da se machujesh s avetima (wraith) i biti u mogucnosti da se pozabavish s nechim (something) shto sam odista rekao. Nadam se da si barem ukacio prefinjeni smisao za humor shto sam ga demonstrirao s ovim zagradama. No, hajde josh jednom, poshto sam izuzetno dobre volje: ja lichno ne sumnjam u sigurnost LHC (mislim da su izuzetno male shanse da se neshto dogodi), sumnjam u nemogucnost worst case scenaria. Uzevshi u obzir ulog (koji je poprilicno fucking huge), mislim da ima smisla govoriti o mogucnosti, u ovom slucaju, a ne samo o verovatnoci.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Nadam se da si barem ukacio prefinjeni smisao za humor shto sam ga demonstrirao s ovim zagradama.

[mei]

@ Mei:1. Autor tvrdi da, po teoremi koju je razvio njegov tim, "black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime". Shta to konkretno znachi, za nas laike, odnosno na kojoj pretpostavci je zasnovana ova tvrdnja (da ne isparavaju)? 2. Zashto (kako) su MBH nenaelektrisane, tj. (opet) koja je pretpostavka (verovatno ista kao kod 1.) uslov za ovo?

Njegova teorema se zasniva na pogresnim kalkulacijama i razumevanju Schwarzschild-ove metrike prostor-vremena (Al-Khwarizmi je naveo jednog profesora koji je ukazao na elementarne pogreske, ima ih jos). Iz njegove interpretacije sledi da su crne-rupe beskonacno udaljene od nas tj. efektivno ne mogu da isparavaju jer bi zracenju iz njih trebalo beskonacno vremena da do nas dodje. Isto vazi i za nelektrisanje (na primer, u LHC-u bi trebalo ocekivati naelektrisane crne rupe iz sudaranja 2 protona) - posto je crna rupa beskonacno udaljena u prostor-vremenu, ona je za nas efektivno nenaelektrisna.

3. Shta znachi "fundamentalna razlika" izmedju prirodno i veshtachki generisanih MBH, odnosno shta tachno znachi tvrdnja da su veshtachki generisane MBH "simetricno stvorene"; zashto bi "simetricno stvorene" MBH bile opasnije od prirodno stvorenih MBH?

ne znam tacno sta Rossler podrazume pod simetricno stvorem crnim rupama. jedino sto mi pada na pamet je da mozda misli na nepostojanje preferentnog pravca u distribuciji crnih rupa iz akceleratora, vec da su simetricno distribuirane u odnosu na tacku kolizije, dok kod kosmickih zraka sa najvecom verovatnocom nastavljaju da se krecu u smeru bliskom smeru cestice iz originalnog k. zraka.

4. a) Da li se Resler u svom radu sluzi naucnim metodima?b) Da li je Reslorov "najgori scenario" "nemoguc" ili only "skoro neverovatan"?

recimo da je pokusao/zeleo da se sluzi naucnim metodom, medjutim nije uspeo usled nedostatka znanja - izveo je pogresnu teoriju. on veruje da su njegove kalkulacije tacne, nasuprot ukazivanju drugih fizicara na elementarne pogresne premise u racunu, i nastavlja da iz njih izvlaci i javno plasira pogresne zakljucke. moje misljenje je da je njegov najgori scenario nemoguc jer se zasniva na pogresnim interpretacijama GTR.

Ja imam jedno pitanje oko ovih malih crnih rupa:Ako se u nekom eksperimentu stvori mini crna rupa, i ako ona odmah ispari, da li ce detektori moci da registruju ovaj dogadjaj? Da li je moguce razlikovati mini crnu rupu od neke masivne neutralne cestice (naravno pod pretpostavkom da ona ne bude stabilna)?

da, moci ce. one bi trebalo da isparavaju gotovo momentalno, emitujuci sve poznate (i jos neotkrivene) cestice u jet-ovima koji se razlikuju od korelisanih jet-va koji nastaju od raspada normale kvark-gluonske plazme u LHC-u. postoje programi za simulaciju mini-crnih rupa u akceleratoru. nemam sad vremena da trazim vise linkova, ali evo jednog charybdysukoliko ne isparavaju, nakon rekonstrukcije produkata reakcije, registrovace nedostatak energije i impulsa (kada se saberu energije produkata interakcije). nedostajuca energija za sada potice od produkcije neutrina u akceleratorima (oni su neutralni, ekstremno slabo interaguju i ne ostavljaju vidljivi trag u detektoru), mada verujem da postoje modeli za rekonstrukciju koji mogu da razlikuju nedostajucu energiju od strane neutrina vs. mini crnih rupa. Edited September 16, 2008 by mei
typo

[Schmeling]

ne znam tacno sta Rossler podrazume pod simetricno stvorem crnim rupama. jedino sto mi pada na pamet je da mozda misli na nepostojanje preferentnog pravca u distribuciji crnih rupa iz akceleratora, vec da su simetricno distribuirane u odnosu na tacku kolizije, dok kod kosmickih zraka sa najvecom verovatnocom nastavljaju da se krecu u smeru bliskom smeru cestice iz originalnog k. zraka.

Mozda je mislio na to da bi u LHC bile stvorene sudarom dve cestice priblizno iste brzine, za razliku od slucaja sa kosmickim zracima, gde nije tako?E da, i prevedi mi ovo (na laichki) o formiranju stabilnih crnih rupa, pliz:Others have wondered about the basic assumptions of the quantum gravity program, and whether there is really a compelling case to believe in Hawking radiation. It is only these quantum assumptions which lead to the crisis at the Planck mass: in classical general relativity, a black hole could in principle be arbitrarily small, once created. Accordingly, it remains a possibility that a stable micro black hole could be created at the LHC, or that they are created in nature by high-energy impacts, only to zip through earth at nearly the speed of light.Koliko sam shvatio, Hawkingova radijacija je neproverena mogucnost, a ne fakat, i trebala je da bude proverena Fermijevim Gamma-ray Space Telescope, do chega josh nije doshlo. Moje pitanje: da li je moguce (i koliko je verovatno) da takva stvar kao shto je Hawkingova radijacija ne postoji; kakve bi to posledice imalo po scenario stvaranja MBH u LHC?Josh jednom se izvinjavam zbog manjka znanja a vishka znatizelje. Edited September 16, 2008 by Schmeling