Pages

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Blackhole Creations

Steve W

Your paper linked:

STUDY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EVENTS
DURING HEAVY-ION COLLISIONS AT THE LHC:
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP


Cosmic Rays 2.21


Cosmic-ray processes reach the energies and energy densities that will be encountered at the LHC and, therefore, they may provide limits on possible disaster scenarios. Such limits have been discussed in Refs. [1] and [3] and much of the analysis applies also to the LHC. Recent results obtained with a detector adding time-of-flight information to an array large enough to reach energies at and above the knee [9], approaching the LHC-equivalent energy region, confirm with improved accuracy that heavy ions have started to dominate the spectrum. Although the precise chemical composition is not known, the average value of A corresponds to that of magnesium, with ions at least as heavy as iron forming a substantial part. We summarize briefly here the main conclusions, taking into account the recent data from RHIC.


This is one of the sobering facts that we can contend with, when we realize not only are we dealing with things that are happening around us, but that we understand that dissipation is just a part of this process, as to find how we might see into these extra dimensions.


Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.



There is a summ total of the interactive processes taking place in nature around us and we are part of this scenario. We do control the energies demanded in experimental research, but this does not disavow the process from happening in nature with the inability for us to control those same energies.




Many physicists find extra dimensions a distasteful notion. In remarks to an American Physical Society newsletter, physicist Frank Wilczek of MIT called the black hole study a sound way to test an unattractive idea.

"There's no question that the Auger observatory will be sensitive to this signal, if it exists," says Penn State's Stéphane Coutu, a member of the international Auger Observatory team. "We'll definitely look."


So rest easy.

Think about what we see in the daylight, and if such dissipated valuation can be assigned these microstates, then what say that we see the nature of things in ways that we had not before?

While it is speculative on my part from what I have understood is that such emissions would have found harmonical values to the way we describe what we see in reality? Yet, there are dimensions to this world that we have not considered?

Where have we run into our limitations? Imagine that such processes can be mirrored in our environment, as we strive to control the experiments we see Pierre Auger has continued along and developed as well.

High Energy Physics


The study of high energy physics, also known as particle physics, grew out of nuclear and cosmic ray physics in the 1950’s, and measured the properties and interactions of fundamental particles at the highest energies (millions of electron-volts) then available with a relatively new technology, particle accelerators. Today that technology has advanced so that forefront particle accelerators produce exquisitely controlled beams with energies of trillions of electron-volts and intense enough to melt metal. The science has advanced with the technology to study ever-higher energies and very rare phenomena that probe the smallest dimensions we can see and tell us about the very early history of our universe. While the science has revolutionized our understanding of how the universe works, elements of the technology have helped transform other fields of science, medicine, and even everyday life. The science and its impacts will be remembered as one of the highlights of the history of the late 20th century.


It was important to keep these two lines of investigation in perspective, as they diverged.

After doing some more research I am coming across statements that run contrary to what I might have proposed as not of sufficient consideration alongside fo LHC and Cosmic interactive feature in comparison. I find somet of thesse thngs a little troubling bt that is my own uncertainty about the effect.

Do Blackholes Radiate


The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is often considered one of the most secure in quantum field theory in curved space-time. Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound; and that quantum-gravitational effects may be neglected. Various suggestions have been put forward to address these issues: that they might be explained away by lessons from sonic black hole models; that the prediction is indeed successfully reproduced by quantum gravity; that the success of the link provided by the prediction between black holes and thermodynamics justifies the prediction.

This paper explains the nature of the difficulties, and reviews the proposals that have been put forward to deal with them. None of the proposals put forward can so far be considered to be really successful, and simple dimensional arguments show that quantum-gravitational effects might well alter the evaporation process outlined by Hawking. Thus a definitive theoretical treatment will require an understanding of quantum gravity in at least some regimes. Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.
The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of "mini" black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.


After following up and continuing this research, something very amazing made itself known that I had not considered although I seemed to be moving in that direction.

Consider indeed for a moment that the "superfluid" that had been created had indeed held the context of the blackhole and what is revealled in the aftermath, as a strange Quark(?). This had some interesting insights that are leading to other things that might have manifested had we see the relaton of the iron core and what could have gathered at it. You have to wonder and I will be moving in that direction.

Risk Evaluation Forum



References :

1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001 28 February 2003.

2.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC :

LHC Safety Study Group. J.P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, GG. Ross, P. Sonderegger, H-J. Specht « No date for this study, available Internet May 2004 ».

3..E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett March 2003.

James Blodgett Internet Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA

4.. Might a laboratory experiment destroy planet Earth F. Calogero 2000

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

5..A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105 Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204 Adrian Kent

6..Trous noirs Nrumiano http ://nruminiao.free.fr/fetoiles/int_noir2.html

7..Black holes at the large hadron collider Phys Rev Lett 87, 161602 (2001)

8.. Working paper: a cosmic ray/micro-black hole model James Blodgett

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

9.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010

10.. Discovering new physics in the decays of black holes. Greg Landsberg. Phys Rev. Lett.88, 181801 (2002)

11.. CERN to spew black holes Nature 02 October 2001

12.. Brookhaven national laboratory News 5 may 2004

New Machine Record for Heavy Ion Luminosity at RHIC

13.. Collider mini black holes: loss of protective considerations James Blodgett 2004

Available in Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

14.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28,1999

W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek

15.. Spectre des rayons cosmiques de très haute énergie Source [GAI]

16.. Atlas de l’Astronomie Albin Michel 1983

17.. Stephen Hawking Physics Colloquiums - Gravitational Entropy (June '98).

18.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps. Kip S. Thorne.

Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X

Original title : Black holes and times warps.1994 Norton. New York.

19.. “will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet ?”.

A.Dar, A. De Rujula and U. Heinz,, August 1999, submitted to Nature

20.. L’Univers élégant. Brian Greene. Laffont september 2000. ISBN 2-221-09065-9

Original title The elegant Universe. ISBN 0-393-04688-5 Norton. New York.

21.. Science & Vie N°107 Juin 2002 “stars with quarks in our galaxy”

22..Science & Vie N°1029 Juin 2003 “ L’énergie du vide”

23.. La Recherche N°376 Juin 2004. « La force qui vient du vide »

24. La Recherche » ( 1990 ? ) about « La supersymétrie étendue » :

25. Ciel et Espace Avril 2003 page 43

26..Brane worlds and Extra Dimensions. Brian Gantz PHY 312. May 11, 2000

27.. James Blodgett Working paper (about cosmic rays)

James Blodgett Internet Forum. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA

28..Science & Vie N° 1042. Juillet 2004. « Centre de la Terre. »

29.. Power of ten. 10exp-16.htm Bruce Bryson 200-04

30..Greg Landsberg i chep 2002 Amsterdam Internet Key: Greg Landsberg

http://www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/BSM/BSM-4/BSM-4-3.landsberg.pdf

31..Science & Vie N°1043 Août 2004 Théorie du Tout.

32.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.

33.. Science et vie N°1050 Mars 2005 « Matière en route vers son ultime continent »

34.. La recherche N°384 Mars 2005. pourquoi l’Univers accélère.

35.. Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", Rept.Prog.Phys. 66 (2003) pp. 943-1008

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Questions whether black holes radiate.

36.. V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole," Physics Letters A, Vol 209 Num 1 (1995) pp. 13-20. Asserts that Hawking radiation does not exist.

37.. La Recherche N° 382 Janvier 2005 l’antimatière questionne le Big Bang

38.. BBC New uk edition Thursday 17 March 2005 11 :30 GMT “Lab fireball may be black hole”

No comments:

Post a Comment