Showing posts with label Steve Giddings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Giddings. Show all posts

Sunday, January 15, 2012


Scientists' greatest pleasure comes from theories that derive the solution to some deep puzzle from a small set of simple principles in a surprising way. These explanations are called "beautiful" or "elegant". Historical examples are Kepler's explanation of complex planetary motions as simple ellipses, Bohr's explanation of the periodic table of the elements in terms of electron shells, and Watson and Crick's double helix. Einstein famously said that he did not need experimental confirmation of his general theory of relativity because it "was so beautiful it had to be true." See:2012 : WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?
See which comments resonate with you. Some of my picks as I go through was by :

Raphael Bousso
Professor of Theoretical Physics, Berkeley

My Favorite Annoying Elegant Explanation: Quantum Theory .......General Relativity, in turn, is only a classical theory. It rests on a demonstrably false premise: that position and momentum can be known simultaneously. This may a good approximation for apples, planets, and galaxies: large objects, for which gravitational interactions tend to be much more important than for the tiny particles of the quantum world. But as a matter of principle, the theory is wrong. The seed is there. General Relativity cannot be the final word; it can only be an approximation to a more general Quantum Theory of Gravity.

But what about Quantum Mechanics itself? Where is its seed of destruction? Amazingly, it is not obvious that there is one. The very name of the great quest of theoretical physics—"quantizing General Relativity"—betrays an expectation that quantum theory will remain untouched by the unification we seek. String theory—in my view, by far the most successful, if incomplete, result of this quest—is strictly quantum mechanical, with no modifications whatsoever to the framework that was completed by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac. In fact, the mathematical rigidity of Quantum Mechanics makes it difficult to conceive of any modifications, whether or not they are called for by observation.

Yet, there are subtle hints that Quantum Mechanics, too, will suffer the fate of its predecessors. The most intriguing, in my mind, is the role of time. In Quantum Mechanics, time is an essential evolution parameter. But in General Relativity, time is just one aspect of spacetime, a concept that we know breaks down at singularities deep inside black holes. Where time no longer makes sense, it is hard to see how Quantum Mechanics could still reign. As Quantum Mechanics surely spells trouble for General Relativity, the existence of singularities suggests that General Relativity may also spell trouble for Quantum Mechanics. It will be fascinating to watch this battle play out.

President, The Royal Society; Professor of Cosmology & Astrophysics; Master, Trinity...

Physical Reality Could Be Hugely More Extensive Than the Patch of Space and Time Traditionally Called 'The Universe' .....As an analogy (which I owe to Paul Davies) consider the form of snowflakes. Their ubiquitous six-fold symmetry is a direct consequence of the properties and shape of water molecules. But snowflakes display an immense variety of patterns because each is molded by its distinctive history and micro-environment: how each flake grows is sensitive to the fortuitous temperature and humidity changes during its growth.

If physicists achieved a fundamental theory, it would tell us which aspects of nature were direct consequences of the bedrock theory (just as the symmetrical template of snowflakes is due to the basic structure of a water molecule) and which cosmic numbers are (like the distinctive pattern of a particular snowflake) the outcome of environmental contingencies. .

Theoretical physicist

An Explanation of Fundamental Particle Physics That Doesn't Exist Yet.....What is tetrahedral symmetry doing in the masses of neutrinos?! Nobody knows. But you can bet there will be a good explanation. It is likely that this explanation will come from mathematicians and physicists working closely with Lie groups. The most important lesson from the great success of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is that our universe is fundamentally geometric, and this idea has extended to the geometric description of known forces and particles using group theory. It seems natural that a complete explanation of the Standard Model, including why there are three generations of fermions and why they have the masses they do, will come from the geometry of group theory. This explanation does not yet exist, but when it does it will be deep, elegant, and beautiful—and it will be my favorite.

Mathematician, Harvard; Co-author, The Shape of Inner Space

A Sphere....Most scientific facts are based on things that we cannot see with the naked eye or hear by our ears or feel by our hands. Many of them are described and guided by mathematical theory. In the end, it becomes difficult to distinguish a mathematical object from objects in nature.

One example is the concept of a sphere. Is the sphere part of nature or it is a mathematical artifact? That is difficult for a mathematician to say. Perhaps the abstract mathematical concept is actually a part of nature. And it is not surprising that this abstract concept actually describes nature quite accurately.

theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California,...
 Gravity Is Curvature Of Spacetime … Or Is It?......We do not yet know the full shape of the quantum theory providing a complete accounting for gravity. We do have many clues, from studying the early quantum phase of cosmology, and ultrahigh energy collisions that produce black holes and their subsequent disintegrations into more elementary particles. We have hints that the theory draws on powerful principles of quantum information theory. And, we expect that in the end it has a simple beauty, mirroring the explanation of gravity-as-curvature, from an even more profound depth.

Albert Einstein Professor in Science, Departments of Physics and Astrophysical...
Quasi-elegance....As a young student first reading Weyl's book, crystallography seemed like the "ideal" of what one should be aiming for in science: elegant mathematics that provides a complete understanding of all physical possibilities. Ironically, many years later, I played a role in showing that my "ideal" was seriously flawed. In 1984, Dan Shechtman, Ilan Blech, Denis Gratias and John Cahn reported the discovery of a puzzling manmade alloy of aluminumand manganese with icosahedral symmetry. Icosahedral symmetry, with its six five-fold symmetry axes, is the most famous forbidden crystal symmetry. As luck would have it, Dov Levine (Technion) and I had been developing a hypothetical idea of a new form of solid that we dubbed quasicrystals, short for quasiperiodic crystals. (A quasiperiodic atomic arrangement means the atomic positions can be described by a sum of oscillatory functions whose frequencies have an irrational ratio.) We were inspired by a two-dimensional tiling invented by Sir Roger Penrose known as the Penrose tiling, comprised of two tiles arranged in a five-fold symmetric pattern. We showed that quasicrystals could exist in three dimensions and were not subject to the rules of crystallography. In fact, they could have any of the symmetries forbidden to crystals. Furthermore, we showed that the diffraction patterns predicted for icosahedral quasicrystals matched the Shechtman et al. observations. Since 1984, quasicrystals with other forbidden symmetries have been synthesized in the laboratory. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Dan Shechtman for his experimental breakthrough that changed our thinking about possible forms of matter. More recently, colleagues and I have found evidence that quasicrystals may have been among the first minerals to have formed in the solar system.

The crystallography I first encountered in Weyl's book, thought to be complete and immutable, turned out to be woefully incomplete, missing literally an uncountable number of possible symmetries for matter. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: While elegance and simplicity are often useful criteria for judging theories, they can sometimes mislead us into thinking we are right, when we are actually infinitely wrong.

Physicist, Harvard University; Author, Warped Passages; Knocking On Heaven's Door

The Higgs Mechanism......Fortunately that time has now come for the Higgs mechanism, or at least the simplest implementation which involves a particle called the Higgs boson. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva should have a definitive result on whether this particle exists within this coming year. The Higgs boson is one possible (and many think the most likely) consequence of the Higgs mechanism. Evidence last December pointed to a possible discovery, though more data is needed to know for sure. If confirmed, it will demonstrate that the Higgs mechanism is correct and furthermore tell us what is the underlying structure responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking and spreading "charge" throughout the vacuum. The Higgs boson would furthermore be a new type of particle (a fundamental boson for those versed in physics terminology) and would be in some sense a new type of force. Admittedly, this is all pretty subtle and esoteric. Yet I (and much of the theoretical physics community) find it beautiful, deep, and elegant.

Symmetry is great. But so is symmetry breaking. Over the years many aspects of particle physics were first considered ugly and then considered elegant. Subjectivity in science goes beyond communities to individual scientists. And even those scientists change their minds over time. That's why experiments are critical. As difficult as they are, results are much easier to pin down than the nature of beauty. A discovery of the Higgs boson will tell us how that is done when particles acquire their masses.

Professor of Quantum Mechanical Engineering, MIT; Author, Programming the Universe
 The True Rotational Symmetry of Space.....Although this excercise might seem no more than some fancy and painful basketball move, the fact that the true symmetry of space is rotation not once but twice has profound consequences for the nature of the physical world at its most microscopic level. It implies that 'balls' such as electrons, attached to a distant point by a flexible and deformable 'strings,' such as magnetic field lines, must be rotated around twice to return to their original configuration. Digging deeper, the two-fold rotational nature of spherical symmetry implies that two electrons, both spinning in the same direction, cannot be placed in the same place at the same time. This exclusion principle in turn underlies the stability of matter. If the true symmetry of space were rotating around only once, then all the atoms of your body would collapse into nothingness in a tiny fraction of a second. Fortunately, however, the true symmetry of space consists of rotating around twice, and your atoms are stable, a fact that should console you as you ice your shoulder.

Remember even though I pick some of these explanations does not mean I discount all others. It's just that some are picked for what they are saying in highlighted quotations. Lisi's statement on string theory is of course in my opinion far from the truth, yet,  he captures a geometrical truth that I feel exists.:) You sort of get the jest of where I am coming from in the summation of Paul Steinhardt

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Production of Gravitational Waves

"My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky."
William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

This post is based on "the production" and not the detection of gravitational waves.

It does serve it's purpose, that I explain what I have in terms of detection, that one moves from that process, to actual production of them.:) Now I am not talking about Taylor and Hulse and PSR 1913+16 either.

Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01-Relativity-The First 20th Century Revolution

Weber developed an experiment using a large suspended bar of aluminum, with a high resonant Q at a frequency of about 1 kH; the oscillation of the bar after it had been excited could be measured by a series of piezoelectric crystals mounted on it. The output of the system was put on a chart recorder like those used to record earthquakes. Weber studied the excursions of the pen to look for the occasional tone of a gravitational wave passing through the bar...

  • Einstein@Home

  • LIGO:

  • Nor am I talking about Kip Thorne, Webber, or Ligo operation for that matter.

    I am actually talking about the creation of gravitational waves.

    Now imagine that you see this "slide of light," and you were to think that in front of you, this would help you see where the gravitational field would be falling away from you. You would be sliding "ahead" from where you pointed and created this effect.

    So now you get the idea here of what I propose in the production of gravitational waves versus the detection of them?:)

    Up until this point in time, I've used the term "generate" to describe the capability of producing a gravitational field, but since I'm not aware of any way of creating a gravitational field from nothing, a more accurate term might be to "access and amplify" a gravitational field. And this is what I mean when I use the term "generate". To understand how gravity is generated or "accessed and amplified", you must first know what gravity is.

    While watching a television program I listened to what he had to say. For people interested in gravity, Quantum or otherwise, this topic helped captured my change in thinking that is postulated, and one I am giving thought right now.

    The Problem

    Gravitational waves are produced when there is a change in the curvature of spacetime. Since the shape of spacetime depends only on how mass is distributed, events that change the distribution of mass cause gravitational waves. It takes events with a lot of energy to make gravitational waves that we can detect because spacetime is not very elastic. Remember the bowling ball analogy? Space-time is like a stiff trampoline, one that only sinks when you put something very heavy on it.

    So if we are to consider such a thing how would I go about it? Perhaps, "jumping up and down?":)

    “Every time you accelerate—say by jumping up and down—you’re generating gravitational waves,” says Rainer Weiss, Professor Emeritus of Physics at MIT. “There’s no doubt of it.” But just standing there won’t cut the mustard. To make a wave, your mass has to both move (have velocity) and have acceleration (change the rate of motion, direction, or both).

    Still, don’t get your hopes up. No matter how fast you jump, sprint, or cartwheel, the resulting warp your waves make on space is so weak that it’s utterly unmeasurable—perhaps 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times less so than the warp made by massive exploding space objects. And LIGO has a tough enough time measuring those.

    So there are questions on my mind, about gravity creation.

    Plato writes:


    I am interested as a lay person in the collider experiments and wondered about "gravitational wave production."

    Considering quark gluon levels reached I wondered about the strength and the weakness as a measure of gravitational waves within that collider action. If microscopic blackhole are created then would it be wrong to observe, variation of gravity within the domain of the collider itself?


    See following comment posted here.

    Dear Plato,

    quarks are microscopic bodies. The gravitational effects associated with the motion and interaction of masses that small are ridiculously small.

    In theories contemplating a low quantum gravity scale, black holes could in principle be created in high energy collisions, but if a chance of detecting their creation exists, it is not by gravitational effects, which remain billions of billions of billions of billions (and then some) of times smaller than those caused by strong interactions.

    Please check my post on Lisa Randall’s seminar (Sept. 29th), or the one on the seminar given by Steve Giddings last March. There is reading material that I tried to make accessible to most there.


    I will be loking at this in much more detail. Something that immediately came to mind is Gran Sasso. "Muon creation" from the particle collisions. See: Neutrino Mixing in Sixty Seconds.

    This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks. See Strangelets and Strange Matter

    The Distorted Lense

    It would seem to me that if any lens could direct "the focus of our vision" then why not the focus of the gravitational waves? I mean if there is a "inverse calculation" to waves, it would seem t me that such a process could point to a heavy concentration in terms of blackhole production?

    As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown above, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

    As I am reading different thoughts are manifesting and one of these has to do with the "escape velocity of the photon." Why I am not sure at the moment. This used as a measure of determination of whether a blackhole exists? How did we arrive at such a point?

    Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

    One part of the theory of Relativity was inspired when a painter fell off a roof. Einstein found out that while the painter was falling freely, he felt weightless. This led Einstein to realize that gravity was a form of inertia, a result of the way things moved through space - and General Relativity was born.

    It is important for me to recognize the collider process in context of what it is experimentally doing. For me this is demonstrating a "geometrical process" even if it is being taken down to the such "weak gravitational ranges" that I would point to what would manifest,if a tunnelling effect occurred from one location to the next.

    Time travel

    Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light

    Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

    The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

    One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.

    It would be suspect to me that such travelling in space would allow for the manufacture of gravitational influences to be pointed in the "direction of travel" and allow such slippage away from that current position.

    Gravitational Mass for a Photon

    The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon

    The gravitational potential energy is then

    When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

    Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

    Escape Energy for Photon

    If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then

    Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

    A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

    For more see "Time as a measure.

    By allowing new physics to emerge, what basis is being held relevant then to what is being created in the particle collisions that are indeed faster then light?

    As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

    The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

    See also information on What is Cerenkov Radiation?

    Fifth Dimensional General Relativity

    It was a gradual process that using Grace to help me see the earth in new ways was paramount to the inclusion principle of electromagnetism contained within the move to GR.I may be mixed up here, and I have no one to say.

    "Color of gravity" assumes that you have seen the colour of gravity in relation to this slide of light. So seeing in such a way would seem relevant in the fifth dimensional perspective.

    In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is couched in the work of Kaluza.

    In para 3, he writes,

    Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

    I would think such a thought here by Kaku would have stimulated the brains of people to see that a direct result is needed in our reality to which such thoughts I am giving would allow you to see gravity in new ways?

    Lagrangian views with regards to relations between the Earth, Moon and Sun would help one to see the general outlay of gravitational influences in space. That is also part of the work I have been following to understand the spacetime fabric and how we may see this in our dealings.

    Thursday, January 05, 2006

    Blackhole Creations

    Steve W

    Your paper linked:


    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.

    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.

    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 ://

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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 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”

    Friday, January 14, 2005

    Calming the Fears by Making Aware

    If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery

    It is important to understand where this research has lead some of us to looking. We mentioned Steve Giddings earlier and Lubos has provide some of this information that helps to further enlighten. Because there are fundamental processes unfolding in high energy considrations it is well that we are aware of the encounters that can come forward in the production of these particles?

    Published on June 26, 2003.

    Parallel worlds

    What do you think of Sir Martin Rees' concerns about the risk of creating black holes on Earth in his book, Our Final Hour?
    Michio Kaku:

    I haven't read his book, but perhaps Sir Martin Rees is referring to many press reports that claim that the Earth may be swallowed up by a black hole created by our machines. This started with a letter to the editor in Scientific American asking whether the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven, Long Island, will create a black hole which will swallow up the earth. This was then picked up by the Sunday London Times who then splashed it on the international wire services, and all of a sudden, we physicists were deluged with hundreds of emails and telegrams asking whether or not we are going to destroy the world when we create a black hole in Long Island.

    So the very idea that creation of blackholes, might have seemed somewhat strange then what is postulated in terms of being possible here, would help to further enlighten? We have been directed already to what is available around us in our new perspective views. So we have advanced here:)We do not overwhelm cosmological idealizations, with "false ideological statements" about it's uselessness.

    The Quantum Universe

    The LHC and a Linear Collider will address many questions about extra dimensions: How many extra dimensions are there? What are their shapes and sizes? How are they hidden? What are the new particles associated with extra dimensions? Through the production of new particles that move in the extra space, the LHC will have direct sensitivity to extra dimensions 10 billion times smaller than the size of an atom. A Linear Collider would determine the number, size and shape of extra dimensions through their small effects on particle masses and interactions. There is also a chance that, due to the existence of extra dimensions, microscopic black holes may be detected at the LHC or in the highest energy cosmic rays.

    We can now see, where such applications, have further been developed. It was somebody else's being short sighted, that one realizes that there is a particle concern to how we percieve the nature of our universe:)

    Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time:The Case for the e+ e- Linear Collider
    Other ideas to solve the hierarchy problem postulate extra spatial dimensions beyond the three that we know, or new particles at the several TeV scale. If such ideas are correct, we again expect observable consequences at the LHC and the LC and a synergy will exist between them. For example, the LC and LHC combined can deduce both the size and number of extra dimensions. The new states expected from extra dimensions could perhaps be sensed directly at the LHC, but the precision measurements at the LC can measure their effects even for particles well above the range of the direct measurements.

    So ever closer now one must pay attention to what does "not make sense" and we find that tidbits being left around actually if perceptive enough, will help you to explore other things. See, if I am told once and you read, the depth of perception will never make sense if you don't follow those leads and Lubos gave us one to consider:)

    Peter SteinbergThe creepy part of these kind of discussions is that one doesn't say that RHIC collisions "create" black holes, but that nucleus-nucleus collisions, and even proton-proton collisions, are in some sense black holes, albeit black holes in some sort of "dual" space which makes the theory easier.

    And if you are even more thick skinned, what focused can be developed from that to here. So if you do not understand the question, it is obvious you have not followed what was put before you for consideration. Hence Crackpotism or senseless?

    It is a easy hand, under chin contemplating, playing games like rock, paper, or scissors ( that one can wave off) as to what is not understood as being senseless.

    It is a better hand that can point up with the finger(heaven) or a open hand(ground) to say, look around you?:)We would like to develope these concepts further, under the Arche. We may be old personalities, but we still like to discuss the nature of the universe.:)

    Monday, January 10, 2005

    Tiny Blackholes in Cosmic Observations?

    205th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society 9-13 January 2005 -- San Diego, CA

    I am kind of interested to find further information on how microstate blackholes might have been generated and looking at the concentration of minds, I wonder if this topic was brought up, or will be brought up?

    The Pierre Auger Observatory, currently being constructed in Argentina to study cosmic rays, could examine the structure of spacetime itself, say physicists in the United States.

    If, as some suspect, the Universe contains invisible, extra dimensions, then cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere will produce tiny black holes. These black holes should be numerous enough for the observatory to detect, say Jonathan Feng and Alfred Shapere of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts1.

    The observatory will consist of two 3,000-square-kilometre arrays - one in Argentina, one somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere - each containing 1,600 particle detectors. Scheduled for completion by 2004, scientists hope that the equipment will help to solve the mystery of cosmic rays. These rays consist of extremely high-energy particles that stream into the Earth's atmosphere from space - from where, exactly, no one knows.

    Lubos has mention Steve Giddings and I have also mentioned himearlier inmy blogs on the topic of Mini blackholes as well.

    In theories with large extra dimensions at sub-millimetre distances, for example, and/or high energies of the order of 1 TeV or more, gravity may become a strong force. Thus, hypothetically, the energy required to produce black holes is well within the range of the LHC, making it a "black-hole factory". As Stephen Hawking has taught us, these mini black holes would be extremely hot little objects that would dissipate all their energy very rapidly by emitting radiation and particles before they wink out of existence. The properties of the Hawking radiation could tell us about the properties of the extra spatial dimensions, although there are still uncertainties in the theory at this stage. Nevertheless, astroparticle and collider experiments should provide useful input to the theoretical work in this area. Indeed, the signatures are expected to be spectacular, with very high multiplicity events and a large fraction of the beam energy converted into transverse energy, mostly in the form of quarks/gluons (jets) and leptons, with a production rate at the LHC rising as high as 1 Hz. An example of what a typical black-hole event would look like in the ATLAS detector is shown in figure 2.
    If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007.

    Cosmic rays in ATLAS
    The flux of cosmic ray muons through the ATLAS cavern can be utilized as a tool to "shake down" the ATLAS detector prior to data taking in 2007.

    Additionally, a thorough understanding of the cosmic ray flux in ATLAS will be of great use in the study of cosmic ray backgrounds to the search for rare new physics processes in ATLAS.