## Tuesday, April 04, 2006

### Strangelets Do Not Exist?

I tried to follow the history as best I could, and the resulting worries earlier linked in extra links seen below, attest to the research that I followed. Can we safely say now, that strangelets do not exist?

Quantum character of black holesby Adam D. Helfer
Black holes are extreme manifestations of general relativity, so one might hope that exotic quantum effects would be amplified in their vicinities, perhaps providing clues to quantum gravity. The commonly accepted treatment of quantum corrections to the physics around the holes, however, has provided only limited encouragement of this hope. The predicted corrections have been minor (for macroscopic holes): weak fluxes of low-energy thermal radiation which hardly disturb the classical structures of the holes. Here, I argue that this accepted treatment must be substantially revised. I show that when interactions among fields are taken into account (they were largely neglected in the earlier work) the picture that is drawn is very different. Not only low-energy radiation but also ultra-energetic quanta are produced in the gravitationally collapsing region. The energies of these quanta grow exponentially quickly, so that by the time the hole can be said to have formed, they have passed the Planck scale, at which quantum gravity must become dominant. The vicinities of black holes are windows on quantum gravity.

Having been holding onto the thoughts published by Peter Steinberg," Richard and Me how could I refuse to acknowledge that such strangelets might indeed not exist, having been given experimental verification as to procedures resulting in this Risk assessment consultation.

The relations to cosmic correlations were drawn in my research, as I tried to understand what was going on in a everyday scenario, as we saw the elevation to cosmological colliders making the statements that they do.

Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question RiskBy Carolyn Weaver

“It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.

So if I had thought for a moment about John Ellis's contributions to furthering the layman understanding, it was quickly understood that the energies involved had to have many events to conclude what may be happening on such a large scale, might be happening in the colliders. Quite simple really?

Would it be so dangerous that such energy considerations required the work of Star to help ease fears with which the layman population could have turned into a frenzy of religious doomsday scenarios?

Strangelet Search at RHICby STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200$GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

See:

• Blackhole Creations

• Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

• Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

• Microstate Blackhole Production

• Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

• Accretion Disks

• Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

• IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

• What Are those Quantum Microstates