Blog

May 14, 2012

Rossler-Cook versus Hawking and the CERN Detectors

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Hawking radiation is dead ever since the Telemach result and its precursors surfaced on the web. No one ever defended Hawking including his own heroic voice.

The same holds true for CERN’s detectors. They are blind to its most touted anticipated success – black hole production – by virtue of the said theorem. Again not a single word of defense.

This is why a court asked CERN and the world for a safety conference on January 27, 2011.

The press cannot continue shielding the world, and Lifeboat must be relieved from its having to carry the burden of informing an otherwise lifeboat-less planet, singlehandedly.

128

Comments — comments are now closed.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 21, 2012 12:49 pm

    There is one “Mittler” (mediator) on this blog in the sense of poet Goethe in his “Werther.” I thank him for his seemingly easy but actually very difficult job done.

    I am sure other readers will agree with me that we all need this kind of activity the most. It is a pity that I do not have this strength of mind myself. I will be grateful for every hint as how to create a minimum amount of mutual trust. Despite the pressure of time. (You see: I already fell out of my desired role again.)

  • PassingByAgain on May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

    Tottoli, you write: “I only ask whether it might be dangerous, to produce Higgs fields and inflaton particles at the LHC, probably ‘unnaturally‘ (or naturally unusual) close to the matter of the detectors. (…) Perhaps you can tell me the reason as an expert why it should be absolutely safe to search and to produce the Higgs, which (according to theory) “can lead to inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with observations.”, specially if it would be found at higher energies? How can you be sure that no unnatural energy concentrations could trigger some kind of new inflation or the like?”

    What you write is nonsensical on so many levels that I’m not even sure I can count all of them. As I suggested in an earlier comment, before making wild claims you should at least try understand what inflation is, as well as the difference between Higgs field and Higgs boson. The Higgs field permeates all space, while the Higgs particles (i.e. the Higgs bosons) can be viewed as localized oscillations of the Higgs field around its configuration of minimum energy. In models in which the inflaton is the Higgs, the Higgs field has a coupling to gravity, and — in the early stages of the life of the Universe — it undergoes a transition from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy. During this transition the Universe expands and you have inflation. Therefore, inflation is a phenomenon that involves the Higgs field as a whole, there is no conceivable mechanism by which the production of Higgs bosons at the LHC can trigger it. Not least because the transition between different energy levels that is responsible for inflation *has already happened*, and the Higgs field is now in a low-energy state (see the lower-left corner of figure 1 of the paper that you quoted, 0710.3755).

    You see, it’s not enough to put together two concepts at random (Higgs, inflation) and claim that the LSAG report is sloppy because it does not take your made-up risk scenario into account. You must be able to describe a mechanism through which the risk you are talking about could materialize. But hey, this would require understanding the physics first. Surely we can’t demand that much from poor Tottoli?

  • rpenner on May 21, 2012 4:53 pm

    Congratulations, forces of pseudo-skepticism and anti-science.

    Thanks to discovery that Otto Rössler still believes someone is going to organize a safety conference along the lines suggested by plaintiff’s attorney Olaf Möhring, my long running thread “LHC Safety and the Law” has finally hit post #400.

    Posts #355/#356 detail some of Möhring’s proposed invitees and highlight how ridiculous it would be to try and get them talking the same scientific language. But then Möhring, being a lawyer, would better know how to organize a “fishing expedition” (depositions scheduled in the hopes that some unexpected sound bite will be entered into the record) than a scientific conference aimed at advancing human knowledge. Does anyone know if the Gabriele Schröter case was further appealed in 2011/2012?

    Walter L. Wagner (who has a history of posting at the above-linked website) eventually gave up his similar US Federal lawsuit.

    Best wishes,
    R. Penner
    (“Herr Penner” is funny in colloquial German)

  • bill johnson on May 21, 2012 5:31 pm

    “I will be grateful for every hint as how to create a minimum amount of mutual trust.”

    Mr. Rossler, If you want to create a minimum amount of mutual trust a good place to start would be to represent events as they happen even if an alternate story would be more favorable to your cause. Given the recent release of official court documents it is clear that you have overstated how supportive the cologne court was of your position.

    An overstatement can be corrected and walked back but denying any overstatement but instead insisting that there is a media cover up of the facts does not bode well for mutual trust.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 22, 2012 1:23 pm

    bill johnson is a bit unfair here — but presumably in good faith. So we must agree to disagree, Mr. Johnson.

    Dear Mr. Penner, I did not get the gist of your text: are you opposed to clarifying the issue or is this a wrong impression of mine?

    Mr. PassingBy is trying to be as cruel as he can in his usual derogatory style. Unfortunately, he is defending nonsensical if very “noble” topics in which he is much better versed than Mr. Tottoli; so it is a feast for him to show his superiority. But this is no help for anyone here: The common sense of the less informed person deserves much more respect than empty sophistication. Mr. PasseerBy is kindly asked to embark on a more cooperative style. Otherwise the casual reader gets the impression scientists are mean people. I am very much convinced that this is a wrong impression that none of us here wants to create. Right?

  • PassingByAgain on May 22, 2012 1:59 pm

    Rossler, the sense of entitlement of people like you and Tottoli has always been a source of wonder to me. Just look at the two most recent cases: you, falsely quoting from the Wald textbook as if TRMG couldn’t check it by him/herself; Tottoli, quoting from the abstract of a paper that he obviously hasn’t read. Clearly, neither of you could be bothered to try to understand what you were talking about. However, you consider it as your right that actual physicists drop everything they are doing, convene a conference and discuss your uninformed nonsense. Try saying something meaningful instead, and perhaps others will pay attention and treat you with more respect.

    To start with, go answer TRMG’s questions in the other thread. You are not off the hook there.

  • rpenner on May 22, 2012 3:53 pm

    Dr. Rössler,
    I would like clarification on many things.

    1) For years, I have seen old press clippings of how you assert that from your calculations of “chaos”, the habitability of the Earth persists only 50 months past the point of the capture of a black hole of molecular mass. Where was that calculation published? (You also make claims about other calculations and theorems, which I have not seen published.)

    2) Is it not unfair to proclaim that no-one has found flaws in a purported theorem which was never written up and widely read by the world’s best mathematicians?

    3) Scientific conferences are generally hosted by an organization with an interest in the subject and voluntarily attended by those that actually want to attend, frequently paying their own way and offsetting the costs. How could Olaf Möhring’s deposition wishlist translate into a conference protocol when there is no way to compel attendance?

    4) Even at conferences, there is no way to assure a meeting of the minds. In practice, people may not agree on definitions or points of metaphysics so physical evidence, even if fully understood, can be interpreted in various internally consistent manners. How can one who holds a minority opinion in such a crowd have confidence that they are correct?

    5) What possible physical evidence would you require to conclude that the LHC experiments through 7 TeV do not, in fact, pose a risk to the survival of humanity?

    6) Quantum physics allows the possibility of events so low that 1040 man-years of observation have less than even chances of happening. To date, not one person has been documented as being an outlier to the law of radioactive decay to the point that one-billionth of the Potassium-40 in their body decayed in the same minute. An easy calculation shows that this would produce an exposure of more that 10,000 rads absorbed. While no physicist has a theory that links decreasing microchip size with unusual deviations from the radioactive decay law, how does your anti-LHC claims differ from the entirely speculative hypothesis that one day microchips will cause people to fall over due to self-radiation poisoning? What evidence should an anti-microchip activist take as “good enough” to stop worrying about hidden laws of nature not yet in evidence?

    It is not enough to assert that truth and justice are on one’s side; it is more persuasive to demonstrate one’s intimate and profitable understanding of truth and justice and to teach it to others. None of the anti-LHC activists have seemed persuasive to me. While nonlinear dynamical systems have been an important part of the research part of my career, my past understanding of the Rössler attractor does nothing to inspire confidence in your understanding of General Relativity and I found your attempt to publish fundamental General Relativity results in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, to be poorly motivated. Likewise, this years publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy. In 2008, the anti-LHC activists shouted “Fire” and the world press heard and repeated them. How fortunate we are that only one little Indian girl was (metaphorically) trampled in the resulting panic.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 23, 2012 2:21 am

    You are a very well-informed and reasonable adversary. And you even have a name to you — my first clear enemy. Thank you very much for that.

    All your points are very well taken, and all false — but wonderful. I can explain every item. You risk thereby that the other scientists who are so maximally helped by your statements also lose face. Only you won’t because you were the first to come forward.

    It is an honor that you wrote the above piece. It is a classic and needs to be answered with loving detail, just as it is written.

    But since one sentence is a real scientific one, I pick it out first:
    Quote: “this year’s publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy.”

    “Unworthy” everything I write always is, since I am maximally imperfect. But can you substantiate? Is there a single error in it, and where? You see, no one before ever said so. So I am maximally interested.

  • rpenner on May 23, 2012 4:03 am

    Dr. Rössler,

    I wrote: “While nonlinear dynamical systems have been an important part of the research part of my career, my past understanding of the Rössler attractor does nothing to inspire confidence in your understanding of General Relativity and I found your attempt to publish fundamental General Relativity results in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, to be poorly motivated. Likewise, this years publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy.”

    When you quoted only part of the second of these two sentences you omitted the word “Likewise” and in contextomy lost the intended focus on the topic. Specifically, I found the act of publication in that journal to be unworthy, as I believe the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research to be a publication without a history of publishing physics, the article is characterized as Pure Mathematics, which is clearly wrong, and there are hallmarks of the journal being a sham journal — a vanity press. They do not accept, for example, LaTeX manuscripts. Neither does your paper meet the ordinary requirements of a review in physics or math. Neither did they do a respectable job of vetting your manuscript. The first derived equation, equation labelled (2), is introduced with this misunderstanding of the Rindler metric: “With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal unit wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial unit wavelengths L of the same light waves” which does not follow, since you are applying the local consistency of the speed of light to a situation where the lengths and times are not local. Alternately, you are misapplying axioms of the wrong physical theory, which is equally invalid. The Rindler metric in fact admits different notions of length, and these notions are inequivalent. Your paper lacks precise terms and does not work as a functional review of these topics and is unpersuasive in not actually making a physics or math argument for derived results. But my intended criticism was the meritless choice of this journal which is (like CS&F) marginal to the point of irrelevancy on the topic of general relativity. A physics journal would perhaps alter “temporal unit wavelength” to “period” if T = 1/f = 2π/ω was meant.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 23, 2012 4:18 am

    Thank you for retreating into vague paraphernalia. I was hoping for a counter-proof, though. Can you help me in finding that?
    Or a specialist who can? It would be a major help.

  • bill johnson on May 23, 2012 5:27 am

    vague paraphernalia? rpenner provided a very detailed answer to your request for substantiation listing several problems with the work. the problem here is that you have an extremely narrow view of what a counter-proof is that allows you to dismiss most criticism of your findings rather then actually address the points made. Then you continue in saying that you have never been countered when in fact there is criticism that was made that simply was not addressed. I would be interested in seeing your response to the points rpenner made in that post.

  • rpenner on May 23, 2012 9:30 am

    If AJoMaCSR were a math journal of good reputation, “does not follow” would invalidate the result. Even in physics, it would be a reviewer comment that should prompt a hard think and strong consideration of a re-write. Since the problem is a either a confusion of coordinate time and proper time or a mixing and matching of general and special relativity, any journal with a track record in general relativity would reject the argument as specious.

    It’s not a matter of providing a disproof. It appear to be a matter of getting you to tear up your own manuscripts and actually learn general relativity. One possible reason Hawking is silent on this matter is that he has better things to do. Your arguments are unpersuasive in convincing physicists that you have more than a paper-thin veneer of understanding the material. You cite textbooks that you do not understand.

    With Bill Johnson, I look forward to your replies to numbered points 1–6. As a favor, I will begin a comprehensive correction of the paper as should have been done by the alleged peer reviewers.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 23, 2012 2:56 pm

    Quote: “Since the problem is a either a confusion of coordinate time and proper time or a mixing and matching of general and special relativity, any journal with a track record in general relativity would reject the argument as specious.”

    You feel very secure it appears, but as evidence you have nothing to offer but personal opinion. If you can deliver the announced counterproof, I and everyone else will be happy. Thank you.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 24, 2012 12:15 pm

    Dear PassingByAgain
    You wrote in your comment (May 21, 2012 1:43 pm): “…the Higgs field is now in a low-energy state…“
    But do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang, I mean do you know whether it was on a higher energy state than now and do you know, what triggered the Big Bang?
    How can you know whether searching for the Higgs at high energies, with head-on collisions near the matter of the detectors is safe? You know that there are various differences between natural collisions and the ones at the LHC and for example the kind of high energy particles is not known.
    How can you be sure whether the mechanism of inflation (which is believed to be observed on large scales in the universe) can not cause a danger if something unnatural is done by experiments on small scales?
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GVA115I1I8Y/TTrsDrx7ROI/AAAAAAAABU.….eation.jpg
    Thank you.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 24, 2012 12:16 pm

    (I mean the kind of high energy cosmic ray particles is not known).

  • eq on May 25, 2012 3:38 am

    “I can explain every item.”

    Then do it. So far you never did it.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 25, 2012 4:44 am

    Please, send in your “comprehensive correction” of the Telemach paper first, dear Professor Penner. Thank you.

  • eq on May 25, 2012 5:40 am

    Perhaps you can show the world the fantastic review you got from this african journal (you know, you claim to have published your crap in a peer-reviewed journal — but apparently there was nothing like a review).

    And now answer the points made by penner. You claimed to be able to answer every item,. so do it instead of hiding evading again. :D

  • PassingByAgain on May 25, 2012 4:26 pm

    Tottoli: It cost me some time to explain to you, in my comment on May 21, 2012 1:43 pm, “how [I can] be sure that the mechanism of inflation cannot cause a danger”. Unfortunately, it appears that you were too lazy to even try to understand what I wrote — otherwise you would not be asking the very same question again. Furthermore, your question “do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang?” reaches a new low of stupidity (are you by chance confusing big bang and inflation?). Clearly you lack the background required for a meaningful discussion about particle physics and cosmology, and perhaps your understanding of these topics doesn’t go beyond the cartoon you linked in your comment.

    Don’t get me wrong: there would be nothing to be ashamed of in that, not everybody has to be familiar with particle physics. As I wrote in my previous comment, the real shame is how you and your friend Otto find it completely superfluous to gather even a modicum of information before pontificating about stuff you don’t understand. You prefer to make wild claims at random, then accuse the scientific community of sloppiness (or worse, murderous conspiracy) because they don’t drop everything they are doing and convene a conference to address your nonsense.

    I won’t waste any more of my time discussing trivial stuff with you, only to have to start all over again the next day. Look around for the information you lack, or live with your concerns that “unnatural collisions” at the LHC might create fire-breathing dragons which will burn your ass (indeed, the LSAG has not provided a safety argument against that risk either). I don’t care, the world doesn’t care, there certainly won’t be a conference about it.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 26, 2012 12:18 am

    How can a reasonable physicist be so blind?

  • Visitor on May 26, 2012 9:37 am

    How can i be possible that the great Otto Rössler does not answer this silly points made by penner?

    :D

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 26, 2012 9:46 am

    I am waiting for Mr. Penner to deliver — if he is the physical chemist he pretends to be. Okay?

  • Visitor on May 26, 2012 9:58 am

    No, Otto, the world is waiting for your answers. You said you could easily answer every point, so do it. The worldis waiting.

    This silly game to avoid any answer is becoming boring, Otto.

    There are also open questions in the other threads. For example, you have not delivered any convincing statement that you are not contraditing Komar and Wald as it was clearly demonstrated ny TRMG. Your cloudy answers were not sufficient and perhas they will impress laymen but for sure no one who is able to THINK a little bit about your nonsensica answers ;)

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 26, 2012 12:11 pm

    Professor Penner announced a counter-theorem to Telemach — do you not also yearn for it?

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 26, 2012 5:28 pm

    It is not my intention to avoid any answer of 1–6 but I think a counter-theorem to TeLeMaCh would be more important. An interesting detail of 1–6: radioactive potassium in our bodies is believed to be an important aging factor. Thanks to Prof. Penner.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 28, 2012 2:20 pm

    Dear PassingByAgain
    Please it was never my intention to make my discussion partners angry.
    Perhaps there is a reason that I ask you the same questions two times but if you like to stop, then no problem too. I never said that you MUST answer any question.

    You told: “Furthermore, your question “do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang?” reaches a new low of stupidity (are you by chance confusing big bang and inflation?).“
    I only ask you this because you said the Higgs-field would be “in a low energy state”.
    Do you think the current energy state is a safety guarantee regarding inflation? And is it safe to create conditions that occured shortly after the Big Bang?

    Can you say me whether the Higgs field is in the lowest energy state now and if it is not, then can you show me a proof (or else a safety argument) that creating local oscillations of the Higgs field by experiments is absolutely safe?

    I have read about the Big Rip, as a possible end of the Universe.
    What will trigger the Big Rip and where will it start? Will it start somewhere in the space or could it be triggered by some sort of high energy collisions or disturbances of the Higgs field?

    Do you still believe that there are no differences between high energy cosmic ray collisions and the collisions at the LHC and do you really not care at all?
    Thank you for reading.

  • PassingByAgain on May 29, 2012 2:18 am

    Tottoli, you did not even understand why the question of yours that I quoted was so stupid, didn’t you?

    For what concerns inflation, just forget about it. When you learn what inflation is, it will be clear to you that it can’t happen again. Until then, you are just wasting your time (and mine). There is indeed a reason why you ask the same question twice, and it is that you couldn’t be bothered checking the facts before blurting out more nonsense. Have you actually read the paper whose abstract you were quoting? Have you looked at its figure 1 as I suggested?

    As to the “Big Rip”, it’s just another random concept that you throw into the discussion without first bothering to check if it is relevant. If you had simply looked it up, even on wikipedia, you would have learned what triggers it, and why it has nothing to do with particle collisions.

    Finally, there is the issue of whether the Higgs field is in the lowest-energy state or it can transition to another state (note, this is fully independent of whether or not the Higgs is the inflaton). For this, the usual cosmic-ray argument applies. If the LHC collisions could trigger such a transition, cosmic-ray collisions would trigger it as well. Note that all the complications of the cosmic-ray argument for hypothetical stable black holes are related to the question of whether such black holes will be stopped in matter and start accreting. In the case of the hypothetical state transition of the Higgs field, there is no such question. Nothing needs to stop in matter in this scenario, thus LHC collisions and cosmic-ray collisions are equivalent.

    In any case, the properties and interactions of the Higgs are pretty well understood. You cannot just wave your hands and claim a danger, you must first devise a physical mechanism by which the collisions could trigger a transition of the Higgs field. Good luck with that… Otherwise, as I already told you, you might as well start worrying about LHC-generated dragons. The LSAG hasn’t ruled them out yet.

    Now please, please, please, don’t come back with more random nonsense until you have at least tried to understand what I have just written. On a second thought, don’t come back at all, surely I have already wasted enough of my time with you.