Jan 27, 2012

Factors on the pendulum of MBH decay/accretion & Aggregation

Posted by in categories: environmental, ethics, existential risks, particle physics, transparency

I write this post on specific request from Anthony, who kindly asked that I write a bottom line summary of what I found through my research which leads me to suggest the points should be cleared up in research and/or a safety conference on the LHC.

1. As HR is an unproven theory, it may prove to be ineffective compared to the math model. This regardless of Rossler’s Telemach theorem which attempts to prove this.

2. The G&M calculation on theoretical MBH accretion rates is fundamentally flawed, as it bases the analysis on one single MBH and fails to consider about MBH aggregation.

3. As HR is an unproven concept, it cannot be relied upon to detect MBH. The only method to be certain no MBH are created is to monitor unaccounted loss of mass/energy.

As concerns raised in the public domain were not being answered sufficiently, there is a moral duty for a public safety conference to discuss likely MBH decay/accretion rates.

I dismissed what I would consider the more colourful risks. I’m considering writing a follow-on whitepaper on the topic of MBH aggregation. If two MBH aggregate at any point it would halve the G&M calculated time-frame, and further aggregation would reduce the accretion time-frame accordingly. If frequent MBH aggregation was a typical expected occurrence, then you would have a run-away effect, so this requires an analysis.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Ed Sweet says:

    Interesting. This seems like work that needs to be done.

  2. Ed Sweet says:

    I really don’t know why I am getting interested in this again…it’s not like I don’t have enough to do already…

    Real risk from black holes depends on them not being able to be charged. If mini black holes can be charged, and can be easily generated, then the cosmic ray arguments apply, since charged black holes will be very effectively stopped by matter such as stars.…leading to accretion of the stars (or White Dwarfs) if they don’t evaporate!

    Cosmic ray arguments are only invalid if black holes cannot be charged. Otherwise, they prove the LHC is safe from a threat of black holes, no matter what the rate of accretion or lack of Hawking radiation.

    As far as Plaga’s concern with “Bose Novas,” his paper was rebutted, and he still has not responded. It is up to Plaga to respond…out of my pay grade.

    As far as strangelets go, they would be charged, or able to temporarily acquire a charge even if formed neutral, and hence would be stopped by matter. They would also affect stars, leading to faster supernovae (probably a lot of strangelets would get incorporated into forming stars if they exist), an effect which has not been seen (I don’t remember the location of the reference, or I would supply a link). Therefore, I do not consider strangelets a plausible risk. Or am I wrong? Are strangelets (if they exist) inherently uncharged and fast moving?

    You might also think that Rossler’s “micro quasars” would acquire a charge as soon as they hit an atom passing through a star…leading to self-organizing chaos whirlpools… hence would be stopped…to me, this kind of seems like it would indicate that the cosmic ray safety arguments apply to even Rossler’s uncharged mini black holes. Rossler says these black holes would go right through matter, but he also says they form mini-quasars, which wouold probably get stopped by matter pretty easily, as soon as they hit just one atom going through a star!!

    Black holes according to Telemach are uncharged…but micro quasars are charged. This, to me, seems to modify the whole thing completely. I’d like to see someone do the math on this…you’d think this possible conclusion from Telemach would prove the cosmic ray arguments safe after all…or am I wrong? I’d sure like to see the numbers!!!!!

    Helfer and Vilkovski theorize that Hawking Radiation is only partial…but I can’t figure out why this partial Hawking radiation would not have been seen in CERN’s search for black hole evaporation (Robert Houston claimed that CERN ‘s search was only set up to see complete evaporation, but I just can’t see how this would be correct — radiation is radiation!).

    And if these black holes fitting Vilkovski’s theory are correct, they would still be charged, and would be stopped by stars anyway…and therefore would be unlikely to be a threat unless they could not hold a charge.

  3. Tom Kerwick says:

    Ed — thanks for your thoughtful and detailed commentary. A thought on charged MBH is that when an MBH accretes a nucleus either a) the charge is nullified in the process of the matter being reduced to a more fundamental state or b) the positively charged MBH will quickly attract the free electrons and neutralize. I’d guess I oversimplify here, but what is the something missing in my understanding? Perhaps it is simply the electrons would still need to satisfy the minimum quanta of energy — so for such puroposes whether they remain orbiting an MBH or the pre-accreted nucleus would be irrelevant…

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This is a very interesting debate.

    Both say only correct things. What Ed did not take into regard is the delay until a miniblack hole coasting through matter hits the first quark. So his request for numbers is justified. Only that no one on the planet can give the numbers since no one can possibly know the radius of a successfully formed miniblack hole. Nevertheless the qualitative argument that any perpetual coasting inside earth will eventually lead to an almost head-on hit is inescapable. It can be weeks, or, if we are lucky, up to years.

    How long it thereafter takes until the charge has been eaten (and hence nullified) is another open quantitative question. It is related to the question of how long it takes an element in the accretion disk of a quasar to fall in eventually. Since the involved electric forces now are billions over billions times higher than the gravitational one taken alone, and all the complexities of multi-particle interaction, etc., enter, very soon a new field of complexity theory (I call it minimini-quasar theory) is involved. It will be very interesting to develop this field. But to exclude the likely formation of an “animal” (an attractor with distinct properties) would be over-optimistic. It is this overoptimistic clairvoyance which must be avoided. It cannot be assumed that the remaining uncertainty would detract from the danger.

    The unknown features of quasars and miniminiquasars are a wonderful scenario for exact quantitative calculations again — but so only in the more or less distant future.

  5. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — regarding involved mass defect of the nucleus making MBH faster/slower after pulling a quark out of its lodging as you propose in another thread, by this do you envisage that such MBH never loose most/all of their momentum relative to Earth even whilst accreting particles which are relatively stationary to Earth? Also on the topic of trajectories, do you agree any such MBH regardless of becoming faster/slower would gradually find shorter orbits relative to the Earth’s core, or would this increase/decrease with fluctuation also. I ask as your hypothesis makes MBH *aggregation* improbable…