Comments on: Update on the LHC-Danger – after Half a Year

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:10:12 +0000

Stephen Hawking is a world hero who must be admired for his uncredible braveness.

By: lulu

lulu — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:53:36 +0000

'revered colleague' (-; always so polite... Hawking alias 'Hawk' before he had mental muscular atrophy, the only claim to fame in the age of victimism and celebrity freaks, learned to talk at 8, was a mediocre student in the bottom 20%, stole his idea of black hole evaporation from Landau, got its entropy laws wrong, denies Einstein for the sake of a nobel prize, and it is the perfect golem for a surrealist end a la dr. strangelove... 'men are a mush over the surface of a lost, departing from those fact we can talk about them' Schopenhauer

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:12:46 +0000

Thank you, Tom.

I would love to fulfill your wish — but there exist no “agreed differences in Miniature Black Hole radii size.”

Is there anyone who is NOT interested in having the above 7-point list falsified in order to rehabilitate CERN?

I call upon my revered colleague Stephen Hawking to say a word to the new proof that the speed of light is globally constant (“Globally constant speed of light c : A bonanza in physics”).

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:59:59 +0000

Otto — I am not interested in the theatre of lists for readers so much as links to such reading material to review over if such exist. Anyway — one final comment/suggestion on your main point — it would crystallize your argument much better if you presented a proof (even a rough proof) of the hypothesized difference in capturing rates relative to an agreed difference in MBH radii size, or showed how such oversight applies to the 2008 G&M section which suggests (rather counter-intuitively perhaps) that this is not so significant to the calculated stopping distances in WD. I hope you are keeping well –Tom.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:45:24 +0000

Dear Tom:
The fictitious capture radii based on unjustifiable assumptions about the size of the assumed micro black holes (G&M) do not help. What I was referring to was a giant difference in capturing rates between very fast (near-luminal) and very slow (near-sonic) miniature black holes of a very, very small radius.
(As to your last remark I doubt the readers prefer a detailed listing as long as the main point waits to sink in.)

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:19:11 +0000

About the main point you made — it is my understanding that gravitational capture was dervied (G&M 2008) inversely proportional to the mass density near the capture radius — and not so much influenced by the small capture radius itself. Therefore arguments suggesting an even smaller capture radius in faster naturally-occurring MBH are not so relevant to the G&M WD safety assurances based on gravity capture of such. The capture radius would be important to consider at the accretion phase of course — where the thermal velocity is a factor — as I mentioned above — but not the spatial velocity of the MBH which is greatly reduced at this stage in such models. I hope this clarifies the connection I was making between the two. I also notice that you failed to provide the links to the scientific papers which you suggest falsify the safety arguments of 2008 referred to in points 6–7. One can infer there is a good reason for that.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:03:21 +0000

Dear Tom:

Thank you for taking up the defense of CERN. You are the only one at present, and you even presented an unpublished paper on the Internet, which is a unique achievement.

Unfortunately, the question addressed in it is a very limited one compared to the points I made. The reply given by CERN’s 2008 safety experts to your vichra paper, which you kindly quote, is even more restrictive. My main point made – that there is a speed barrier between gravitational capture and gravitational speed-riding (as an analogue to the slow-neutron capture bifurcation in an atomic bomb) – was not touched upon as far as I can see.

Please, help me see the connection between your argument and this major point of mine. And/or help me find someone who can exclude that ultra-slow artificial black holes, as deliberately attempted to produce at CERN, have just the properties which make them uniquely dangerous in the universe.

Maybe then other experts will at last feel a motivation to come to the defense of CERN – on the broad front of issues in need to be dealt with at the “safety conference” shunned for 5 years.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:45:54 +0000

Otto — I request that you provide the links to the scientific papers that you suggest falsify the safety arguments of 2008 referred to in points 6–7 regarding neutron stars and white dwarfs.

Also — if I may comment on “the enlarged-cross section principle valid for ultra-slow artificial, compared to ultrafast natural, miniature black holes” please refer to the more significant section on thermal velocity of MBH taken into account in paragraphs 2–3 on page 5 of the following short paper I shared with you last year — http://vixra.org/pdf/1208.0005v5.pdf

Note — the minor concerns raised in the conclusions of this paper were responded to by the safety assessment group at CERN:

“We surveyed the recent literature, where there is significant progress, since the B field measurement technology and the surveys have greatly improved since the Mangano and Giddings paper. Take a look, for example, at a couple of papers:

http://arXiv.org/pdf/1206.5113.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3650.pdf

These papers document most extended lists of WDs with fields measured in the 1–100 kG range. Many of these measurements are not just limits, but actual measurements, with uncertainty ranges. Even taking these 1-sigma uncertainties at the 3 or 5 sigma level, leads to B fields well below the 100kG threshold. A large fraction of these WDs have masses above 0.6 solar masses, thus in a safe range as far as stopping is concerned. But a few are heavier. For example, WD2359-434, with M = 0.98Msun and T ~ 1.5 Gyr (which was listed in G&M2008), has now a confirmed field in the range of 3-4kG. (see Section 4.1 of Landstreet et al, the 2nd ref above). Other WDs with masses over 0.75Msun (which means log(g)~8.2) are also listed with fields in the few kG range (see e.g. WD21050-820 in table 2 of Landstreet et al). Notice also that another of the WDs listed in M&G2008 had a positive B measurement, and not just a limit — WD2246+223.”