Supermanagement! by Mr. Andres Agostini (Excerpt)
“…What distinguishes our age from every other is not the world-flattening impact of communications, not the economic ascendance of China and India, not the degradation of our climate, and not the resurgence of ancient religious animosities. Rather, it is a frantically accelerating pace of change…”
Read the entire piece at http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC
Posted in business, climatology, complex systems, cosmology, counterterrorism, cybercrime/malcode, defense, economics, education, engineering, ethics, existential risks, finance, futurism, nanotechnology, physics, policy, robotics/AI, science, singularity, supercomputing, sustainability, transparency
(Excerpt)
Beyond the managerial challenges (downside risks) presented by the exponential technologies as it is understood in the Technological Singularity and its inherent futuristic forces impacting the present and the future now, there are also some grave global risks that many forms of management have to tackle with immediately.
These grave global risks have nothing to do with advanced science or technology. Many of these hazards stem from nature and some are, as well, man made.
For instance, these grave global risks ─ embodying the Disruptional Singularity ─ are geological, climatological, political, geopolitical, demographic, social, economic, financial, legal and environmental, among others. The Disruptional Singularity’s major risks are gravely threatening us right now, not later.
Read the full document at http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC
The Future of Scientific Management, Today! (Excerpt)
Andres Agostini was asked this question:
Mr. David Shaw’s question, “…Andres, from your work on the future which management skills need to be developed? Classically the management role is about planning, organizing, leading and controlling. With the changes coming in the future what’s your view on how this management mix needs to change and adapt?…” Question was posited on an Internet Forum, formulated by Mr. David Shaw (Peterborough, United Kingdom) on October 09, 2013.
This is an excerpt from, “…The Future of Scientific Management, Today…” that discusses state-of-the-art management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article.
CONCLUSION
In addition to being aware and adaptable and resilient before the driving forces reshaping the current present and the as-of-now future, THERE ARE SOME EXTRA MANAGEMENT SUGGESTIONS THAT I CONCURRENTLY PRACTICE:
1.- Given the vast amount of insidious risks, futures, challenges, principles, processes, contents, practices, tools, techniques, benefits and opportunities, there needs to be a full-bodied practical and applicable methodology (methodologies are utilized and implemented to solve complex problems and to facilitate the decision-making and anticipatory process).
The manager must always address issues with a Panoramic View and must also exercise the envisioning of both the Whole and the Granularity of Details, along with the embedded (corresponding) interrelationships and dynamics (that is, [i] interrelationships and dynamics of the subtle, [ii] interrelationships and dynamics of the overt and [iii] interrelationships and dynamics of the covert).
Both dynamic complexity and detail complexity, along with fuzzy logic, must be pervasively considered, as well.
To this end, it is wisely argued, “…You can’t understand the knot without understanding the strands, but in the future, the strands need not remain tied up in the same way as they are today…”
For instance, disparate skills, talents, dexterities and expertise won’t suffice ever. A cohesive and congruent, yet proven methodology (see the one above) must be optimally implemented.
Subsequently, the Chinese proverb indicates, “…Don’t look at the waves but the currents underneath…”
2.- One must always be futurewise and technologically fluent. Don’t fight these extreme forces, just use them! One must use counter-intuitiveness (geometrically non-linearly so), insight, hindsight, foresight and far-sight in every day of the present and future (all of this in the most staggeringly exponential mode). To shed some light, I will share two quotes.
The Panchatantra (body of Eastern philosophical knowledge) establishes, “…Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes.…” And Antonio Machado argues, “… An eye is not an eye because you see it; an eye is an eye because it sees you …”
Managers always need a clear, knowledgeable vision. Did you already connect the dots stemming from the Panchatantra and Machado? Did you already integrate those dots into your big-picture vista?
As side effect, British Prime Minister W. E. Gladstone considered, “…You cannot fight against the future…”
3.- In all the Manager does, he / she must observe and apply, at all times, a sine qua non maxim, “…everything is related to everything else…”
4.- Always manage as if it were a “project.” Use, at all times, the “…Project Management…” approach.
5.- Always use the systems methodology with the applied omniscience perspective.
In this case, David, I mean to assert: The term “Science” equates to about a 90% of “…Exact Sciences…” and to about 10% of “…Social Sciences…” All science must be instituted with the engineering view.
6.- Always institute beyond-insurance risk management as you boldly integrate it with your futuring skill / expertise.
7.- In my firmest opinion, the following must be complied this way (verbatim): the corporate strategic planning and execution (performing) are a function of a grander application of beyond-insurance risk management.It will never work well the other way around. TAIRM is the optimal mode to do advanced strategic planning and execution (performing).
TAIRM (Transformative and Integrative Risk Management) is not only focused on terminating, mitigating and modulating risks (expenses of treasure and losses of life), but also concentrated on bringing under control fiscally-sound, sustainable organizations and initiatives.
TAIRM underpins sensible business prosperity and sustainable growth and progress.
8.- I also believe that we must pragmatically apply the scientific method in all we manage to the best of our capacities.
If we are “…MANAGERS…” in a Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Era (not a knowledge-driven eon because of superficial and hollow caprices of the follies and simpletons), we must do therefore extensive and intensive learning and un-learning for Life if we want to succeed and be sustainable.
As a consequence, Dr. Noel M. Tichy, PhD. argues, “…Today, intellectual assets trump physical assets in nearly every industry…”
Consequently, Alvin Toffler indicates, “…In the world of the future, THE NEW ILLITERATE WILL BE THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT LEARNED TO LEARN…”
We don’t need to be scientists to learn some basic principles of advanced science.
Accordingly, Dr. Carl Sagan, PhD. expressed, “…We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows about science and technology…” And Edward Teller stated, “…The science of today is the technology of tomorrow …”
And it is also crucial this quotation by Winston Churchill, “…If we are to bring the broad masses of the people in every land to the table of abundance, IT CAN ONLY BE BY THE TIRELESS IMPROVEMENT OF ALL OF OUR MEANS OF TECHNICAL PRODUCTION…”
9.- In any management undertaking, and given the universal volatility and rampant and uninterrupted rate of change, one must think and operate in a fluid womb-to-tomb mode.
The manager must think and operate holistically (both systematically and systemically) at all times.
The manager must also be: i) Multidimensional, ii) Interdisciplinary, iii) Multifaceted, iv) Cross-functional, and v) Multitasking.
That is, the manager must now be an expert state-of-the-art generalist and erudite. ERGO, THIS IS THE NEWEST SPECIALIST AND SPECIALIZATION.
Managers must never manage elements, components or subsystems separately or disparately (that is, they mustn’t ever manage in series).
Managers must always manage all of the entire system at the time (that is, managing in parallel or simultaneously the totality of the whole at once).
10.- In any profession, beginning with management, one must always and cleverly upgrade his / her learning and education until the last exhale.
An African proverb argues, “…Tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it…” And Winston Churchill established, “…The empires of the future are the empires of the mind…” And an ancient Chinese Proverb: “…It is not our feet that move us along — it is our minds…”
And Malcolm X observed, “…The future belongs to those who prepare for it today…” And Leonard I. Sweet considered, “…The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create…”
And finally, James Thomson argued, “…Great trials seem to be a necessary preparation for great duties …”
The entire document is available at http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC
Futurewise Success Tenets
“Futurewise Success Tenets” here is an excerpt from, “The Future of Scientific Management, Today”. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article. As follows:
(1) Picture mentally, radiantly. (2) Draw outside the canvas. (3) Color outside the vectors. (4) Sketch sinuously. (5) Far-sight beyond the mind’s intangible exoskeleton. (6) Abduct indiscernible falsifiable convictions. (7) Reverse-engineering a gene and a bacterium or, better yet, the lucrative genome. (8) Guillotine the over-weighted status quo. (9) Learn how to add up ─ in your own brainy mind ─ colors, dimensions, aromas, encryptions, enigmas, phenomena, geometrical and amorphous in-motion shapes, methods, techniques, codes, written lines, symbols, contexts, locus, venues, semantic terms, magnitudes, longitudes, processes, tweets, “…knowledge-laden…” hunches and omniscient bliss, so forth. (10) Project your wisdom’s wealth onto communities of timeless-connected wikis. (11) Cryogenize the infamous illiterate by own choice and reincarnate ASAP (multiverse teleporting out of a warped / wormed passage) Da Vinci, Bacon, Newton, Goethe, Bonaparte, Edison, Franklyn, Churchill, Einstein, and Feynman. (12) Organize relationships into voluntary associations that are mutually beneficial and accountable for contributing productively to the surrounding community. (13) Practice the central rule of good strategy, which is to know and remain true to your core business and invest for leadership and R&D+Innovation. (14) Kaisen, SixSigma, Lean, LeanSigma, “…Reliability Engineer…” (the latter as solely conceived and developed by Procter & Gamble and Los Alamos National Laboratories) it all unthinkably and thoroughly by recombinant, a là Einstein Gedanke-motorized judgment (that is to say: Einsteinian Gedanke [“…thought experiments…”]. (15) Provide a road-map / blueprint for drastically compressing (‘crashing’) the time’s ‘reticules’ it will take you to get on the top of your tenure, nonetheless of your organizational level. (16) With the required knowledge and relationships embedded in organizations, create support for, and carry out transformational initiatives. (17) Offer a tested pathway for addressing the linked challenges of personal transition and organizational transformation that confront leaders in the first few months in a new tenure. (18) Foster momentum by creating virtuous cycles that build credibility and by avoiding getting caught in vicious cycles that harm credibility. (19) Institute coalitions that translate into swifter organizational adjustments to the inevitable streams of change in personnel and environment. (20) Mobilize and align the overriding energy of many others in your organization, knowing that the “…wisdom of crowds…” is upfront and outright rubbish. (21) Step outside the boundaries of the framework’s system when seeking a problem’s solution. (22) Within zillion tiny bets, raise the ante and capture the documented learning through frenzy execution. (23) “…Moonshine…” and “…Skunks-work…” and “…Re-Imagineering…” all, holding in your mind the motion-picture image that, regardless of the relevance of “…inputs…” and “…outputs,…”, entails that the highest relevance is within the sophistication within the THROUGHPUT.….. (69) Figure out exactly which neurons to make synapses with. (70) Wire up synapses the soonest…”
Read the full material at http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC
Regards,
Mr. Andres Agostini
www.linkedin.com/in/AndresAgostini
After nearly six months of relative quiet, our parent star, the sun, awoke. Recent predictions from leading solar scientists ranged from “cycle 24 will be our weakest yet” to “cycle 24 is quiet now, because it will be double peaked.” It appears that the latter is emerging as the clearer truth.
Over the course of a week, between October 24th and 31st, more than 28 substantial flares fired off from the sun. Several of the more recent flares sent massive clouds of ionized particulate matter, called coronal mass ejections, toward Earth.
Four of the recent flares were X-class solar flares, the strongest on the scale, erupting from the photosphere of the sun, causing minor radio blackouts, and sending coronal mass ejections in many different directions, including toward Earth.
Unfortunately, due to the recent US government shutdown, the suite of tools generally available to the public for space weather prediction were offline. As of November 2nd, there remains a backlog of missing data for several sets of publically available apps and internet resources for space weather prediction and observation.
This period of excited solar activity comes of the heals of recently published science that revealed no discernable connection between the planetary rotation period of Jupiter (11.87 years) and the length of solar cycles (variable between 9 and 12 years). This may sound intuitively obvious, but holdouts from several corners of the scientific world have sought to ascribe significance to the similarities between both cycles. Some claimed that the much less massive Jupiter somehow caused solar dynamic activity.
Published analyses of radioactive isotopes of beryllium and carbon in 10,000 year-old ice core samples recently dismissed the similarities between both periods as being consistent with chance and statistically insignificant. This leaves open the possibility that the solar dynamo is indeed self-excited, in a process whose predictive models are still being tested and perfected, called the meridional flow.
Meridional flow moves solar material just beneath the apparent subsurface of the sun (called the photosphere). Models for the meridional flow have proven difficult to hammer down with predictive certainty, but NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway and a number of other leading solar scientists are moving closer to understanding the dynamic forces that drive the activity of our parent star.
Radar imagery from SDO, taken every 45 seconds over the past two years, was recently analyzed as well. The results of that analysis revealed that the current models, which predict the rate of meridional flow are off by at least half. In short, the conveyor belt-like process of plasma that returns material to the photosphere of the sun moves more quickly than originally theorized. This misunderstanding might have contributed to the lower than normal forecast for solar cycle 24. Time will tell if the sun is truly tapering off its maximum output for this cycle, or if more activity is coming Earth’s way.
The NASA/ESA heliophysics fleet currently observing the sun is comprised of nearly twenty spacecraft in various orbits measuring not only our star, but the interstellar space between it and Earth as well as the intricate space weather system that interacts constantly with our planet.
One of the most exciting moments in solar sciences comes when an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection collides with the Earth’s magnetic field to the degree of causing a geomagnetic storm. The Earth’s magnetic field is fully capable of protecting our planet from the occasional glancing blow from the sun; however, strong clouds of magnetized plasma can often find their way into Earth’s atmosphere, causing minor interference with electrical grids as well as the constellation of GPS satellites.
The Carrington Event of 1859 and the Manitoba Blackout of 1989, revealed that the Earth is indeed vulnerable to space weather events. There have been calls, falling largely upon the deaf ears of US legislators, that want the electrical grid of the United States to be fully retrofitted with radiation hardened components that could handle the surges associated with geomagnetic storms. The problem will not go away and unlike global warming and other self-destructive, human propagated phenomena, there is little we can due to curtail such activity, other than being aware and prepared.
As the number of active regions on the apparent surface of the sun increase, we are likely to experience more geo-effective activity in the coming weeks and months. The phase of the solar cycle remains high and will gently curtail overall activity as solar maximum wanes into the lull of solar minimum.
For solar science enthusiasts, including this writer, this period of solar activity is an ideal time to better understand the dynamic interactions that the sun has with Earth. It is only in the last 10 to 15 years that we’ve understood our parent star to be a dynamic system, not as predictable as we’d assumed it to be in the nearly 400 years of solar science observations.
Deepening the scientific understanding about our parent star is as much about protecting Earth, as it is about examining the interconnected nature of the Earth-Sun space weather system. It behooves all of humanity to keep apprised of this connection as we establish new laws and more accurately understand our extended natural environment.
http://www.ardmediathek.de/wdr-fernsehen/quarks-und-co/quark…d=17482362
I learned from it about the unfathomable degree of social coherence among the many thousand scientists and engineers whose synergy makes this largest constructive effort of humankind since the pyramids possible. And it also revealed the wonderful spirit of Peter Higgs who is a loving mind in the old sense of a devout scientist.
Ranga Yogeshwar here made it clear to me for the first time WHY this brave community could not respond to a novelty that would have destroyed their cohesion. The effort was too big to be disturbed even for a few days of “second thoughts.” For that it was too late from the beginning.
So CERN’s public refusal to update its “safety report” for more than 5 years is part and parcel of the beauty of the new pyramid (the word means “immortality”). Imagine the pyramids’ construction having been disturbed by a news that interfered with its political and divine purpose: This would have meant the end of the whole effort and the civilization behind it.
So I apologize to CERN: “Dear admired colleagues, please, forgive me that I tried to disturb your super-human effort by insisting on a safety update!”
Ordinary mortals have no right to interfere with a divine project. If the devotion behind it implies accepting a harsh fate for the community at large, the Egyptian/Aztec rationality of a large number of dedicated individuals cannot possibly be tampered with. It is not religion: it is collective dynamics – chaos theory – or as my colleague Hermann Haken calls it, Synergetics. “When the flag is flying the brain is in the trumpet.” The rules of rationality are suspended in this case according to the Bible.
Poor Einstein, poor dear Peter Higgs, poor humankind. Hopefully, someone jumps upon the 5 years.
.
Science is based on dialog. Not a single colleague including Hawking and his crew contradicts my safety-relevant finding for 5 years. This fact can only have one of two reasons:
(1) The finding is so embarrassingly stupid that to take it up would suffice to soil the respondent.
(2) The finding harks back so deeply to the young Einstein that it causes fear to tread upon.
One country – my own – singlehandedly left CERN in response (only to surreptitiously return under non-publicized pressure).
Obviously the offered result (“gothic-R theorem”) has historical dimensions. Everyone’s survival is affected by it probability-wise if it is valid. We “live in an interesting time” as the Chinese proverb goes.
800 newspapers reported on the theorem in 2008. Only Aljazeera remained four years later. There is a “curfew of silence” obeyed by my colleagues. Not a single counterargument is in the literature against my result published in 2008 and its many sequels.
Why is CERN’s official “Safety Report” allowed to go un-updated for 5 years? And why is the friendly admonition by a court given to CERN standing before it to, please, admit a “safety conference” a planet-wide taboo topic even after almost three years? Refusing dialog and discussion is one thing, refusing updating on safety is another. In the one case but a single person is the victim, in the other it is you and you and you.
The most recent prime-time movie “Heroes – the Fate of the World in their Hands,” aired last Thursday by RTL ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2324130/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl ), struck me by total surprise. Everyone can spot the movie’s weaknesses (rating 1.7), but: Imagine the loving courage that stands behind it!
CERN cannot remain silent any longer.
P.S.: I cordially congratulate Peter Higgs to his Nobel prize which he fully deserves along with his colleague. And I ask him for the great honor of replying to this blog post which congratulates him first.
Peer-to-Peer Science
The Century-Long Challenge to Respond to Fukushima
Emanuel Pastreich (Director)
Layne Hartsell (Research Fellow)
The Asia Institute
More than two years after an earthquake and tsunami wreaked havoc on a Japanese power plant, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is one of the most serious threats to public health in the Asia-Pacific, and the worst case of nuclear contamination the world has ever seen. Radiation continues to leak from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi site into groundwater, threatening to contaminate the entire Pacific Ocean. The cleanup will require an unprecedented global effort.
Initially, the leaked radioactive materials consisted of cesium-137 and 134, and to a lesser degree iodine-131. Of these, the real long-term threat comes from cesium-137, which is easily absorbed into bodily tissue—and its half-life of 30 years means it will be a threat for decades to come. Recent measurements indicate that escaping water also has increasing levels of strontium-90, a far more dangerous radioactive material than cesium. Strontium-90 mimics calcium and is readily absorbed into the bones of humans and animals.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) recently announced that it lacks the expertise to effectively control the flow of radiation into groundwater and seawater and is seeking help from the Japanese government. TEPCO has proposed setting up a subterranean barrier around the plant by freezing the ground, thereby preventing radioactive water from eventually leaking into the ocean—an approach that has never before been attempted in a case of massive radiation leakage. TEPCO has also proposed erecting additional walls now that the existing wall has been overwhelmed by the approximately 400 tons per day of water flowing into the power plant.
But even if these proposals were to succeed, they would not constitute a long-term solution.
A New Space Race
Solving the Fukushima Daiichi crisis needs to be considered a challenge akin to putting a person on the moon in the 1960s. This complex technological feat will require focused attention and the concentration of tremendous resources over decades. But this time the effort must be international, as the situation potentially puts the health of hundreds of millions at risk. The long-term solution to this crisis deserves at least as much attention from government and industry as do nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the economy, and crime.
To solve the Fukushima Daiichi problem will require enlisting the best and the brightest to come up with a long-term plan to be implemented over the next century. Experts from around the world need to contribute their insights and ideas. They should come from diverse fields—engineering, biology, demographics, agriculture, philosophy, history, art, urban design, and more. They will need to work together at multiple levels to develop a comprehensive assessment of how to rebuild communities, resettle people, control the leakage of radiation, dispose safely of the contaminated water and soil, and contain the radiation. They will also need to find ways to completely dismantle the damaged reactor, although that challenge may require technologies not available until decades from now.
Such a plan will require the development of unprecedented technologies, such as robots that can function in highly radioactive environments. This project might capture the imagination of innovators in the robotics world and give a civilian application to existing military technology. Improved robot technology would prevent the tragic scenes of old people and others volunteering to enter into the reactors at the risk of their own wellbeing.
The Fukushima disaster is a crisis for all of humanity, but it is a crisis that can serve as an opportunity to construct global networks for unprecedented collaboration. Groups or teams aided by sophisticated computer technology can start to break down into workable pieces the immense problems resulting from the ongoing spillage. Then experts can come back with the best recommendations and a concrete plan for action. The effort can draw on the precedents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it must go far further.
In his book Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science, Michael Nielsen describes principles of networked science that can be applied on an unprecedented scale. The breakthroughs that come from this effort can also be used for other long-term programs such as the cleanup of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the global response to climate change. The collaborative research regarding Fukushima should take place on a very large scale, larger than the sequencing of the human genome or the maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider.
Finally, there is an opportunity to entirely reinvent the field of public diplomacy in response to this crisis. Public diplomacy can move from a somewhat ambiguous effort by national governments to repackage their messaging to a serious forum for debate and action on international issues. As public diplomacy matures through the experience of Fukushima, we can devise new strategies for bringing together hundreds of thousands of people around the world to respond to mutual threats. Taking a clue from networked science, public diplomacy could serve as a platform for serious, long-term international collaboration on critical topics such as poverty, renewable energy, and pollution control.
Similarly, this crisis could serve as the impetus to make social networking do what it was supposed to do: help people combine their expertise to solve common problems. Social media could be used not as a means of exchanging photographs of lattes and overfed cats, but rather as an effective means of assessing the accuracy of information, exchanging opinions between experts, forming a general consensus, and enabling civil society to participate directly in governance. With the introduction into the social media platform of adequate peer review—such as that advocated by the Peer-to-Peer Foundation (P2P)—social media can play a central role in addressing the Fukushima crisis and responding to it. As a leader in the P2P movement, Michel Bauwens, suggests in an email, “peers are already converging in their use of knowledge around the world, even in manufacturing at the level of computers, cars, and heavy equipment.”
Here we may find the answer to the Fukushima conundrum: open the problem up to the whole world.
Peer-to-Peer Science
Making Fukushima a global project that seriously engages both experts and common citizens in the millions, or tens of millions, could give some hope to the world after two and a half years of lies, half-truths, and concerted efforts to avoid responsibility on the part of the Japanese government and international institutions. If concerned citizens in all countries were to pore through the data and offer their suggestions online, there could be a new level of transparency in the decision-making process and a flourishing of invaluable insights.
There is no reason why detailed information on radiation emissions and the state of the reactors should not be publicly available in enough detail to satisfy the curiosity of a trained nuclear engineer. If the question of what to do next comes down to the consensus of millions of concerned citizens engaged in trying to solve the problem, we will have a strong alternative to the secrecy that has dominated so far. Could our cooperation on the solution to Fukushima be an imperative to move beyond the existing barriers to our collective intelligence posed by national borders, corporate ownership, and intellectual property concerns?
A project to classify stars throughout the university has demonstrated that if tasks are carefully broken up, it is possible for laypeople to play a critical role in solving technical problems. In the case of Galaxy Zoo, anyone who is interested can qualify to go online and classify different kinds of stars situated in distant galaxies and enter the information into a database. It’s all part of a massive effort to expand our knowledge of the universe, which has been immensely successful and demonstrated that there are aspects of scientific analysis that does not require a Ph.D. In the case of Fukushima, if an ordinary person examines satellite photographs online every day, he or she can become more adept than a professor in identifying unusual flows carrying radioactive materials. There is a massive amount of information that requires analysis related to Fukushima, and at present most of it goes virtually unanalyzed.
An effective response to Fukushima needs to accommodate both general and specific perspectives. It will initially require a careful and sophisticated setting of priorities. We can then set up convergence groups that, aided by advanced computation and careful efforts at multidisciplinary integration, could respond to crises and challenges with great effectiveness. Convergence groups can also serve as a bridge between the expert and the layperson, encouraging a critical continuing education about science and society.
Responding to Fukushima is as much about educating ordinary people about science as it is about gathering together highly paid experts. It is useless for experts to come up with novel solutions if they cannot implement them. But implementation can only come about if the population as a whole has a deeper understanding of the issues. Large-scale networked science efforts that are inclusive will make sure that no segments of society are left out.
If the familiar players (NGOs, central governments, corporations, and financial institutions) are unable to address the unprecedented crises facing humanity, we must find ways to build social networks, not only as a means to come up with innovative concepts, but also to promote and implement the resulting solutions. That process includes pressuring institutions to act. We need to use true innovation to pave the way to an effective application of science and technology to the needs of civil society. There is no better place to start than the Internet and no better topic than the long-term response to the Fukushima disaster.
Originally published in Foreign Policy in Focus on September 3, 2013
Recent discussions on the properties of micro-black-holes threw open sufficient question to reignite some interest in the subject (pardon to those exhausted of reading on the subject here at the Lifeboat Foundation). A claim made by physicists at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, that a new attractive force arises from black-body radiation [1] makes one speculate if a similar effect could result from hawking radiation theorized to be emitted from micro-black-holes. An unlikely scenario due to the very different nature supposed on hawking radiation and black-body radiation, but a curious thought none-the-less. If a light component of hawking radiation could replicate this net attractive force, accepted accretion and radiation rates could be revised to consider such new additional forces hypothesized.
Not so fast — Even if such a new force did take effect in these scenarios, one would expect such to have negligible impact on safety assurances. Official estimated accretion rates are many many orders of magnitude lower than estimated radiation rates — and are estimates which concur with observational evidence in the longevity of white-dwarf stars.
That is not to conclude such new forces are necessary to continue debate. Certain old disputed parameter ranges suggest different accretion rates relative to radiative rates which could bridge that vast breadth between such estimates, theorizing catastrophic outcomes [3] are not necessarily refuted by safety assurances — least on white-dwarf longevity.
Indeed a more pertinent point, that if equilibrium could manifest between radiation and accretion rates, micro-black-holes trapped in Earth’s gravitation could become persistent heat engines with considerable flux [2] to cause environmental concern in planetary heating.
Meanwhile, that stalwart safety assurance on micro-black-hole accretion risks, the longevity of white dwarf stars, finds new argument where the law of angular momentum conservation is considered as a significant factor in negating the G&M [4] calculated stopping distances of naturally occurring micro-black-holes on white dwarf stars due to it enforcing an immediate disengagement on striking quarks at such near-luminal speeds — this unlike LHC produced micro-black-holes, it is argued, which enjoy a 30,000 times longer interaction time [5].
One does not feel motivated to run for ‘end is nigh’ placards in such fringe discussions, but one can surmise that discussion on such topics of LHC safety assurance are far from the end of their rope in certain circles. Thank you to those involved for their continued discussions.
———————————————–
[1] Attractive Optical Forces from Blackbody Radiation — Sonnleitner, Ritsche-Marte, Ritsch, 2013. ( http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i2/e023601 )
[2] Terrestrial Flux of Hypothetical Stable MBH Produced in Colliders relative to Natural CR Exposure — 2012. ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0055v2.pdf )
[3] Potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders — R. Plaga, 2008/2009. ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1415v3.pdf )
[4] Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes — Giddings, Mangano — 2008 ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 )
[5] Eintein’s Equivalence Principle, C-Global, and the Widely Ignored Factor 30,000 — O.E Rossler, 2013. ( http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/1577/1583 )
1) CERN officially attempted to produce ultraslow miniature black holes on earth. It has announced to continue doing so after the current more than a year-long break for upgrading.
2) Miniature black holes possess radically new properties according to published scientific results that go unchallenged in the literature for 5 years: no Hawking evaporation; unchargedness; invisibility to CERN’s detectors; enhanced chance of being produced.
3) Of the millions of miniature black holes hoped to have been produced, at least one is bound to be slow enough to stay inside earth to circulate there.
4) This miniature black hole circulates undisturbed – until it captures the first charged quark. From then on it grows exponentially doubling in size in months at first, later in weeks.
5) As a consequence, after about 100 doublings, earth will start showing manifest signs of “cancer.” And she will – after first losing her atmosphere – die within months to leave nothing but a 2-cm black hole in her wake that still keeps the moon on its course.
6) CERN’s roundabout-way safety argument of 2008, invoking the observed longevity of neutron stars as a guarantee for earth, got falsified on the basis of quantum mechanics in a paper published in mid-2008.
7) CERN’s second roundabout-way safety argument of 2008, invoking the observed longevity of white dwarf stars as a guarantee for earth, likewise got falsified in scientific papers the first of which was published in mid-2008. CERN overlooked the enlarged-cross section principle valid for ultra-slow artificial, compared to ultrafast natural, miniature black holes. The same effect is frighteningly familiar from the slow “cold” neutrons in nuclear fission.
In summary, seven coincidences of “bad luck” were found to cooperate like Macbeth’s fateful 3 witches. CERN decided to accept the blemish of not up-dating its safety report for 5 years so far. Also it steadfastly refuses the safety conference publicly requested on the web on April 18, 2008 (“Honey, I shrunk the earth”). Most significantly, CERN up to this day refuses to heed a Cologne Court’s advice, handed-out to CERN’s representatives standing before it on January the 27th of 2011, to hold a “safety conference.”
Unless there is a safety guarantee that CERN keeps a secret from the whole world while mentioning it only behind closed doors to bring the World Press Council and the UN Security Council to refrain from doing their otherwise inalienable duty, the above-sketched scenario has no parallel in history.
Not a single scientific publication world-wide claims to falsify one of the above-sketched results (points 2–7). Only a very charismatic scientist may be able to call back the media and the mighty behind closed doors. I have a hunch who this could be. But I challenge him to no longer hide so the world can see to whom she owes her hopefully beneficial fate.
Has there ever been a more unsettling story kept from the citizens of this planet?
For J.O.R.