Hi everybody,
Could a physicist (or even a people who have degrees in physics) have a close and honest look on Ivan Gorelik's calculations and assumptions which are on one of his webpage (the precise title, to find it easily, is "Magnetic trap of devil. Calculation").
So, do Ivan Gorelik's theory on "magnetic holes" ("Magnetic trap of devil. Calculation) raises a serious issue (and so LHC switch on must be halted) or is it plain crack ?
I thank you by advance for your help
greetings from France
Absolute complete and utter wackjob. He seems to call himself 'Dr Dark Energy', which might be a bit like the creationist felon Kent Hovind calling himself 'Dr Dino', an attempt to convince people he's educated in the subject matter but isn't anything close to it.
His website is basically him saying "I know I'm right without explaination". He admits he's got zewro evidence for what he believes. Don't be suckered into worrying about the LHC by idiots like this, they are bitter and twisted because they tried to do physics when they were young and found it was too hard and now they want to convince everyone else that physics is wrong, thus allowing them to convince themselves they didn't need to learn the overly hard physics anyway. It's their defense mechanism.
His website is basically him saying "I know I'm right without explaination". He admits he's got zewro evidence for what he believes. Don't be suckered into worrying about the LHC by idiots like this, they are bitter and twisted because they tried to do physics when they were young and found it was too hard and now they want to convince everyone else that physics is wrong, thus allowing them to convince themselves they didn't need to learn the overly hard physics anyway. It's their defense mechanism.
But besides his weird and megalomaniac tendancy, what do you think of his calculations and assumptions (which are in the part "Magnetic trap of devil. Calculation" of one of hiw website) ?
Are they totally weird and crack or is there some real issues ?
Thank you again by advance for you reassuring !
Greeting
Are they totally weird and crack or is there some real issues ?
Thank you again by advance for you reassuring !
Greeting
Utterly wacko. He is simply making stuff up as he goes along. Absolutely nothing to it.
I personally dislike the whole 'It's called the God particle' thing, no physicist actually calls it that, its a media thing. Hence his entire "The antiparticle of the God particle is the Devil particle" is nonsense, people reading too much into utterly artificial names for things and mixing in their religious BS. I work in a physics department and none of us call it 'The God Particle', we call it the Higgs.
I personally dislike the whole 'It's called the God particle' thing, no physicist actually calls it that, its a media thing. Hence his entire "The antiparticle of the God particle is the Devil particle" is nonsense, people reading too much into utterly artificial names for things and mixing in their religious BS. I work in a physics department and none of us call it 'The God Particle', we call it the Higgs.
This guy has popped up here before. Basically, he's spent one year at a university and it's not clear he was even studying physics there. Then he became a physics teacher. As AN said, he's a complete loony with little or no physics knowledge. Being a school teacher doesn't mean you know anything about physics. Where I went to school physics was a joke - completely unnecessary if you wanted to do physics at uni.
His calculations are irrelevant as he bases his calculations on no self-consistent physical theory. He works from a hypothesis which has been experimentally disproven for decades -- longer than we knew about the constituents of the nucleus. And he himself should be able to prove that he's wrong since he assumes both QCD and not-QCD. In math talk that's similar to preaching frugality while being filmed at your birthday party lighting cigars with large denomination bills. It makes no sense and is self-evident that the speaker should be ignored -- at best.
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
So in a nutshell, after a careful and close look upon his calculations and assumptions, there is nothing that could "turn wrong" in an apocalyptic way ?
Thank you again for your thoughts and reassuring !
Greeting from France
Thank you again for your thoughts and reassuring !
Greeting from France
Oh, if you accept his assumptions, human beings can't live, chickens can't cross the street and water can't flow downhill ar STP -- it's that irrelevant to physics.
One wonders how the planet has survived this long ... being smacked by particles and photons created by stellar engines producing far higher energies than can be created by the puny LHC. 
[Moderator: What follows is the pathetic ravings of a small-minded person who wants your attention. He does this even though better lunatics have made better (but still pathetic) ravings and caused loss of human life. Specifically, his claimed physics equations are not usefully predictive of any phenomenon or fact-based. He has failed to master even electromagnetism, let alone particle physics. As prometheus says below, laboratory collisions of protons have happened at 1.98 TeV, and cosmic rays cause collisions of far greater than this all over the Earth.
Like small-minded people everywhere, he argues from analogy, not as a teaching aid, but because he has only mastered small aspects of understanding, in this case high school algebra. So the below is similar to American racists who claim that President Obama is both a Communist and a Fascist, because in their limited understanding both groups are foreign and evil. It makes no sense and it informs the listener far more of what's in the speaker's heart than as a statement of fact about the real world.]
Hi all!
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/prezid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
Like small-minded people everywhere, he argues from analogy, not as a teaching aid, but because he has only mastered small aspects of understanding, in this case high school algebra. So the below is similar to American racists who claim that President Obama is both a Communist and a Fascist, because in their limited understanding both groups are foreign and evil. It makes no sense and it informs the listener far more of what's in the speaker's heart than as a statement of fact about the real world.]
Hi all!
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/prezid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 07:07 AM)
Hi all!
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/presid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
Do not forget that perhaps something totally unexpected may possibly arise....Would not that be most exciting of all possibilities?..something to set science off in new directions, perhaps towards a different theory of everything from current forms. Something that really alters our perceptions, like Hubbles work or the discovery of DE and DM...
I also think it is unrealistic to imagine that there will not be some development of colliders beyond LHC.
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/presid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
Do not forget that perhaps something totally unexpected may possibly arise....Would not that be most exciting of all possibilities?..something to set science off in new directions, perhaps towards a different theory of everything from current forms. Something that really alters our perceptions, like Hubbles work or the discovery of DE and DM...
I also think it is unrealistic to imagine that there will not be some development of colliders beyond LHC.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 07:07 AM)
Hi all!
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/prezid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
Sorry again to annoy you, but could all the physcist of this forum look carefully and honestly at Ivan Gorelik's calculations (his last post that i've quoted) ?
Do they raise some real issues on LHC's safety ?
Thank you again for your help !
Dear physicists, details of my person do not deny the conclusions, made by me on the basis of logic and computation. Have you a single argument, proving that my conclusions are wrong?
What will happen if pB will be equal to mc^2, where p – magnetic moment of a proton; B – magnetic field, created by another flying by proton (or the field of already made magnetic hole) mc^2 – the rest energy of proton?
At what energy of collisions the equality pB=mc^2 is valid? My answer: 0.255 TeV.
Note 1:
Simplest definition of magnetic hole can be made on the following comparison:
Newtonian black hole: GMm/r = mc^2/2;
Magnetic hole: pB=mc^2/2.
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe: gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
Your answers: …
Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC.
This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!
- Why it was not been received yet?
Here are some possible explanations.
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions are waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer space?
Computations: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations: darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
Arguments proving that..: darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
Letters to presidents and authorities. darkenergy.narod.ru/prezid.html This page is in Russian. You can translate it with the help of Google. I wrote these letters because i fear the creation of magnetic holes.
The starter of this topic is “Very Affraid By Ivan Gorelik's Theory On Lhc”.
I also fear of my theory, I fear it drastically. I see that it is almost impossible to deny the launch of the LHC, or to prevent our common global suicide. According to my assumptions the probability of global catastrophe, switched by LHC, is about of dozens of percents.
Sorry again to annoy you, but could all the physcist of this forum look carefully and honestly at Ivan Gorelik's calculations (his last post that i've quoted) ?
Do they raise some real issues on LHC's safety ?
Thank you again for your help !
QUOTE (pablito1904+Sep 19 2009, 10:32 AM)
Sorry again to annoy you, but could all the physcist of this forum look carefully and honestly at Ivan Gorelik's calculations (his last post that i've quoted) ?
FYI, I'm a theoretical physics postgraduate student.
Essentially what this guy is doing is pulling equations out of his anal orifice and claiming they are relevant. For example his formula pB=mc^2. Apart from the fact that mc^2 is only relevant when particles are at rest, the magnetic field would have to be absolutely huge. In fact, nearly 4 x 10^7 T for the LHS to equal the RHS for the proton. For comparison, the largest magnet at the LHC produces just over 8 T.
He is also wrong in his assertions. He says "Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC. This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!" which is simply wrong whichever way you count the energy. The Tevatron can achieve 0.98 TeV in a single beam and 1.96 TeV collision energy.
He also seems to like to make up words to try and give what he's writing a technical sounding jargon. A collaptical[sic] explosion is a phrase I've never heard anyone use, and I've done a fair bit of work on astronomy and cosmology.
Basically Ivan Gorelik is a failure and crackpot at physics. You wouldn't be scared if I said that monsters living on Uranus were coming to destroy the planet would you? Basically, that is what Gorelik is doing - making stuff up.
Do they raise some real issues on LHC's safety ?
No they don't. You honestly do not need to worry about the LHC. There are far more pressing problems for the world that you could be worried about like global warming and arms proliferation.
Thank you again for your help !
My pleasure.
PS, I got my info on the Tevatron and LHC from wikipedia. Both pages are worth a read if you're interested.
FYI, I'm a theoretical physics postgraduate student.
Essentially what this guy is doing is pulling equations out of his anal orifice and claiming they are relevant. For example his formula pB=mc^2. Apart from the fact that mc^2 is only relevant when particles are at rest, the magnetic field would have to be absolutely huge. In fact, nearly 4 x 10^7 T for the LHS to equal the RHS for the proton. For comparison, the largest magnet at the LHC produces just over 8 T.
He is also wrong in his assertions. He says "Physicists, what will happen at pB=mc^2, or at 0.255 TeV–collisions of protons at LHC. This energy is smaller than can be achieved at Tevatron!" which is simply wrong whichever way you count the energy. The Tevatron can achieve 0.98 TeV in a single beam and 1.96 TeV collision energy.
He also seems to like to make up words to try and give what he's writing a technical sounding jargon. A collaptical[sic] explosion is a phrase I've never heard anyone use, and I've done a fair bit of work on astronomy and cosmology.
Basically Ivan Gorelik is a failure and crackpot at physics. You wouldn't be scared if I said that monsters living on Uranus were coming to destroy the planet would you? Basically, that is what Gorelik is doing - making stuff up.
QUOTE (pablito1904+Sep 19 2009, 10:32 AM)
Do they raise some real issues on LHC's safety ?
No they don't. You honestly do not need to worry about the LHC. There are far more pressing problems for the world that you could be worried about like global warming and arms proliferation.
QUOTE (pablito1904+Sep 19 2009, 10:32 AM)
Thank you again for your help !
My pleasure.
PS, I got my info on the Tevatron and LHC from wikipedia. Both pages are worth a read if you're interested.
Thanks. And, of course, we're all now eagerly waiting for Ivan's reply.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 19 2009, 11:47 AM)
I'm a theoretical physics postgraduate student...
Apart from the fact that mc^2 is only relevant when particles are at rest, the magnetic field would have to be absolutely huge.
Dear postgraduate student, yes, mc^2 is only relevant to the resting proton. And we measure the field B in the system of reference of resting proton.
This field is created:
by the moving proton;
by magnetic hole.
In both cases its value is about 10^16 teslas.
Apart from the fact that mc^2 is only relevant when particles are at rest, the magnetic field would have to be absolutely huge.
Dear postgraduate student, yes, mc^2 is only relevant to the resting proton. And we measure the field B in the system of reference of resting proton.
This field is created:
by the moving proton;
by magnetic hole.
In both cases its value is about 10^16 teslas.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 19 2009, 11:47 AM)
In fact, nearly 4 x 10^7 T for the LHS to equal the RHS for the proton. For comparison, the largest magnet at the LHC produces just over 8 T.
We neglect the field created by magnets of LHC.
We neglect the field created by magnets of LHC.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 19 2009, 11:47 AM)
The Tevatron can achieve 0.98 TeV in a single beam and 1.96 TeV collision energy.
Yes. And to create the computed minimal possible magnetic hole it is necessary the less energy: 0.25 TeV per particle, or 0.5 TeV per colliding pair.
Why it was not received yet, I have already said and will repeat here:
Here are some possible explanations:
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
Yes. And to create the computed minimal possible magnetic hole it is necessary the less energy: 0.25 TeV per particle, or 0.5 TeV per colliding pair.
Why it was not received yet, I have already said and will repeat here:
Here are some possible explanations:
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 19 2009, 11:47 AM)
He also seems to like to make up words to try and give what he's writing a technical sounding jargon. A collaptical[sic] explosion is a phrase I've never heard anyone use, and I've done a fair bit of work on astronomy and cosmology.
What is [sic]? Do you mean, I must wrote “collapsic” instead “collaptical”?
I used a new technical jargon (collaptical explosion) in order to underline that in the Nature there are three types of explosions. If you propose me another term, explaining the supernovae explosions, I'll probably will use that term. Supernovae explosions are not chemical and not the nuclear explosions. These explosions are the result of collapse and its energy output is much greater than we observe in the nuclear explosions.
Dear postgraduate student, yes, mc^2 is only relevant to the resting proton. And we measure the field B in the system of reference of resting proton.
This field is created:
by the moving proton;
by magnetic hole.
In both cases its value is about 10^16 teslas.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the magnetic field induced by a moving proton is 10^16T?! Of course, the magnetic field induced by a moving charge is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from it. For a proton whose charge is exceedingly small you would have to get very close indeed for the magnetic field to be that large. Why don't you tell us exactly how close?
We neglect the field created by magnets of LHC.
They are by far the biggest magnetic field in the vicinity of the LHC, otherwise the beam would do crazy things.
Yes. And to create the computed minimal possible magnetic hole it is necessary the less energy: 0.25 TeV per particle, or 0.5 TeV per colliding pair.
This is not something you've computed, it's something you've pulled from the ether. Show us the computation if you've done it.
Why it was not received yet, I have already said and will repeat here:
Here are some possible explanations:
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is gibberish.
What is [sic]? Do you mean, I must wrote “collapsic” instead “collaptical”?
sic means I've reproduced your quote exactly, usually a spelling mistake. In this case it's a made up word.
I used a new technical jargon (collaptical explosion) in order to underline that in the Nature there are three types of explosions. If you propose me another term, explaining the supernovae explosions, I'll probably will use that term. Supernovae explosions are not chemical and not the nuclear explosions. These explosions are the result of collapse and its energy output is much greater than we observe in the nuclear explosions.
In fact, supernovae are indeed nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions involve interactions of electrons. Nuclear ones involve the nuclei interacting.
You are very clever postgraduate student. Best wishes to you and to your friends.
I know exactly how clever I am thank you. It may surprise you to learn that, even though I've done pretty well in physics I am not even close to the cleverest postgrad in my department. On the other hand, you seem to think you are a great deal cleverer than you actually are.
What is [sic]? Do you mean, I must wrote “collapsic” instead “collaptical”?
I used a new technical jargon (collaptical explosion) in order to underline that in the Nature there are three types of explosions. If you propose me another term, explaining the supernovae explosions, I'll probably will use that term. Supernovae explosions are not chemical and not the nuclear explosions. These explosions are the result of collapse and its energy output is much greater than we observe in the nuclear explosions.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 19 2009, 11:47 AM)
Basically Ivan Gorelik is a failure and crackpot at physics.
You are very clever postgraduate student. Best wishes to you and to your friends.
You are very clever postgraduate student. Best wishes to you and to your friends.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
Dear postgraduate student, yes, mc^2 is only relevant to the resting proton. And we measure the field B in the system of reference of resting proton.
This field is created:
by the moving proton;
by magnetic hole.
In both cases its value is about 10^16 teslas.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the magnetic field induced by a moving proton is 10^16T?! Of course, the magnetic field induced by a moving charge is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from it. For a proton whose charge is exceedingly small you would have to get very close indeed for the magnetic field to be that large. Why don't you tell us exactly how close?
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
We neglect the field created by magnets of LHC.
They are by far the biggest magnetic field in the vicinity of the LHC, otherwise the beam would do crazy things.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
Yes. And to create the computed minimal possible magnetic hole it is necessary the less energy: 0.25 TeV per particle, or 0.5 TeV per colliding pair.
This is not something you've computed, it's something you've pulled from the ether. Show us the computation if you've done it.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
Why it was not received yet, I have already said and will repeat here:
Here are some possible explanations:
1. We do not know the magnetic moment of the resulting boson.
2. It is possible that magnetic hole could be born in a collision of two quarks, for example by d and d.
3. At the Tevatron they collide protons with antiprotons and this lead to the annihilation.
4. We do not know the magnetic polarization dependence.
5. It is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is gibberish.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
What is [sic]? Do you mean, I must wrote “collapsic” instead “collaptical”?
sic means I've reproduced your quote exactly, usually a spelling mistake. In this case it's a made up word.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
I used a new technical jargon (collaptical explosion) in order to underline that in the Nature there are three types of explosions. If you propose me another term, explaining the supernovae explosions, I'll probably will use that term. Supernovae explosions are not chemical and not the nuclear explosions. These explosions are the result of collapse and its energy output is much greater than we observe in the nuclear explosions.
In fact, supernovae are indeed nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions involve interactions of electrons. Nuclear ones involve the nuclei interacting.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 03:22 PM)
You are very clever postgraduate student. Best wishes to you and to your friends.
I know exactly how clever I am thank you. It may surprise you to learn that, even though I've done pretty well in physics I am not even close to the cleverest postgrad in my department. On the other hand, you seem to think you are a great deal cleverer than you actually are.
I have dealt with Ivan Gorelik and his ilk for quite a while now. In fact, people like him are the reason I came to these forums. Like Rpenner states, this (expletive deleted) doesn't care what harm he does with his fear mongering, he just wants to look important. Looking important is his entire life nowadays and it doesn't matter that his theories are obviously gibberish, he will continue anyway.
Note the traditional traits of the crackpot.
1. He refuses to publish his theories in any reputable peer reviewed paper.
2. He uses techno-jargon willy-nilly without understanding what it means.
3. He claims that all professionals are biased against him and that is why he is not famous as he should be.
From his site...
This ignores the fact that thousands of amateur scientists have made sizable contributions to science over the last 20 years.
Here's some fun bits from his website.... let the panel judge.. Crank or no crank.
This ignores the fact that thousands of amateur scientists have made sizable contributions to science over the last 20 years.
Here's some fun bits from his website.... let the panel judge.. Crank or no crank.
Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the LHC. Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We know that the most of particles have their corresponding antiparticles. So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a particle of Devil. Two colliding particles can give two more massive particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example, an electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil. Particles and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties. Indeed, the Higgs boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But the magnetic hole captures the substance and transforms its rest mass-energy into another form of matter, - the magnetic field of the Devil's trap. Say me now, are we have the right to touch the particle of God?
Curious about this one...
Annnd....
Annnd....
I know:
* The real cosmology, Steady State model without expansion, will win.
* The erroneous astrophysics will be ruined. Try my program Arc Effect (exe-file).
* The press-nuclear reactions will be carried out.
* Every family in future will have their own compact press-nuclear electric generator.
* These generators will be such widespread in future, as personal computers are widespread now.
* Your grandchildren will have the cars with press-nuclear engines, but not You. Because, the most of you don't believe me now.
Do not read my biography, but look the page darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html , where you will find the answer on your question.
Do not read my biography, but look the page darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html , where you will find the answer on your question.
prometheus wrote: They are by far the biggest magnetic field in the vicinity of the LHC, otherwise the beam would do crazy things.
Magnetic field of LHC itself can not lead to magnetically induced decay of proton.
Proton decays in the huge magnetic field, created by the flying by proton, or by already created magnetic hole (10^16 teslas).
In fact you do not know astronomy.
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
In fact you do not know astronomy.
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
RobDegraves wrote: …crackpot... Curious about this one...
Yes, that is the reaction written by me several years ago.
It can be the future of our nuclear energetic.
Try to write the similar reaction. And you will see that my reaction is unique. But it is an offtopic here.
Utterly silly.
Utterly silly.
If one ton of deuterium were to be consumed through the fusion reaction with tritium, the energy released would be 8.4 × 1020 joules
Encyclopedia Brittanica
Wiki
Wiki
Mass of the sun = 2 x 10^30 kilograms (kg) -- I Googled "mass of sun"
1 ton = 2000 lbs
1 kg = 2.2 pounds
So Mass of sun = (2 x 10^30)(2.2) / 2000
= 2 x 10^27 tons
Answer
So... what is the nuclear energy of 8.4 * 1020 multiplied by 2 * 10^27 tons?
Is it thousands of times less than 1.2 * 1044?
Again... you are just pulling numbers out of thin air and pretending to know what you are talking about.
You have my scorn... you deserve nothing more.
(Edited to add... I could be wrong in my summation since I did it pretty fast, Ivan doesn't deserve much attention, but I am absolutely sure that Ivan is far more incorrect than I)
Note the traditional traits of the crackpot.
1. He refuses to publish his theories in any reputable peer reviewed paper.
2. He uses techno-jargon willy-nilly without understanding what it means.
3. He claims that all professionals are biased against him and that is why he is not famous as he should be.
From his site...
QUOTE
Nevertheless, professional scientists will hardly take me seriously. Professionals as a rule just hate and laugh above the amateur scientists and independent researchers. Me, the schoolteacher of the lowest category cannot be allowed to publish an article in scientific journal.
This ignores the fact that thousands of amateur scientists have made sizable contributions to science over the last 20 years.
Here's some fun bits from his website.... let the panel judge.. Crank or no crank.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nevertheless, professional scientists will hardly take me seriously. Professionals as a rule just hate and laugh above the amateur scientists and independent researchers. Me, the schoolteacher of the lowest category cannot be allowed to publish an article in scientific journal. |
This ignores the fact that thousands of amateur scientists have made sizable contributions to science over the last 20 years.
Here's some fun bits from his website.... let the panel judge.. Crank or no crank.
Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the LHC. Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We know that the most of particles have their corresponding antiparticles. So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a particle of Devil. Two colliding particles can give two more massive particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example, an electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil. Particles and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties. Indeed, the Higgs boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But the magnetic hole captures the substance and transforms its rest mass-energy into another form of matter, - the magnetic field of the Devil's trap. Say me now, are we have the right to touch the particle of God?
Curious about this one...
QUOTE
Is it possible that the physics-teacher of the secondary school would solve the main problem of the century? Of course, not he is. That is why I do not want now to explain in details the reasons, which had forced me to write the following reactions. Let these reactions will be the prediction for the future physicists:
40K19 + 1H1 ---> 40Ca20 + n + 0,529 MeV;
39K19 + n ---> 40K19 + 7,8 MeV.
The 40K19 and 1H1 isotopes are nuclear fuel. The 40K19 isotope is the catalyst.
40K19 + 1H1 ---> 40Ca20 + n + 0,529 MeV;
39K19 + n ---> 40K19 + 7,8 MeV.
The 40K19 and 1H1 isotopes are nuclear fuel. The 40K19 isotope is the catalyst.
Annnd....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it possible that the physics-teacher of the secondary school would solve the main problem of the century? Of course, not he is. That is why I do not want now to explain in details the reasons, which had forced me to write the following reactions. Let these reactions will be the prediction for the future physicists: 40K19 + 1H1 ---> 40Ca20 + n + 0,529 MeV; 39K19 + n ---> 40K19 + 7,8 MeV. The 40K19 and 1H1 isotopes are nuclear fuel. The 40K19 isotope is the catalyst. |
Annnd....
I know:
* The real cosmology, Steady State model without expansion, will win.
* The erroneous astrophysics will be ruined. Try my program Arc Effect (exe-file).
* The press-nuclear reactions will be carried out.
* Every family in future will have their own compact press-nuclear electric generator.
* These generators will be such widespread in future, as personal computers are widespread now.
* Your grandchildren will have the cars with press-nuclear engines, but not You. Because, the most of you don't believe me now.
QUOTE
prometheus wrote: You're saying that the magnetic field induced by a moving proton is 10^16T?! Of course, the magnetic field induced by a moving charge is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from it. For a proton whose charge is exceedingly small you would have to get very close indeed for the magnetic field to be that large. Why don't you tell us exactly how close?
Do not read my biography, but look the page darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html , where you will find the answer on your question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| prometheus wrote: You're saying that the magnetic field induced by a moving proton is 10^16T?! Of course, the magnetic field induced by a moving charge is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from it. For a proton whose charge is exceedingly small you would have to get very close indeed for the magnetic field to be that large. Why don't you tell us exactly how close? |
Do not read my biography, but look the page darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html , where you will find the answer on your question.
prometheus wrote: They are by far the biggest magnetic field in the vicinity of the LHC, otherwise the beam would do crazy things.
Magnetic field of LHC itself can not lead to magnetically induced decay of proton.
Proton decays in the huge magnetic field, created by the flying by proton, or by already created magnetic hole (10^16 teslas).
QUOTE
prometheus wrote: In fact, supernovae are indeed nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions involve interactions of electrons. Nuclear ones involve the nuclei interacting.
In fact you do not know astronomy.
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| prometheus wrote: In fact, supernovae are indeed nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions involve interactions of electrons. Nuclear ones involve the nuclei interacting. |
In fact you do not know astronomy.
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
RobDegraves wrote: …crackpot... Curious about this one...
QUOTE
Me wrote:
40K19 + 1H1 ---> 40Ca20 + n + 0,529 MeV;
39K19 + n ---> 40K19 + 7,8 MeV.
The 40K19 and 1H1 isotopes are nuclear fuel. The 40K19 isotope is the catalyst.
40K19 + 1H1 ---> 40Ca20 + n + 0,529 MeV;
39K19 + n ---> 40K19 + 7,8 MeV.
The 40K19 and 1H1 isotopes are nuclear fuel. The 40K19 isotope is the catalyst.
Yes, that is the reaction written by me several years ago.
It can be the future of our nuclear energetic.
Try to write the similar reaction. And you will see that my reaction is unique. But it is an offtopic here.
QUOTE
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC.
Utterly silly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium. That is collaptical explosion. That explosion can by switched by LHC. |
Utterly silly.
If one ton of deuterium were to be consumed through the fusion reaction with tritium, the energy released would be 8.4 × 1020 joules
Encyclopedia Brittanica
QUOTE
1.2×1044 J, the estimated energy released in a supernova[22]
Wiki
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1.2×1044 J, the estimated energy released in a supernova[22] |
Wiki
Mass of the sun = 2 x 10^30 kilograms (kg) -- I Googled "mass of sun"
1 ton = 2000 lbs
1 kg = 2.2 pounds
So Mass of sun = (2 x 10^30)(2.2) / 2000
= 2 x 10^27 tons
Answer
So... what is the nuclear energy of 8.4 * 1020 multiplied by 2 * 10^27 tons?
Is it thousands of times less than 1.2 * 1044?
Again... you are just pulling numbers out of thin air and pretending to know what you are talking about.
You have my scorn... you deserve nothing more.
(Edited to add... I could be wrong in my summation since I did it pretty fast, Ivan doesn't deserve much attention, but I am absolutely sure that Ivan is far more incorrect than I)
Ivan,
You wrote that it's not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created (by the Tevatron), and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is clearly not the case since you wrote that the time needed for the magnetic hole to capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds (that is about 16 minutes).
Clearly much much longer time has passed already or do I miss something here?
You wrote that it's not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created (by the Tevatron), and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is clearly not the case since you wrote that the time needed for the magnetic hole to capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds (that is about 16 minutes).
Clearly much much longer time has passed already or do I miss something here?
Me wrote:
RobDegraves wrote:
RobDegraves wrote:
Utterly silly.
It is clear, if the star transforms into a neutron star, the emitted energy will be comparable to nuclear explosion of all its matter.
But if the star collapses into a black/magnetic hole the emitted energy must be comparable with the rest mass of collapsed matter.
My computation shows that at the time of magnetic collapse 2/3 of mater’s rest energy goes into the growth of magnetic hole and 1/3 goes into radiation and on the kinetic energy of star’s remnants.
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is connected with supernovae explosions. Most of GRBs are indeed correspond to transition of usual stars into neutron stars.
But some explosions are collaptical:
That quote was taken from wikipedia.
Part of the text from it was underlined by me.
I propose to rename the CERN into CERC. The last C is “collaptical”.
Or “collaptic”, “collapsic”. Correct me.
Nuclear researches corresponds to collisions with MeV energies.
Collaptical researches is 1 000 000 greater - TeV energies.
CERC now investigates the ways of collapse. That will probably lead the Earth to collaptical explosion.
If CERN would work in the nuclear region of energies we would already have the governed nuclear source of energy, for example, reaction proposed by me:
K40 + H ---> Ca40 + n + 0,529 MeV;
K39 + n ---> K40 + 7,8 MeV.
The K39 and H are nuclear fuel. The K40 is catalyst.
Every tenth kilogram under your foots is K39.
Free Thinker wrote:
That quote was taken from wikipedia.
Part of the text from it was underlined by me.
I propose to rename the CERN into CERC. The last C is “collaptical”.
Or “collaptic”, “collapsic”. Correct me.
Nuclear researches corresponds to collisions with MeV energies.
Collaptical researches is 1 000 000 greater - TeV energies.
CERC now investigates the ways of collapse. That will probably lead the Earth to collaptical explosion.
If CERN would work in the nuclear region of energies we would already have the governed nuclear source of energy, for example, reaction proposed by me:
K40 + H ---> Ca40 + n + 0,529 MeV;
K39 + n ---> K40 + 7,8 MeV.
The K39 and H are nuclear fuel. The K40 is catalyst.
Every tenth kilogram under your foots is K39.
Free Thinker wrote:
You wrote that it's not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created (by the Tevatron), and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is clearly not the case since you wrote that the time needed for the magnetic hole to capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds (that is about 16 minutes).
Yes, because of this contradiction the 5-th point has very small probability. But it is not excluded that at the time of magnetic collapse the plasma bubble around a microscopic magnetic hole is formed. That can delay the “needed time” from 1000 seconds to several days/months/years.
NRO book review 'Our Final Hour' (Sir Martin Rees):
Messing with the fundamentals of physics could have very dramatic consequences. At the time of the first nuclear explosions in 1945, some of the physicists involved wondered if they might ignite a chain reaction that would destroy Earth's atmosphere. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation seemed reassuring, so they went ahead with the Trinity test. It is now clear that there was no possibility of worldwide conflagration from Trinity; but issues of this sort are now coming up with accelerating frequency, and there is a chance that sooner or later we shall get one of them wrong. The whole point of a scientific experiment, after all, is to find out what will happen if.... There is no knowing in advance. If there were, the experiment would have no point. The kinds of experiments we shall soon be conducting might, according to perfectly respectable theories, have very dire results. One possibility is the swift reduction of our planet to a sphere of super-dense 'strange matter' about a hundred yards across. Another is the annihilation of space-time itself — though since the sphere of annihilation could expand only at the speed of light, it would take a few billion years to swallow up the whole universe.
Scientists present on this forum, please give us some reassuring answers.
Nostradamus 9 44:
"All should leave Geneva,
Saturn turns from gold to iron.
The contrary positive ray (RAYPOZ) will exterminate everything.
There will be signs in the sky before this."
Please note that Nostradamus did not mention Paris, Rome or London but Geneva...
Could it be possible that, given quantum non-locality of particles in both space and time, the consciousness of some people is able to (a least partially) connect with other space and time locations in the Universe?
Quantum non-locality is most definitely science. Also it is science observed but not understood. There is much that is not properly known or even discussed about the far reaching effects of quantum positioning.
In a connected quantum way a disaster may have echos through time.
On a 'positive' note, if Nostradamus's prediction is correct, and there's a disaster at CERN, it seems to be limited to Geneva.
From:
blogspot.com
reader Fausto Intilla (fisico teorico) said...
Summary:
The upcoming Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN could be dangerous. It could produce potentially dangerous particles such as mini black holes, strangelets, and monopoles.
A CERN study indicates no danger for earth, [Ref. 1] but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here.
This paper considers mainly micro black holes (MBHs) with low speeds. The fact that the speed of resultant MBHs would be low is unique to colliders. An important issue is the rate of accretion of matter subsequent to MBH creation.
This study explores processes that could cause accretion to be significant.
Other dangers of the LHC accelerator are also discussed.
I. Arguments for danger in LHC particle accelerator experiments
"In the 27-kilometer-long circular tunnel that held its predecessor, the LHC will be the most powerful particle accelerator in the world. It will smash fundamental particles into one another at energies like those of the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the Universe was about ten thousand trillion degrees Centigrade." [Ref. 5]
1. There is a high probability that micro black holes (MBHs) will be produced in the LHC. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] A reasonable estimation of the probability that theories with (4+d) dimensions are valid could be more than 60%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] The CERN study indicates in this case a copious production of MBHs at the LHC. [Ref. 1] One MBH could be produced every second. [Ref. 4 & Ref. 5]
2. The CERN study indicates that MBHs present no danger because they will evaporate with Hawking evaporation. [Ref. 1] However, Hawking evaporation has never been tested. In several surveys, physicists have estimated a non trivial probability that Hawking evaporation will not work. [Ref. 9] My estimate of its risk of Hawking evaporation failure is 20%,[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] or perhaps as much as 30%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
The following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation will fail.
3. The cosmic ray model is not valid for the LHC. It has been said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC, show that there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy particles at a zero speed target. This is similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's surface. In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed. This is different from the situation at the LHC, where particles with opposing speeds collide. With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) we need a speed of 0.9999995 c to create a micro black hole of 1 TeV and after the interaction the micro black hole center of mass will have a speed of 0.999 c. As MBHs are not very reactive with matter, calculations indicate that this is more than enough velocity to cross planets or stars without being caught and to escape into space.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap. And addressed already.]
4. Lower speed MBHs created in colliders could be captured by earth. Using Greg Landsberg's calculation [Ref. 3] of one black hole with velocity less than escape velocity from earth produced every 10^5 seconds at the LHC, we have 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs captured by earth in ten years. More precise calculations show that we could have a distribution of MBHs at every range of speed from 0 m/sec to 4 m/sec. The probability of very low speed MBHs is not zero. We need to evaluate if low speed MBHs present more risks. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
5. The speed of a MBH captured by earth will decrease and at the end MBHs will come to rest in the center of earth. The speed will decrease because of accretion and interaction with matter.
If we consider that:
a. The CERN study's calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius" for the accretion cross section.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap. It's now obvious author has never understood any of the reference materials.] [Ref. 1] In the case of low speeds, we must not use the Schwarzschild radius for the calculus of accretion. There are several reasons the capture radius extends beyond the Schwarzschild radius. For example, if the MBH speed were zero, gravitational attraction would be active at a distance greater than the Schwarzschild radius.
b. If a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a proton.
c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color.
d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus.
Our calculus indicates that a slow speed MBH can be expected to capture 8.400 (US notation 8,400) nucleons every hour, at the beginning of an exponential process.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
6. In the center of earth new processes could occur: As stated above, it has been estimated that in ten years 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs could be captured by earth. All MBHs will progressively lose speed because of numerous interactions. After a time (calculations have to be completed to estimate this time) all these MBHs will go toward the precise gravitational center of earth. (Kip Thorne [Ref. 7 p. 111]) After numerous interactions they will stop there at rest and then coalesce into a single MBH. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] To get an idea and for a first approach our calculus indicates that the mass of this MBH could be on the order of 0.02 g with a radius of 4 x 10^-17 m. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] At the center of earth, the pressure is 3.6 x 10^11 Pascals. [Ref. 8]. This pressure results from all the matter in Earth pushing on the electronic cloud of central atoms. The move of electrons is responsible of a pressure (called degenerescence pressure) that counterbalance the pressure of all the matter in Earth.
Around a black hole there is not an electronic cloud and there is no degenerescence pressure to counterbalance the pressure of all the Earth matter.To indicate the pressure we must use the surface If in an equation Pressure P = Force F / Surface S if we keep F= Constant and we reduce surface, we are obliged to notice that Pressure P will increase. Here F is the weight of all the matter of Earth and this do not change. As the surface of the MBH will be very small, calculus indicate on this surface an impressive increase of pressure in the range of : P = aprox 7 x 10 ^ 23 Pa .
The high pressure in this region push strongly all the matter in direction of the central point where the MBH is.
Electrons directly in contact with the Micro Black Hole will first be caught, then the nucleus will be caught.
It is sure that the atoms will be caught one after the other but the more the pressure will be important the more the caught will be quick. When a neutron star begins to collapse in a black hole (implosion), at the beginning the black hole is only a micro black hole as we see in [Ref. 7 Page 443]. At this very moment the high gravitational pressure in the center of the neutron star is there breaking the "strong force" which lays between the quarks located into the neutrons.
The MBH will grow there only because of the high pressure.
In center of Earth pressure is normally far to small for such a process, but if we create a slow speed MBH that does not evaporate and if this MBH comes at rest in the center of Earth, the pressure in the center of Earth could be sufficient for the growing of the MBH. We must remember that in the surrounding of the MBH the "strong force" is broken and this could mean that the same kind of pressure process than in neutron star could work there ( in a slow mode compared with a neutron star of course ). In the center of Earth, the high pressure, the high temperature, the increasing mass associated with electrical and gauge forces process could mean important increase of capture and a possible beginning of an exponential dangerous accretion process. Our calculus indicates as a first approximation with a MBH of 0.02 g at rest at the center of earth that the value for accretion of matter could be in the range of 1 g/sec to 5 g/sec.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
7. Conclusion about MBHs : We estimate that for LHC the risk in the range of 7% to 10%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
II. Other Risk Factors
The CERN study indicates that strangelets and monopoles could be produced and present no danger for earth. [Ref. 1]
We will present arguments of possible danger.
1. Strangelets
Strangelets are only dangerous for earth if they are not moving rapidly through matter. If only one strangelet is at zero speed there would be danger. We have seen for MBHs that the cosmic ray model is very different from the LHC where particles with opposing speeds collide. We have seen that, given the impact of opposite speed particles, the distribution of speeds of resultant particles indicates the probability of very low speeds (0 m/sec < speed < 4 m/sec) and this could mean dangerous strangelets. We estimate a minimal risk for strangelets on the order of 2%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] We might estimate as high as 10 % if we want to be wise because the danger is primary![Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
2. Monopoles
Monopoles could be produced in the LHC. [Ref. 1] .CERN's calculations indicate that one monopole produced in LHC could destroy 1.018 (US notation 1,018) nucleons but it will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space. However, we know that photons produced in the center of the sun need thousands of years to traverse the sun and escape into space because of the numerous interactions. If the speed given to the monopole after interaction is a speed in a random direction, we can imagine that the monopoles produced in the LHC could stay a very long time in earth and be dangerous. 3. Estimate of danger due to our ignorance of ultimate physical laws: We have not exhausted processes that might cause danger. There are other particles, black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories. We estimate this danger ranging from a minimal 2% risk to 5%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
III. CONCLUSION
The CERN study [Ref. 1] is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) [Ref. 6] adapted to the LHC.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
It is important to notice that: The study for the RHIC had concluded that no black holes will be created. For the LHC the conclusion is very different: "Black holes could be created!" !
The main danger could be now just behind our door with the possible death in blood of 6.500.000.000 (US notation 6,500,000,000) people and complete destruction of our beautiful planet. Such a danger shows the need of a far larger study before any experiment ! The CERN study presents risk as a choice between a 100% risk or a 0% risk. This is not a good evaluation of a risk percentage! [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
If we add all the risks for the LHC we could estimate an overall risk between 11% and 25%!.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
We are far from the Adrian Kent's admonition that global risks that should not exceed 0.000001% a year to have a chance to be acceptable. [Ref. 3] .Even testing the LHC could be dangerous. Even an increase in the luminosity of the RHIC could be dangerous! It would be wise to consider that the more powerful the accelerator will be, the more unpredicted and dangerous the events that may occur! We cannot build accelerators always more powerful with interactions different from natural interactions, without risk. This is not a scientific problem. This is a wisdom problem! [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
Our desire of knowledge is important but our desire of wisdom is more important and must take precedence. The precautionary principle indicates not to experiment. The politicians must understand this evidence and stop these experiments before it is too late!
Fausto Intilla -
oloscience.com
References:
1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001. February 28, 2003.
2.. E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett, March 2003,
Request a copy. Risk Evaluation Forum, BOX 2371, Albany, NY 12220 0371 USA.)
3.. A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes, Adrian Kent, CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105. Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204. Available at: arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204. ...
4.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics, Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010.
5.. CERN to spew black holes, Nature October 2, 2001.
6.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28, 1999 W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek.
7.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps, Kip S. Thorne, Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X. Original title: Black holes and times warps. 1994 Norton. New York.
8.. Centre de la Terre, Science & Vie N 1042. Gallate 2004.
9.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.
Scientists present here, please give us a reassuring answer regarding these arguments.
QUOTE
Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium.
That is collaptical explosion.
That is collaptical explosion.
RobDegraves wrote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Emitted energy in collapses excides by thousands times the energy, emitted in nuclear explosion, even if the star would be made completely from deuterium and this all deuterium completely transformed into helium. That is collaptical explosion. |
RobDegraves wrote:
Utterly silly.
It is clear, if the star transforms into a neutron star, the emitted energy will be comparable to nuclear explosion of all its matter.
But if the star collapses into a black/magnetic hole the emitted energy must be comparable with the rest mass of collapsed matter.
My computation shows that at the time of magnetic collapse 2/3 of mater’s rest energy goes into the growth of magnetic hole and 1/3 goes into radiation and on the kinetic energy of star’s remnants.
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is connected with supernovae explosions. Most of GRBs are indeed correspond to transition of usual stars into neutron stars.
But some explosions are collaptical:
QUOTE
Assuming the gamma-ray explosion to be spherical, the energy output of GRB 080319B would be within a factor of two of the rest-mass energy of the Sun (the energy which would be released were the Sun to be converted entirely into radiation.)
That quote was taken from wikipedia.
Part of the text from it was underlined by me.
I propose to rename the CERN into CERC. The last C is “collaptical”.
Or “collaptic”, “collapsic”. Correct me.
Nuclear researches corresponds to collisions with MeV energies.
Collaptical researches is 1 000 000 greater - TeV energies.
CERC now investigates the ways of collapse. That will probably lead the Earth to collaptical explosion.
If CERN would work in the nuclear region of energies we would already have the governed nuclear source of energy, for example, reaction proposed by me:
K40 + H ---> Ca40 + n + 0,529 MeV;
K39 + n ---> K40 + 7,8 MeV.
The K39 and H are nuclear fuel. The K40 is catalyst.
Every tenth kilogram under your foots is K39.
Free Thinker wrote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assuming the gamma-ray explosion to be spherical, the energy output of GRB 080319B would be within a factor of two of the rest-mass energy of the Sun (the energy which would be released were the Sun to be converted entirely into radiation.) |
That quote was taken from wikipedia.
Part of the text from it was underlined by me.
I propose to rename the CERN into CERC. The last C is “collaptical”.
Or “collaptic”, “collapsic”. Correct me.
Nuclear researches corresponds to collisions with MeV energies.
Collaptical researches is 1 000 000 greater - TeV energies.
CERC now investigates the ways of collapse. That will probably lead the Earth to collaptical explosion.
If CERN would work in the nuclear region of energies we would already have the governed nuclear source of energy, for example, reaction proposed by me:
K40 + H ---> Ca40 + n + 0,529 MeV;
K39 + n ---> K40 + 7,8 MeV.
The K39 and H are nuclear fuel. The K40 is catalyst.
Every tenth kilogram under your foots is K39.
Free Thinker wrote:
You wrote that it's not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created (by the Tevatron), and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
This is clearly not the case since you wrote that the time needed for the magnetic hole to capture the whole Earth is about 1000 seconds (that is about 16 minutes).
Yes, because of this contradiction the 5-th point has very small probability. But it is not excluded that at the time of magnetic collapse the plasma bubble around a microscopic magnetic hole is formed. That can delay the “needed time” from 1000 seconds to several days/months/years.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 20 2009, 03:53 AM)
Every tenth kilogram under your foots is K39.
Hopelessly incorrect - K's abundance on earth is around 1.5% by weight ..... 1 hundreth of a kg would be a tad closer, idiot!
Hopelessly incorrect - K's abundance on earth is around 1.5% by weight ..... 1 hundreth of a kg would be a tad closer, idiot!
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 20 2009, 03:53 AM)
K40 + H ---> Ca40 + n + 0,529 MeV;
Hopelessly incorrect,
K + H = Potassium hydride, brainfucked simpleton.
Hopelessly incorrect,
K + H = Potassium hydride, brainfucked simpleton.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Sep 20 2009, 05:30 AM)
Hopelessly incorrect,
K + H = Potassium hydride, brainfucked simpleton.
He's talking about nuclear reactions, not chemical ones.
K + H = Potassium hydride, brainfucked simpleton.
He's talking about nuclear reactions, not chemical ones.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 20 2009, 08:26 AM)
He's talking about nuclear reactions, not chemical ones.
Ohhhhhhhh - reeealleee
Then the dimwit should've stated H+ (proton).
Ohhhhhhhh - reeealleee
Then the dimwit should've stated H+ (proton).
And besides mbh and "magnetic hole of devil" issues isn't there some significant risks of catastrophical production of strangelets, "magnetic monopoles" or explosion of vaacumm's bubble" ?
Are we 100% sure that nothing apocalyptical could arise from LHC's ignition ?
Sorry again to annoy you but i'm still worrying upon LHC
greetings from France
Are we 100% sure that nothing apocalyptical could arise from LHC's ignition ?
Sorry again to annoy you but i'm still worrying upon LHC
greetings from France
QUOTE (pablito1904+Sep 20 2009, 08:03 PM)
Are we 100% sure that nothing apocalyptical could arise from LHC's ignition ?
Moderator: We are fully certain that nothing weird happens at the LHC energies that could harm the Earth or its human population. Strangelets are not possible at the LHC, since if they were possible at the LHC, they would be more possible at other places where we don't see them, so the LHC presents no additional risk. All other effects are not possible, decay within the beam pipe, or occur in pairs and solve themselves. Furthermore, all the scare stories are non-fact based -- they presume the physical world is a fairy land with unmarked thresholds which must not be crossed, apples that must not be tasted, beyond which only unimaginable horrors await. If this is the way the universe works, then the LHC is no more risky than brushing your teeth and physics is useless to predict anything -- it's hundreds of years and trillions of successes are merely happenstance. So whereas the measure of likelihood of all disaster scenarios is either exactly zero or completely unmeasurable, then the safety of the LHC must be 100%
Moderator: We are fully certain that nothing weird happens at the LHC energies that could harm the Earth or its human population. Strangelets are not possible at the LHC, since if they were possible at the LHC, they would be more possible at other places where we don't see them, so the LHC presents no additional risk. All other effects are not possible, decay within the beam pipe, or occur in pairs and solve themselves. Furthermore, all the scare stories are non-fact based -- they presume the physical world is a fairy land with unmarked thresholds which must not be crossed, apples that must not be tasted, beyond which only unimaginable horrors await. If this is the way the universe works, then the LHC is no more risky than brushing your teeth and physics is useless to predict anything -- it's hundreds of years and trillions of successes are merely happenstance. So whereas the measure of likelihood of all disaster scenarios is either exactly zero or completely unmeasurable, then the safety of the LHC must be 100%
If Rpenner doesn't mind, I would like to add a few words.
This is a subject I am very familiar with, despite not being a physicist myself. It is in fact the reason I am on any forum whatsoever.
pablito1904
I completely understand how you feel. I felt the same way for quite a while until I managed to learn enough about the subject to understand why this whole thing is a fear mongering piece of ... well.. crap. I have had numerous conversations with several physicists on the matter, who were kind enough to go in depth with me on the subject... as well as conversations with Walter L Wagner, Prof Rossler and even Luis Sancho chimed in from the lunatic fringe.
Here is my conclusion.
The LHC may or may not produce new physics, but it won't destroy the world. It just can't.
Let's look real quick at your questions.
1. Magnetic hole of the devil
Ivan Gorelik is simply a crank... nothing more. He has been beating the bushes with his theories for years... many years.. and no one has ever seen a shred of evidence that anything he says has any value whatsoever. Well other than himself of course.
2. Micro black holes.
Micro black holes can only be produced at the LHC if .. and only if... a specific interpretation of string theory is 100% correct. According to Relativity, it would take an LHC the size of the solar system to stand a chance of creating a black hole. Now.. if that theory is correct, then it follows that Hawking's theory on micro black holes is most likely correct and the micro black hole would evaporate instantly. You could say.. "what if the first is correct and the other one isn't?" ... however they are based on the same principles.
In addition...
Keep in mind that cosmic rays.. which are protons accelerated to much greater energies than the LHC could ever produce... hit our planet and everything in our galaxy and others constantly. Right now, cosmic rays are going through your head.
If the LHC can produce black holes, so can cosmic rays. No one can deny that.
A micro black hole can either be charged, or not charged... obviously. If micro black holes can be created and are charged, cosmic rays would have produced one before now and either the Earth or the Sun would have stopped it... since the attraction of charged particles is much greater than gravity. So... we would be in a black hole already. If a micro black hole is created uncharged, it would take it millions.. if not billions of years to accumulate enough matter to be dangerous. Again.. assuming that they can be created at all. Also, our galaxy and the Universe at large contains stellar bodies that make the Earth.. and even our own Sun, look like pinpricks in the night. If cosmic rays could create dangerous black holes, these stellar bodies would not.. could not.. exist.
3. Strangelets.
People at other colliders, like the RHIC, have been looking for strangelets in vain for years. If fact, no one knows if strangelets can be created at all, even on purpose. However, whether or not you could create one, you would be much more likely to create one at the RHIC than at the LHC. In order to create a strangelet, you need to smash some particles into quarks, then let those quarks cool down and reorganize into matter in the few microseconds that they are close enough to each other to do so. The problem is that the heat of the collision would evaporate any matter, even strange matter. You would need to smash the particles, then instantly cool the chamber and maybe pressurize it. I am not sure any machine can do that at this stage. Right now, the more powerful the collider, the less likely you are to create a strangelet. The RHIC has been operating for years without strangelets.. so have many other colliders.
4. Magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles
Again, if those could be created by the LHC, we would have been long dead. Cosmic rays do the same thing as the LHC and magnetic monopoles would have instantly accreted to matter and destroyed us. The more so with vacuum bubbles... if they could be formed this easy, the entire Universe would be gone by now.
5. Something unknown.
Well.. there you have it. Anything you do could create something unknown. When man first experimented with fire... something unknown could have happened. However, in this case it would have to be something really really weird that somehow the cosmic rays that bath our planet have never done ... despite being the same process being used at the LHC.
OK... I hope that answers your questions a bit more fully. I hope all my info is correct. If anyone has any corrections, please feel free. That offer is obviously not extended those who have no actual knowledge in the field.
Rpenner... if I erred anywhere, please point it out.
This is a subject I am very familiar with, despite not being a physicist myself. It is in fact the reason I am on any forum whatsoever.
pablito1904
I completely understand how you feel. I felt the same way for quite a while until I managed to learn enough about the subject to understand why this whole thing is a fear mongering piece of ... well.. crap. I have had numerous conversations with several physicists on the matter, who were kind enough to go in depth with me on the subject... as well as conversations with Walter L Wagner, Prof Rossler and even Luis Sancho chimed in from the lunatic fringe.
Here is my conclusion.
The LHC may or may not produce new physics, but it won't destroy the world. It just can't.
Let's look real quick at your questions.
1. Magnetic hole of the devil
Ivan Gorelik is simply a crank... nothing more. He has been beating the bushes with his theories for years... many years.. and no one has ever seen a shred of evidence that anything he says has any value whatsoever. Well other than himself of course.
2. Micro black holes.
Micro black holes can only be produced at the LHC if .. and only if... a specific interpretation of string theory is 100% correct. According to Relativity, it would take an LHC the size of the solar system to stand a chance of creating a black hole. Now.. if that theory is correct, then it follows that Hawking's theory on micro black holes is most likely correct and the micro black hole would evaporate instantly. You could say.. "what if the first is correct and the other one isn't?" ... however they are based on the same principles.
In addition...
Keep in mind that cosmic rays.. which are protons accelerated to much greater energies than the LHC could ever produce... hit our planet and everything in our galaxy and others constantly. Right now, cosmic rays are going through your head.
If the LHC can produce black holes, so can cosmic rays. No one can deny that.
A micro black hole can either be charged, or not charged... obviously. If micro black holes can be created and are charged, cosmic rays would have produced one before now and either the Earth or the Sun would have stopped it... since the attraction of charged particles is much greater than gravity. So... we would be in a black hole already. If a micro black hole is created uncharged, it would take it millions.. if not billions of years to accumulate enough matter to be dangerous. Again.. assuming that they can be created at all. Also, our galaxy and the Universe at large contains stellar bodies that make the Earth.. and even our own Sun, look like pinpricks in the night. If cosmic rays could create dangerous black holes, these stellar bodies would not.. could not.. exist.
3. Strangelets.
People at other colliders, like the RHIC, have been looking for strangelets in vain for years. If fact, no one knows if strangelets can be created at all, even on purpose. However, whether or not you could create one, you would be much more likely to create one at the RHIC than at the LHC. In order to create a strangelet, you need to smash some particles into quarks, then let those quarks cool down and reorganize into matter in the few microseconds that they are close enough to each other to do so. The problem is that the heat of the collision would evaporate any matter, even strange matter. You would need to smash the particles, then instantly cool the chamber and maybe pressurize it. I am not sure any machine can do that at this stage. Right now, the more powerful the collider, the less likely you are to create a strangelet. The RHIC has been operating for years without strangelets.. so have many other colliders.
4. Magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles
Again, if those could be created by the LHC, we would have been long dead. Cosmic rays do the same thing as the LHC and magnetic monopoles would have instantly accreted to matter and destroyed us. The more so with vacuum bubbles... if they could be formed this easy, the entire Universe would be gone by now.
5. Something unknown.
Well.. there you have it. Anything you do could create something unknown. When man first experimented with fire... something unknown could have happened. However, in this case it would have to be something really really weird that somehow the cosmic rays that bath our planet have never done ... despite being the same process being used at the LHC.
OK... I hope that answers your questions a bit more fully. I hope all my info is correct. If anyone has any corrections, please feel free. That offer is obviously not extended those who have no actual knowledge in the field.
Rpenner... if I erred anywhere, please point it out.
Looks good for me. So the minimum standard for a LHC Disaster Scenario is:
“Explain how the LHC could cause a disaster and that all of physics is so well known and described by General Relativity + the Standard Model (of particle physics).”
But none of the examples given meet that requirement.
A hypothetical new particle or other type of high-energy phenomenon would be just as likely to be the result of cosmic ray collision, so it seems wholely unreasonable that it could be immediately civilization-ending dangerous.
A hypothetical accreting object, like hypothetically stable mbh or stranglets, would have to have narrowly defined properties to be a threat to civilization and not be detected by the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc. It cannot accrete too fast or it would have eaten the moon already, and it cannot accrete too slowly or it can never threaten mankind. When we take what we know of very old white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars, the lower bounds grow and the upper bounds cross and no dangerous possibilities remain. Such objects have been squeezed out of possibility by examining what is.
And when it comes to Ivan Gorelik, he is not even playing in the same field.
“Explain how the LHC could cause a disaster and that all of physics is so well known and described by General Relativity + the Standard Model (of particle physics).”
But none of the examples given meet that requirement.
A hypothetical new particle or other type of high-energy phenomenon would be just as likely to be the result of cosmic ray collision, so it seems wholely unreasonable that it could be immediately civilization-ending dangerous.
A hypothetical accreting object, like hypothetically stable mbh or stranglets, would have to have narrowly defined properties to be a threat to civilization and not be detected by the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc. It cannot accrete too fast or it would have eaten the moon already, and it cannot accrete too slowly or it can never threaten mankind. When we take what we know of very old white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars, the lower bounds grow and the upper bounds cross and no dangerous possibilities remain. Such objects have been squeezed out of possibility by examining what is.
And when it comes to Ivan Gorelik, he is not even playing in the same field.
QUOTE (pablito1904+Sep 20 2009, 08:03 PM)
And besides mbh and "magnetic hole of devil" issues isn't there some significant risks of catastrophical production of strangelets, "magnetic monopoles" or explosion of vaacumm's bubble" ?
Are we 100% sure that nothing apocalyptical could arise from LHC's ignition ?
Sorry again to annoy you but i'm still worrying upon LHC
greetings from France
My understanding is the energy level of the collisions is not beyond what happens occasionally in nature from space particles.
Are we 100% sure that nothing apocalyptical could arise from LHC's ignition ?
Sorry again to annoy you but i'm still worrying upon LHC
greetings from France
My understanding is the energy level of the collisions is not beyond what happens occasionally in nature from space particles.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 20 2009, 11:03 PM)
My understanding is the energy level of the collisions is not beyond what happens occasionally in nature from space particles.
In fact, cosmic ray energies can be substantially higher than the LHC will be able to produce.
In fact, cosmic ray energies can be substantially higher than the LHC will be able to produce.
Dear physicists, you repeat the biggest error of Steven Hawking.
Here is an excerpt from the article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. p+n -> d; d+n -> t; t -> He3+e; He3+n -> He4; He4+n -> He5; He5+n -> He6; He6 -> Li6+e; Li6+n -> Li7; Li7+n -> Li8; Li8 -> Be8+e; Be8+n -> Be9; Be9+n -> Be10..
B. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Here is an excerpt from the article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html
QUOTE
"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."
Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. p+n -> d; d+n -> t; t -> He3+e; He3+n -> He4; He4+n -> He5; He5+n -> He6; He6 -> Li6+e; Li6+n -> Li7; Li7+n -> Li8; Li8 -> Be8+e; Be8+n -> Be9; Be9+n -> Be10..
B. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 21 2009, 06:38 AM)
In fact, cosmic ray energies can be substantially higher than the LHC will be able to produce.
As i stated previously, forget the LHC, look beyond at the next generation of colliders. This isn't the 'be all end all'.
As i stated previously, forget the LHC, look beyond at the next generation of colliders. This isn't the 'be all end all'.
QUOTE
Sir Martin Rees on page 123 of his book 'Our Final Hour':
Most of the 'natural' cosmic collisions happen in interstellar space, in an environment so rarefied that even if they produced a strangelet, it would be unlikely to encounter a third nucleus, so there would be no chance of a runaway process. Collisions with Earth also differ in an essential way from those in accelerators, because incoming nuclei are stopped in the atmosphere, which does not contain heavy atoms like lead and gold. Some fast-moving nuclei, however impact directly on the Moon's solid surface, which does contain such atoms. Such impacts have occurred over it's entire history. The Moon is nonetheless still there, and the authors of the Brookhaven report proffered this indisputable fact as reassurance that the proposed experiment couldn't wipe us out. But even these impacts differ in one possibly important way from those that would occur in the Brookhaven (and CERN) accelerator. When a fast particle crashes onto the Moon's surface, it hits a nucleus that is almost at rest, and gives it a 'kick' or recoil. The resultant strangelets, produced as debris in the collision, would share this recoil motion, and therefore be sent hurtling through the lunar material. In contrast, the accelerator experiments involve symmetrical collisions, where two particles approach each other 'head on'. There is then no recoil: the strangelets have no net motion and therefore might stand more chance of grabbing ambient material.
Most of the 'natural' cosmic collisions happen in interstellar space, in an environment so rarefied that even if they produced a strangelet, it would be unlikely to encounter a third nucleus, so there would be no chance of a runaway process. Collisions with Earth also differ in an essential way from those in accelerators, because incoming nuclei are stopped in the atmosphere, which does not contain heavy atoms like lead and gold. Some fast-moving nuclei, however impact directly on the Moon's solid surface, which does contain such atoms. Such impacts have occurred over it's entire history. The Moon is nonetheless still there, and the authors of the Brookhaven report proffered this indisputable fact as reassurance that the proposed experiment couldn't wipe us out. But even these impacts differ in one possibly important way from those that would occur in the Brookhaven (and CERN) accelerator. When a fast particle crashes onto the Moon's surface, it hits a nucleus that is almost at rest, and gives it a 'kick' or recoil. The resultant strangelets, produced as debris in the collision, would share this recoil motion, and therefore be sent hurtling through the lunar material. In contrast, the accelerator experiments involve symmetrical collisions, where two particles approach each other 'head on'. There is then no recoil: the strangelets have no net motion and therefore might stand more chance of grabbing ambient material.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sir Martin Rees on page 123 of his book 'Our Final Hour': Most of the 'natural' cosmic collisions happen in interstellar space, in an environment so rarefied that even if they produced a strangelet, it would be unlikely to encounter a third nucleus, so there would be no chance of a runaway process. Collisions with Earth also differ in an essential way from those in accelerators, because incoming nuclei are stopped in the atmosphere, which does not contain heavy atoms like lead and gold. Some fast-moving nuclei, however impact directly on the Moon's solid surface, which does contain such atoms. Such impacts have occurred over it's entire history. The Moon is nonetheless still there, and the authors of the Brookhaven report proffered this indisputable fact as reassurance that the proposed experiment couldn't wipe us out. But even these impacts differ in one possibly important way from those that would occur in the Brookhaven (and CERN) accelerator. When a fast particle crashes onto the Moon's surface, it hits a nucleus that is almost at rest, and gives it a 'kick' or recoil. The resultant strangelets, produced as debris in the collision, would share this recoil motion, and therefore be sent hurtling through the lunar material. In contrast, the accelerator experiments involve symmetrical collisions, where two particles approach each other 'head on'. There is then no recoil: the strangelets have no net motion and therefore might stand more chance of grabbing ambient material. |
NRO book review 'Our Final Hour' (Sir Martin Rees):
Messing with the fundamentals of physics could have very dramatic consequences. At the time of the first nuclear explosions in 1945, some of the physicists involved wondered if they might ignite a chain reaction that would destroy Earth's atmosphere. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation seemed reassuring, so they went ahead with the Trinity test. It is now clear that there was no possibility of worldwide conflagration from Trinity; but issues of this sort are now coming up with accelerating frequency, and there is a chance that sooner or later we shall get one of them wrong. The whole point of a scientific experiment, after all, is to find out what will happen if.... There is no knowing in advance. If there were, the experiment would have no point. The kinds of experiments we shall soon be conducting might, according to perfectly respectable theories, have very dire results. One possibility is the swift reduction of our planet to a sphere of super-dense 'strange matter' about a hundred yards across. Another is the annihilation of space-time itself — though since the sphere of annihilation could expand only at the speed of light, it would take a few billion years to swallow up the whole universe.
QUOTE
Warren Platts:
It is said that the chance of it destroying the earth through the creation of a particle called a strangelet is only about 1 in 50 million and the chance of it creating a black hole which does not evaporate is much less than this. However, these are not the probabilities we are looking for. The problem is that the calculations don't consider that the physical theories they are using could themselves be incorrect. For example, a hundred and twenty years ago, the scientific consensus held that Newtonian mechanics was the ultimate physical theory. If they had to calculate the chance that an experiment could lead to the curving of space and time, they would have said there was no chance at all. They would have been at least as certain of this as the directors of the LHC are, and they would have gotten it wrong. We could be in just such a situation and with the highest possible stakes at risk. There is, however, one large dissimilarity between now and then. In the late 19th Century, there was a huge amount of evidence in favour of Newtonian mechanics and only a few nagging lose ends that hadn't been explained. Now, however, we are genuinely uncertain about our physical theories. Moreover, we know that our current theories are false because they don't correctly merge Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Considering the stakes, it is thus highly irresponsible for the LHC's management to give so much emphasis to these misleading probability calculations, when the real chance is clearly higher.
It is said that the chance of it destroying the earth through the creation of a particle called a strangelet is only about 1 in 50 million and the chance of it creating a black hole which does not evaporate is much less than this. However, these are not the probabilities we are looking for. The problem is that the calculations don't consider that the physical theories they are using could themselves be incorrect. For example, a hundred and twenty years ago, the scientific consensus held that Newtonian mechanics was the ultimate physical theory. If they had to calculate the chance that an experiment could lead to the curving of space and time, they would have said there was no chance at all. They would have been at least as certain of this as the directors of the LHC are, and they would have gotten it wrong. We could be in just such a situation and with the highest possible stakes at risk. There is, however, one large dissimilarity between now and then. In the late 19th Century, there was a huge amount of evidence in favour of Newtonian mechanics and only a few nagging lose ends that hadn't been explained. Now, however, we are genuinely uncertain about our physical theories. Moreover, we know that our current theories are false because they don't correctly merge Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Considering the stakes, it is thus highly irresponsible for the LHC's management to give so much emphasis to these misleading probability calculations, when the real chance is clearly higher.
Scientists present on this forum, please give us some reassuring answers.
There is no theoretical or experimental support for what Ivan Gorelik is saying whatsoever.
You can disregard the comments from Warren Platts and the book reviewer because they don't know what they're talking about. As for Marin Rees' comments, the quote you give is a lot more measured than the review of his book. Without reading the rest of the book it's hard to put the quote in context but I know that the safety committee at the LHC have done extensive research into the possibility of the production of strangelets. The conclusion was that they have never been observed in nature or in a man made collider and even if they are made in the LHC they will decay very quickly indeed, posing no danger to the Earth.
You can disregard the comments from Warren Platts and the book reviewer because they don't know what they're talking about. As for Marin Rees' comments, the quote you give is a lot more measured than the review of his book. Without reading the rest of the book it's hard to put the quote in context but I know that the safety committee at the LHC have done extensive research into the possibility of the production of strangelets. The conclusion was that they have never been observed in nature or in a man made collider and even if they are made in the LHC they will decay very quickly indeed, posing no danger to the Earth.
QUOTE
Nostradamus 9 44:
"All should leave Geneva,
Saturn turns from gold to iron.
The contrary positive ray (RAYPOZ) will exterminate everything.
There will be signs in the sky before this."
Please note that Nostradamus did not mention Paris, Rome or London but Geneva...
Could it be possible that, given quantum non-locality of particles in both space and time, the consciousness of some people is able to (a least partially) connect with other space and time locations in the Universe?
Quantum non-locality is most definitely science. Also it is science observed but not understood. There is much that is not properly known or even discussed about the far reaching effects of quantum positioning.
In a connected quantum way a disaster may have echos through time.
On a 'positive' note, if Nostradamus's prediction is correct, and there's a disaster at CERN, it seems to be limited to Geneva.
Nostradamus? Come on. This is a science forum.
You're right of course. This is a science forum but nevertheless I find this a very strange 'prediction'. I really don't know what to make of it.
QUOTE
From:
blogspot.com
reader Fausto Intilla (fisico teorico) said...
Summary:
The upcoming Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN could be dangerous. It could produce potentially dangerous particles such as mini black holes, strangelets, and monopoles.
A CERN study indicates no danger for earth, [Ref. 1] but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here.
This paper considers mainly micro black holes (MBHs) with low speeds. The fact that the speed of resultant MBHs would be low is unique to colliders. An important issue is the rate of accretion of matter subsequent to MBH creation.
This study explores processes that could cause accretion to be significant.
Other dangers of the LHC accelerator are also discussed.
I. Arguments for danger in LHC particle accelerator experiments
"In the 27-kilometer-long circular tunnel that held its predecessor, the LHC will be the most powerful particle accelerator in the world. It will smash fundamental particles into one another at energies like those of the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the Universe was about ten thousand trillion degrees Centigrade." [Ref. 5]
1. There is a high probability that micro black holes (MBHs) will be produced in the LHC. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] A reasonable estimation of the probability that theories with (4+d) dimensions are valid could be more than 60%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] The CERN study indicates in this case a copious production of MBHs at the LHC. [Ref. 1] One MBH could be produced every second. [Ref. 4 & Ref. 5]
2. The CERN study indicates that MBHs present no danger because they will evaporate with Hawking evaporation. [Ref. 1] However, Hawking evaporation has never been tested. In several surveys, physicists have estimated a non trivial probability that Hawking evaporation will not work. [Ref. 9] My estimate of its risk of Hawking evaporation failure is 20%,[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] or perhaps as much as 30%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
The following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation will fail.
3. The cosmic ray model is not valid for the LHC. It has been said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC, show that there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy particles at a zero speed target. This is similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's surface. In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed. This is different from the situation at the LHC, where particles with opposing speeds collide. With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) we need a speed of 0.9999995 c to create a micro black hole of 1 TeV and after the interaction the micro black hole center of mass will have a speed of 0.999 c. As MBHs are not very reactive with matter, calculations indicate that this is more than enough velocity to cross planets or stars without being caught and to escape into space.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap. And addressed already.]
4. Lower speed MBHs created in colliders could be captured by earth. Using Greg Landsberg's calculation [Ref. 3] of one black hole with velocity less than escape velocity from earth produced every 10^5 seconds at the LHC, we have 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs captured by earth in ten years. More precise calculations show that we could have a distribution of MBHs at every range of speed from 0 m/sec to 4 m/sec. The probability of very low speed MBHs is not zero. We need to evaluate if low speed MBHs present more risks. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
5. The speed of a MBH captured by earth will decrease and at the end MBHs will come to rest in the center of earth. The speed will decrease because of accretion and interaction with matter.
If we consider that:
a. The CERN study's calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius" for the accretion cross section.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap. It's now obvious author has never understood any of the reference materials.] [Ref. 1] In the case of low speeds, we must not use the Schwarzschild radius for the calculus of accretion. There are several reasons the capture radius extends beyond the Schwarzschild radius. For example, if the MBH speed were zero, gravitational attraction would be active at a distance greater than the Schwarzschild radius.
b. If a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a proton.
c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color.
d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus.
Our calculus indicates that a slow speed MBH can be expected to capture 8.400 (US notation 8,400) nucleons every hour, at the beginning of an exponential process.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
6. In the center of earth new processes could occur: As stated above, it has been estimated that in ten years 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs could be captured by earth. All MBHs will progressively lose speed because of numerous interactions. After a time (calculations have to be completed to estimate this time) all these MBHs will go toward the precise gravitational center of earth. (Kip Thorne [Ref. 7 p. 111]) After numerous interactions they will stop there at rest and then coalesce into a single MBH. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] To get an idea and for a first approach our calculus indicates that the mass of this MBH could be on the order of 0.02 g with a radius of 4 x 10^-17 m. [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] At the center of earth, the pressure is 3.6 x 10^11 Pascals. [Ref. 8]. This pressure results from all the matter in Earth pushing on the electronic cloud of central atoms. The move of electrons is responsible of a pressure (called degenerescence pressure) that counterbalance the pressure of all the matter in Earth.
Around a black hole there is not an electronic cloud and there is no degenerescence pressure to counterbalance the pressure of all the Earth matter.To indicate the pressure we must use the surface If in an equation Pressure P = Force F / Surface S if we keep F= Constant and we reduce surface, we are obliged to notice that Pressure P will increase. Here F is the weight of all the matter of Earth and this do not change. As the surface of the MBH will be very small, calculus indicate on this surface an impressive increase of pressure in the range of : P = aprox 7 x 10 ^ 23 Pa .
The high pressure in this region push strongly all the matter in direction of the central point where the MBH is.
Electrons directly in contact with the Micro Black Hole will first be caught, then the nucleus will be caught.
It is sure that the atoms will be caught one after the other but the more the pressure will be important the more the caught will be quick. When a neutron star begins to collapse in a black hole (implosion), at the beginning the black hole is only a micro black hole as we see in [Ref. 7 Page 443]. At this very moment the high gravitational pressure in the center of the neutron star is there breaking the "strong force" which lays between the quarks located into the neutrons.
The MBH will grow there only because of the high pressure.
In center of Earth pressure is normally far to small for such a process, but if we create a slow speed MBH that does not evaporate and if this MBH comes at rest in the center of Earth, the pressure in the center of Earth could be sufficient for the growing of the MBH. We must remember that in the surrounding of the MBH the "strong force" is broken and this could mean that the same kind of pressure process than in neutron star could work there ( in a slow mode compared with a neutron star of course ). In the center of Earth, the high pressure, the high temperature, the increasing mass associated with electrical and gauge forces process could mean important increase of capture and a possible beginning of an exponential dangerous accretion process. Our calculus indicates as a first approximation with a MBH of 0.02 g at rest at the center of earth that the value for accretion of matter could be in the range of 1 g/sec to 5 g/sec.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
7. Conclusion about MBHs : We estimate that for LHC the risk in the range of 7% to 10%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
II. Other Risk Factors
The CERN study indicates that strangelets and monopoles could be produced and present no danger for earth. [Ref. 1]
We will present arguments of possible danger.
1. Strangelets
Strangelets are only dangerous for earth if they are not moving rapidly through matter. If only one strangelet is at zero speed there would be danger. We have seen for MBHs that the cosmic ray model is very different from the LHC where particles with opposing speeds collide. We have seen that, given the impact of opposite speed particles, the distribution of speeds of resultant particles indicates the probability of very low speeds (0 m/sec < speed < 4 m/sec) and this could mean dangerous strangelets. We estimate a minimal risk for strangelets on the order of 2%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.] We might estimate as high as 10 % if we want to be wise because the danger is primary![Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
2. Monopoles
Monopoles could be produced in the LHC. [Ref. 1] .CERN's calculations indicate that one monopole produced in LHC could destroy 1.018 (US notation 1,018) nucleons but it will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space. However, we know that photons produced in the center of the sun need thousands of years to traverse the sun and escape into space because of the numerous interactions. If the speed given to the monopole after interaction is a speed in a random direction, we can imagine that the monopoles produced in the LHC could stay a very long time in earth and be dangerous. 3. Estimate of danger due to our ignorance of ultimate physical laws: We have not exhausted processes that might cause danger. There are other particles, black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories. We estimate this danger ranging from a minimal 2% risk to 5%.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
III. CONCLUSION
The CERN study [Ref. 1] is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) [Ref. 6] adapted to the LHC.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
It is important to notice that: The study for the RHIC had concluded that no black holes will be created. For the LHC the conclusion is very different: "Black holes could be created!" !
The main danger could be now just behind our door with the possible death in blood of 6.500.000.000 (US notation 6,500,000,000) people and complete destruction of our beautiful planet. Such a danger shows the need of a far larger study before any experiment ! The CERN study presents risk as a choice between a 100% risk or a 0% risk. This is not a good evaluation of a risk percentage! [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
If we add all the risks for the LHC we could estimate an overall risk between 11% and 25%!.[Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
We are far from the Adrian Kent's admonition that global risks that should not exceed 0.000001% a year to have a chance to be acceptable. [Ref. 3] .Even testing the LHC could be dangerous. Even an increase in the luminosity of the RHIC could be dangerous! It would be wise to consider that the more powerful the accelerator will be, the more unpredicted and dangerous the events that may occur! We cannot build accelerators always more powerful with interactions different from natural interactions, without risk. This is not a scientific problem. This is a wisdom problem! [Moderator: Complete made-up crap.]
Our desire of knowledge is important but our desire of wisdom is more important and must take precedence. The precautionary principle indicates not to experiment. The politicians must understand this evidence and stop these experiments before it is too late!
Fausto Intilla -
oloscience.com
References:
1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001. February 28, 2003.
2.. E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett, March 2003,
Request a copy. Risk Evaluation Forum, BOX 2371, Albany, NY 12220 0371 USA.)
3.. A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes, Adrian Kent, CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105. Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204. Available at: arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204. ...
4.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics, Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010.
5.. CERN to spew black holes, Nature October 2, 2001.
6.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28, 1999 W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek.
7.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps, Kip S. Thorne, Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X. Original title: Black holes and times warps. 1994 Norton. New York.
8.. Centre de la Terre, Science & Vie N 1042. Gallate 2004.
9.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.
Scientists present here, please give us a reassuring answer regarding these arguments.
Wow... what a bunch of lies and utter ignorance.
FreeThinker
Go back to your other forums where cranks are appreciated. You have obviously no interest in finding scientific arguments and seem just intent of fomenting fear to serve your agenda.
Let's look at your posts...
Sir Martin Rees
Warren Platts is an unemployed geologist... not a physicist.
Nostradamus didn't even write original prophesies but copied his from other older texts. None of his prophecies have ever been shown to be true before the fact. All that people have done is adapt the prophecies to fit after the event.
Ivan Gorelik has been shown to be simply a crank who pulls numbers and "facts" out of a lack of understanding of basic physics. Note that no scientist anywhere has ever endorsed this nut despite the fact that he has been trolling the web with his theories for years.
As for your blogspot article, I suspect it was copied from one of the fear mongering sites ...
Warren Platts is an unemployed geologist... not a physicist.
Nostradamus didn't even write original prophesies but copied his from other older texts. None of his prophecies have ever been shown to be true before the fact. All that people have done is adapt the prophecies to fit after the event.
Ivan Gorelik has been shown to be simply a crank who pulls numbers and "facts" out of a lack of understanding of basic physics. Note that no scientist anywhere has ever endorsed this nut despite the fact that he has been trolling the web with his theories for years.
As for your blogspot article, I suspect it was copied from one of the fear mongering sites ...
1. There is a high probability that micro black holes (MBHs) will be produced in the LHC. A reasonable estimation of the probability that theories with (4+d) dimensions are valid could be more than 60%.
Incorrect. No string theory so far has ever been shown to be correct with many scientists dubious that it can be proven at all. No one knows which version of string theory will work if any but the 4+d one is only one of many.
One of the scientists who came up with that specific model ... Nima Arkani-Hamed had this to say about the doomsday scenarios...
James Blodgett is a mouthpiece for Walter Wagner et al and has no credibility whatsoever. I have had numerous conversations with him and he has no interest in science.. just in fear mongering.
James Blodgett is a mouthpiece for Walter Wagner et al and has no credibility whatsoever. I have had numerous conversations with him and he has no interest in science.. just in fear mongering.
The following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation will fail.
The theory that predicts MBH production and Hawking's theory are both based on the same principle. If one occurs, the other is likely to be correct as well.
This and other arguments were all addressed here.. Safety Report
This and other arguments were all addressed here.. Safety Report
a. The CERN study's calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius" for the accretion cross section. [Ref. 1] In the case of low speeds, we must not use the Schwarzschild radius for the calculus of accretion. There are several reasons the capture radius extends beyond the Schwarzschild radius. For example, if the MBH speed were zero, gravitational attraction would be active at a distance greater than the Schwarzschild radius.
1. It's never likely to have a speed of zero.
2. You give no reason for that statement.
If an MBH can be charged, it invalidates your earlier argument concerning velocity. Cosmic rays would have already produced a charged MBH which would never have made it through the Earth and certainly not through the Sun. Ergo.. it doesn't happen. Something which you already explain yourself...
If an MBH can be charged, it invalidates your earlier argument concerning velocity. Cosmic rays would have already produced a charged MBH which would never have made it through the Earth and certainly not through the Sun. Ergo.. it doesn't happen. Something which you already explain yourself... As MBHs are not very reactive with matter
The rest of the blog is just ignorant speculation. I suspect that some of it is drawn from Warren Platts as he is the only one I have seen use that specific argument about the Earth's pressure.
Note that you have nothing from any actual physicist or scientist working in a field even remotely related to the subject.
I have already addressed strangelets and monopoles in an earlier post.
Seriously... are you done?
All you have are people with no real knowledge of physics whatsoever trying to tell actual physicists and real scientists that they are wrong just so you can get some publicity for yourself by scaring a bunch of people.
You are beyond contemptible.
If that was your intention, then I do apologize.
However, the reason for my ire is that these people that you have quoted have previously shown their desire to generate fear in order to gain publicity. This has led to at least one suicide in the recent past and to many others who suffered great anxiety due to a lack of understanding of the science. They are charlatans using pseudo science for their own gain. Walter Wagner is only one of the more obvious of these.
Again.. sorry for my tone, I have dealt with this too often I think. I mistook you for one of them.
I hope my explanations were of some use to you.
FreeThinker
Go back to your other forums where cranks are appreciated. You have obviously no interest in finding scientific arguments and seem just intent of fomenting fear to serve your agenda.
Let's look at your posts...
Sir Martin Rees
QUOTE
Many of the emails received by Gillies cite a gloomy book - Our Final Century?: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? - written by Lord Rees, astronomer royal and president of the Royal Society.
"My book has been misquoted in one or two places," Lord Rees said yesterday. "I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."
"My book has been misquoted in one or two places," Lord Rees said yesterday. "I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."
Warren Platts is an unemployed geologist... not a physicist.
Nostradamus didn't even write original prophesies but copied his from other older texts. None of his prophecies have ever been shown to be true before the fact. All that people have done is adapt the prophecies to fit after the event.
Ivan Gorelik has been shown to be simply a crank who pulls numbers and "facts" out of a lack of understanding of basic physics. Note that no scientist anywhere has ever endorsed this nut despite the fact that he has been trolling the web with his theories for years.
As for your blogspot article, I suspect it was copied from one of the fear mongering sites ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many of the emails received by Gillies cite a gloomy book - Our Final Century?: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? - written by Lord Rees, astronomer royal and president of the Royal Society. "My book has been misquoted in one or two places," Lord Rees said yesterday. "I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study." |
Warren Platts is an unemployed geologist... not a physicist.
Nostradamus didn't even write original prophesies but copied his from other older texts. None of his prophecies have ever been shown to be true before the fact. All that people have done is adapt the prophecies to fit after the event.
Ivan Gorelik has been shown to be simply a crank who pulls numbers and "facts" out of a lack of understanding of basic physics. Note that no scientist anywhere has ever endorsed this nut despite the fact that he has been trolling the web with his theories for years.
As for your blogspot article, I suspect it was copied from one of the fear mongering sites ...
1. There is a high probability that micro black holes (MBHs) will be produced in the LHC. A reasonable estimation of the probability that theories with (4+d) dimensions are valid could be more than 60%.
Incorrect. No string theory so far has ever been shown to be correct with many scientists dubious that it can be proven at all. No one knows which version of string theory will work if any but the 4+d one is only one of many.
One of the scientists who came up with that specific model ... Nima Arkani-Hamed had this to say about the doomsday scenarios...
QUOTE
Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.”
James Blodgett is a mouthpiece for Walter Wagner et al and has no credibility whatsoever. I have had numerous conversations with him and he has no interest in science.. just in fear mongering.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” |
James Blodgett is a mouthpiece for Walter Wagner et al and has no credibility whatsoever. I have had numerous conversations with him and he has no interest in science.. just in fear mongering.
The following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation will fail.
The theory that predicts MBH production and Hawking's theory are both based on the same principle. If one occurs, the other is likely to be correct as well.
QUOTE
3. The cosmic ray model is not valid for the LHC. It has been said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC, show that there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy particles at a zero speed target. This is similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's surface. In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed. This is different from the situation at the LHC, where particles with opposing speeds collide. With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) we need a speed of 0.9999995 c to create a micro black hole of 1 TeV and after the interaction the micro black hole center of mass will have a speed of 0.999 c. As MBHs are not very reactive with matter, calculations indicate that this is more than enough velocity to cross planets or stars without being caught and to escape into space.
This and other arguments were all addressed here.. Safety Report
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. The cosmic ray model is not valid for the LHC. It has been said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC, show that there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy particles at a zero speed target. This is similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's surface. In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed. This is different from the situation at the LHC, where particles with opposing speeds collide. With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) we need a speed of 0.9999995 c to create a micro black hole of 1 TeV and after the interaction the micro black hole center of mass will have a speed of 0.999 c. As MBHs are not very reactive with matter, calculations indicate that this is more than enough velocity to cross planets or stars without being caught and to escape into space. |
This and other arguments were all addressed here.. Safety Report
a. The CERN study's calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius" for the accretion cross section. [Ref. 1] In the case of low speeds, we must not use the Schwarzschild radius for the calculus of accretion. There are several reasons the capture radius extends beyond the Schwarzschild radius. For example, if the MBH speed were zero, gravitational attraction would be active at a distance greater than the Schwarzschild radius.
1. It's never likely to have a speed of zero.
2. You give no reason for that statement.
QUOTE
b. If a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a proton.
c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color.
d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus.
c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color.
d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus.
If an MBH can be charged, it invalidates your earlier argument concerning velocity. Cosmic rays would have already produced a charged MBH which would never have made it through the Earth and certainly not through the Sun. Ergo.. it doesn't happen. Something which you already explain yourself...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| b. If a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a proton. c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color. d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus. |
If an MBH can be charged, it invalidates your earlier argument concerning velocity. Cosmic rays would have already produced a charged MBH which would never have made it through the Earth and certainly not through the Sun. Ergo.. it doesn't happen. Something which you already explain yourself... As MBHs are not very reactive with matter
The rest of the blog is just ignorant speculation. I suspect that some of it is drawn from Warren Platts as he is the only one I have seen use that specific argument about the Earth's pressure.
Note that you have nothing from any actual physicist or scientist working in a field even remotely related to the subject.
QUOTE
1. Strangelets
I have already addressed strangelets and monopoles in an earlier post.
Seriously... are you done?
All you have are people with no real knowledge of physics whatsoever trying to tell actual physicists and real scientists that they are wrong just so you can get some publicity for yourself by scaring a bunch of people.
You are beyond contemptible.
I'm not a scientist (just a mere amateur-astronomer) and I was only asking.
Sorry that my 'stupid' questions have disturbed you...
Sorry that my 'stupid' questions have disturbed you...
QUOTE
I'm not a scientist (just a mere amateur-astronomer) and I was only asking.
If that was your intention, then I do apologize.
However, the reason for my ire is that these people that you have quoted have previously shown their desire to generate fear in order to gain publicity. This has led to at least one suicide in the recent past and to many others who suffered great anxiety due to a lack of understanding of the science. They are charlatans using pseudo science for their own gain. Walter Wagner is only one of the more obvious of these.
Again.. sorry for my tone, I have dealt with this too often I think. I mistook you for one of them.
I hope my explanations were of some use to you.
Thanks for the explanations Rob. As an outsider I'm not aware of everything that's going on in the field.
Dear Free Thinker, I want to stop at one sentence from the text of Fausto Intilla, which you quoted above:
There are several errors here.
I. In [Ref. 1] one can see the number 10^18, but not 1.018 in author notations, or 1,018 in US notation. The number 10^18 in scientific notations is 1000000000000000000 in children’s notation.
II. The second error is made by the authors of [Ref. 1]. They wrote:
There are several errors here.
I. In [Ref. 1] one can see the number 10^18, but not 1.018 in author notations, or 1,018 in US notation. The number 10^18 in scientific notations is 1000000000000000000 in children’s notation.
II. The second error is made by the authors of [Ref. 1]. They wrote:
magnetic monopoles can catalyse proton decay. Can this be a problem?
At each catalysis event energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole moving through iron is given by (formula)..
In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
The author’s logic would be correct only in the case of isotropic medium. But the Earth has it’s own gravity field and it’s own magnetic field. Both these fields are not isotropic. Created monopoles will not go far from the attracting places. They will randomly move around these places till destroy all protons of the Earth. So the correct number is not 10^18 but 10^51, divided by the number of created monopoles.
III. The third error is hidden in the formula of monopole catalyses of proton decay
M + p = M + e^+.
More correct formula must contain the number n:
M_n + p = M_{n+1} + e^+.
This number shows the number of x-bosons in magnetic monopole (one more type of magnetic holes). These bosons have the equal quantum numbers. Magnetic hole works as laser. The word laser originated as an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Laser creates the same photons, which are bosons with zero mass energy. Because of zero mass, photons fly away from laser with the speed of light. Magnetic trap creates x-bosons, which have non-zero rest mass. These bosons do not fly away but becomes the constituent part of magnetic hole. The bigger the number n – the bigger the rate of magnetic collapse of ordinary matter into magnetic hole.
IV. The fourth error is hidden in poor imagination of authors, who had investigated the possible dangerous particles, which can be created at colliders. Here I do not stop on mBHs, strangelets, vacuum bubbles. I’ll stop only on magnetic traps.
Magnetic traps are dangerous objects, which are connected together mostly by the magnetic forces. I tried to investigate some of them:
1. neutron liquid;
2. neutron hole;
3. magnetic hole;
4. magnetic monopole.
The most real ones, from my point of view, ere magnetic holes. Computations had lead me to the conclusion that magnetic holes can be of such types:
1. magnetic dipoles with poles N and S;
2. electromagnetic dipoles with mixed poles N^+ and S^-, or with poles N^- and S^+;
3. vacuum electromagnetic oscillator;
…
i…with mixed electro-magneto-weak poles…
…
region of strangelets.
By the way, computations show that frequency of vacuum electromagnetic oscillator approximately corresponds to the frequency of pulsars with corresponding mass.
But the simplest magnetic holes are magnetic dipoles.
Computations are here: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.hml
Prometheus wrote:
The simplest theoretical support is comparison of Newtonian black holes and magnetic holes:
GMm/r = mc^2 / 2;
pB = mc^2 /2.
The simplest experimental support of possible manmade collapse is in the image of SN 1987A: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
In my personal opinion Ivan Gorelik is not just a fraud but a dangerous fraud.
As someone who has personally experienced the fear that people like him use to make themselves feel important, I have a very low opinion of him and all those like him.
In my personal opinion Ivan Gorelik is not just a fraud but a dangerous fraud.
As someone who has personally experienced the fear that people like him use to make themselves feel important, I have a very low opinion of him and all those like him.
Rob,
Suffice it to say that I am not in agreement at all with fear-mongering. While I cannot attest to the specific Physics behind the LHC, I have done enough background reading (a while back, so sorry not to offer specific citations or links...) to know that there has been extensive and exhaustive research conducted in regards to any possible dangers. By any reasonable and even beyond reasonable measure, it would seem, every precaution has been taken, even to the point of pushing back launch dates in order to address theoretical concerns that were brought up by Physicists of repute.
Best,
RF
Did you see here an answer from Physicists of repute.
Three times I wrote to President of Russian Federation.
Twice my letters were resend to Russian Academy of Sciences.
They did not send me an answer.
I send four letters to authorities of Ukraine.
The letter, addressed to President of Ukraine, was resend to Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.
They did not send me an answer.
The probable cause: they also fear the global catastrophe, but can not say the truth.
If they say the truth then:
the branch “High Energy Physics” will be closed and many of them will seek for a new job;
they will discover that they had already made a crime – they tried to launch the LHC last year, despite the courts started by Sancho, Wagner, Rosler, despite letters, sent to them by me, Golota V.V. Dovgel E.S. and by many others.
That is why they will not say the truth. They will go on risk and will switch on the LHC.
Magnetic holes will be made with great probability.
As a result, we all will die soon after the launch of LHC .
Best wishes to you.
Most of them do not know and even do not heard about magnetic hole?
They know what is black hole.
Black holes, made on colliders, are not dangerous for now living people, because it needs more than million years to capture the whole Earth.
Magnetic holes need about 1000 seconds!
Most of physicists do not know about magnetic holes (mhs).
We have.
Rpenner has pointed out his basic mistakes time and time again. Ivan won't learn and he won't accept any point of view but his own. Quite frankly discussing this with him is useless. He will keep on bothering scientists until the LHC has been in operation long enough to make it obvious he's wrong then he will move on to some other fear mongering idea so that he can keep people paying attention to him.
Let's be clear.
1. Ivan shows no comprehension of upper level physics in any way. Is there anyone here other than Ivan that disputes this?
2. Ivan has never been able to publish or even get anyone in the physics community to acknowledge his theories. Even the notable opponents of the LHC won't touch it.
3. He claims that this is because scientists fear the loss of their job but that point is invalidated by the fact that several papers have been widely discussed by CERN itself that are critical of the LHC... such as Otto Rossler's objections, etc. Those papers have been widely countered and eventually dismissed however, they have been discussed. No scientist is discussing Ivan's theories because he's a loony.
I say enough already... Ivan has already gotten far more attention than he deserves, all based on his simple technique of using fear to generate interest. It sickens me to think I am talking about him now but he needs to be countered or he will cause more misery.
You cannot test something that doesn't exist.
Can you test if God exists?
How about testing to see if Blarthfastingl exists? (Yes.. I made it up)
Or unicorns?
Ivan made up magnetic holes and added a bunch of pretend equations (or he actually thinks they are real equations which is sadder). There is no way to test that because there is nothing to test.
No magnetic holes have ever been observed.
No magnetic holes have ever been theorized other than by Ivan.
Ivan has constantly shown that he doesn't understand enough physics to see why he's wrong.
His equations are obviously based on nothing and don't make any sense ... nor are they predictive of any phenomena.
He claims to have solved the world's energy problems but has never built a model nor done anything but blather on about his theories.
Rpenner has pointed out numerous times the specific reasons why Ivan is wrong. What else do you want?
Ivan Gorelik: Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
Matador: it will be tested when the LHC is up and fully running? lol
Free Thinker: All right, but what about testing that formula?..
It would make me (and a lot of other non-scientists) sleep a whole lot better...
rpenner: ...cosmic ray collision... ...the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc... ...white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars... ...Cosmic Ray argument...
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Steven Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien steven hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
QUOTE
Monopoles could be produced in the LHC. [Ref. 1] .CERN's calculations indicate that one monopole produced in LHC could destroy 1.018 (US notation 1,018) nucleons but it will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space.
There are several errors here.
I. In [Ref. 1] one can see the number 10^18, but not 1.018 in author notations, or 1,018 in US notation. The number 10^18 in scientific notations is 1000000000000000000 in children’s notation.
II. The second error is made by the authors of [Ref. 1]. They wrote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Monopoles could be produced in the LHC. [Ref. 1] .CERN's calculations indicate that one monopole produced in LHC could destroy 1.018 (US notation 1,018) nucleons but it will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space. |
There are several errors here.
I. In [Ref. 1] one can see the number 10^18, but not 1.018 in author notations, or 1,018 in US notation. The number 10^18 in scientific notations is 1000000000000000000 in children’s notation.
II. The second error is made by the authors of [Ref. 1]. They wrote:
magnetic monopoles can catalyse proton decay. Can this be a problem?
At each catalysis event energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole moving through iron is given by (formula)..
In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
The author’s logic would be correct only in the case of isotropic medium. But the Earth has it’s own gravity field and it’s own magnetic field. Both these fields are not isotropic. Created monopoles will not go far from the attracting places. They will randomly move around these places till destroy all protons of the Earth. So the correct number is not 10^18 but 10^51, divided by the number of created monopoles.
III. The third error is hidden in the formula of monopole catalyses of proton decay
M + p = M + e^+.
More correct formula must contain the number n:
M_n + p = M_{n+1} + e^+.
This number shows the number of x-bosons in magnetic monopole (one more type of magnetic holes). These bosons have the equal quantum numbers. Magnetic hole works as laser. The word laser originated as an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Laser creates the same photons, which are bosons with zero mass energy. Because of zero mass, photons fly away from laser with the speed of light. Magnetic trap creates x-bosons, which have non-zero rest mass. These bosons do not fly away but becomes the constituent part of magnetic hole. The bigger the number n – the bigger the rate of magnetic collapse of ordinary matter into magnetic hole.
IV. The fourth error is hidden in poor imagination of authors, who had investigated the possible dangerous particles, which can be created at colliders. Here I do not stop on mBHs, strangelets, vacuum bubbles. I’ll stop only on magnetic traps.
Magnetic traps are dangerous objects, which are connected together mostly by the magnetic forces. I tried to investigate some of them:
1. neutron liquid;
2. neutron hole;
3. magnetic hole;
4. magnetic monopole.
The most real ones, from my point of view, ere magnetic holes. Computations had lead me to the conclusion that magnetic holes can be of such types:
1. magnetic dipoles with poles N and S;
2. electromagnetic dipoles with mixed poles N^+ and S^-, or with poles N^- and S^+;
3. vacuum electromagnetic oscillator;
…
i…with mixed electro-magneto-weak poles…
…
region of strangelets.
By the way, computations show that frequency of vacuum electromagnetic oscillator approximately corresponds to the frequency of pulsars with corresponding mass.
But the simplest magnetic holes are magnetic dipoles.
Computations are here: darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.hml
Prometheus wrote:
QUOTE
There is no theoretical or experimental support for what Ivan Gorelik is saying whatsoever.
The simplest theoretical support is comparison of Newtonian black holes and magnetic holes:
GMm/r = mc^2 / 2;
pB = mc^2 /2.
The simplest experimental support of possible manmade collapse is in the image of SN 1987A: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
10^18 nucleons, means less than 93 μg of the Earth will be transmuted, or it it were gathered all in one place, a cube of material less than 1/2 mm on a side, which is how you correctly explain it to laymen.
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+(56...er))^(1%2F3)%3F
And you abuse the terms simple, theoretical and experimental in your closing. It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+(56...er))^(1%2F3)%3F
And you abuse the terms simple, theoretical and experimental in your closing. It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 19 2009, 07:07 AM)
[Moderator: What follows is the pathetic ravings of a small-minded person who wants your attention. He does this even though better lunatics have made better (but still pathetic) ravings and caused loss of human life. Specifically, his claimed physics equations are not usefully predictive of any phenomenon or fact-based. He has failed to master even electromagnetism, let alone particle physics. As prometheus says below, laboratory collisions of protons have happened at 1.98 TeV, and cosmic rays cause collisions of far greater than this all over the Earth.
Like small-minded people everywhere, he argues from analogy, not as a teaching aid, but because he has only mastered small aspects of understanding, in this case high school algebra. So the below is similar to American racists who claim that President Obama is both a Communist and a Fascist, because in their limited understanding both groups are foreign and evil. It makes no sense and it informs the listener far more of what's in the speaker's heart than as a statement of fact about the real world.]
Just because I agree with you, RPenner, in your conclusions (and, in this instance, with Alphanumeric, as well), does not make this manner of inline commentary appropriate, especially from a moderator. You state as fact, far too many times for me to care to specifically comment upon, suppositions about the interior state of another human being.
In other words, you are quite arguably as fanciful in many of your statements as the one you critique.
I was far more appreciative of your recent post in which you blue-lined corrections. (See: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429772 ) That was a truly astounding post. But in a GOOD way.
Best Wishes,
Raphie
P.S. Which reminds me of this movie... no, just joking. :-)) But in reference to the post the previous sentence alludes to (See: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429271 ), hopefully, I am being direct enough for you. Unlike you, I am in no position to "demand" anything upon this forum, but I nevertheless as rigourously desire that which I believe to be fairness as you desire that which you believe to be good science.
P.P.S. The "Ripple Effect" of your actions in real time:
gendo Posted: Today at 1:08 AM
Negative Defender of idiots.
You teach people, by example, that it's OKAY to be as unscientific regarding the categorical ascription of human intent to others as you desire them to be scientific in their ascriptions of causality to the Cosmos.
Like small-minded people everywhere, he argues from analogy, not as a teaching aid, but because he has only mastered small aspects of understanding, in this case high school algebra. So the below is similar to American racists who claim that President Obama is both a Communist and a Fascist, because in their limited understanding both groups are foreign and evil. It makes no sense and it informs the listener far more of what's in the speaker's heart than as a statement of fact about the real world.]
Just because I agree with you, RPenner, in your conclusions (and, in this instance, with Alphanumeric, as well), does not make this manner of inline commentary appropriate, especially from a moderator. You state as fact, far too many times for me to care to specifically comment upon, suppositions about the interior state of another human being.
In other words, you are quite arguably as fanciful in many of your statements as the one you critique.
I was far more appreciative of your recent post in which you blue-lined corrections. (See: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429772 ) That was a truly astounding post. But in a GOOD way.
Best Wishes,
Raphie
P.S. Which reminds me of this movie... no, just joking. :-)) But in reference to the post the previous sentence alludes to (See: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429271 ), hopefully, I am being direct enough for you. Unlike you, I am in no position to "demand" anything upon this forum, but I nevertheless as rigourously desire that which I believe to be fairness as you desire that which you believe to be good science.
P.P.S. The "Ripple Effect" of your actions in real time:
gendo Posted: Today at 1:08 AM
Negative Defender of idiots.
You teach people, by example, that it's OKAY to be as unscientific regarding the categorical ascription of human intent to others as you desire them to be scientific in their ascriptions of causality to the Cosmos.
As I intend to take even harsher action against Ivan and friends, I don't see that my marking up his posts up is an issue. My edits are very clearly my words and are well-marked off from his. I just want to make sure that no one misses the fact that everytime he claims a fact, he is being delusional at best. When someone claims untrue things as fact in the arena of science, they get ONE CHANCE to fix their mistake before being ignored and worse for decades. Ivan doesn't get this and I want to prevent anything he says from being repeated.
This is "fair" specifically because the most correct thing would to ban him immediately as a fraud.
And as to the orange and blue markup of Ben's spam, those were not my corrections. That was just two successive versions of the same document from the same author.
This is "fair" specifically because the most correct thing would to ban him immediately as a fraud.
And as to the orange and blue markup of Ben's spam, those were not my corrections. That was just two successive versions of the same document from the same author.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 23 2009, 02:34 AM)
And as to the orange and blue markup of Ben's spam, those were not my corrections. That was just two successive versions of the same document from the same author.
My apologies for assuming those were your corrections. My use of the term "astounding" was in relation to the amount of work that I believed went into the markups, not in relation to the precise nature of the markups themselves. Thank you for clarifying this as I would have reviewed more closely with the intention of better understanding the difference between the original and the revised.
Best,
RF
My apologies for assuming those were your corrections. My use of the term "astounding" was in relation to the amount of work that I believed went into the markups, not in relation to the precise nature of the markups themselves. Thank you for clarifying this as I would have reviewed more closely with the intention of better understanding the difference between the original and the revised.
Best,
RF
QUOTE
This is "fair" specifically because the most correct thing would to ban him immediately as a fraud.
In my personal opinion Ivan Gorelik is not just a fraud but a dangerous fraud.
As someone who has personally experienced the fear that people like him use to make themselves feel important, I have a very low opinion of him and all those like him.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 23 2009, 04:26 AM)
In my personal opinion Ivan Gorelik is not just a fraud but a dangerous fraud.
As someone who has personally experienced the fear that people like him use to make themselves feel important, I have a very low opinion of him and all those like him.
Rob,
Suffice it to say that I am not in agreement at all with fear-mongering. While I cannot attest to the specific Physics behind the LHC, I have done enough background reading (a while back, so sorry not to offer specific citations or links...) to know that there has been extensive and exhaustive research conducted in regards to any possible dangers. By any reasonable and even beyond reasonable measure, it would seem, every precaution has been taken, even to the point of pushing back launch dates in order to address theoretical concerns that were brought up by Physicists of repute.
Best,
RF
QUOTE
... By any reasonable and even beyond reasonable measure, it would seem, every precaution has been taken, even to the point of pushing back launch dates in order to address theoretical concerns that were brought up by Physicists of repute.
Did you see here an answer from Physicists of repute.
Three times I wrote to President of Russian Federation.
Twice my letters were resend to Russian Academy of Sciences.
They did not send me an answer.
I send four letters to authorities of Ukraine.
The letter, addressed to President of Ukraine, was resend to Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.
They did not send me an answer.
The probable cause: they also fear the global catastrophe, but can not say the truth.
If they say the truth then:
the branch “High Energy Physics” will be closed and many of them will seek for a new job;
they will discover that they had already made a crime – they tried to launch the LHC last year, despite the courts started by Sancho, Wagner, Rosler, despite letters, sent to them by me, Golota V.V. Dovgel E.S. and by many others.
That is why they will not say the truth. They will go on risk and will switch on the LHC.
Magnetic holes will be made with great probability.
As a result, we all will die soon after the launch of LHC .
Best wishes to you.
It's hard to believe that all those physicists would rather lose everything (that is to die and their families and friends with them) then merely lose their jobs.
I guess they didn't answer your letters because your calculations (however correct they may be or not be) are all based on unproven theories. And of course in this case arguing back and forth is pointless.
Of course, since many other theories are also unproven and even contradict each other (Relativity vs Quantum), in the end it remains a very subjective matter which theories one thinks/believes have more chance of being correct.
I guess they didn't answer your letters because your calculations (however correct they may be or not be) are all based on unproven theories. And of course in this case arguing back and forth is pointless.
Of course, since many other theories are also unproven and even contradict each other (Relativity vs Quantum), in the end it remains a very subjective matter which theories one thinks/believes have more chance of being correct.
... death is instant, loosing your job is akin to a life time of suffering.
QUOTE
It's hard to believe that all those physicists would rather lose everything (that is to die and their families and friends with them) then merely lose their jobs.
Most of them do not know and even do not heard about magnetic hole?
They know what is black hole.
Black holes, made on colliders, are not dangerous for now living people, because it needs more than million years to capture the whole Earth.
Magnetic holes need about 1000 seconds!
Most of physicists do not know about magnetic holes (mhs).
You say it would take only 1000 seconds.
Well then at least it seems that accelerators working at the power level, such as already used at Brookhaven, do not produce those '1000 seconds' magnetic holes.
Well then at least it seems that accelerators working at the power level, such as already used at Brookhaven, do not produce those '1000 seconds' magnetic holes.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 23 2009, 09:56 AM)
they will discover that they had already made a crime – they tried to launch the LHC last year, despite the courts started by Sancho, Wagner, Rosler, despite letters, sent to them by me, Golota V.V. Dovgel E.S. and by many others
The court case by Wagner was thrown out because Wagner failed to provide the relevant documents, filed his complaints too late and the LHC is outside of Hawaii's jurisdiction.
I work in the theoretical physics community, along side people who have or are working at CERN, and none of us fear the LHC at all.
The court case by Wagner was thrown out because Wagner failed to provide the relevant documents, filed his complaints too late and the LHC is outside of Hawaii's jurisdiction.
I work in the theoretical physics community, along side people who have or are working at CERN, and none of us fear the LHC at all.
QUOTE
They did not send me an answer.
The probable cause: they also fear the global catastrophe, but can not say the truth.
No, it's because you're a crazy delusional nut job who just spouts BS and lies.
The probable cause: they also fear the global catastrophe, but can not say the truth.
To Free Thinker:
1. Tevatron. Collisions of proton and antiproton. Annihilation.
2. RHIC. Collisions of ions. Insufficient energy per colliding nucleon.
3. LHC. Collisions of protons. Minimal magnetic hole, able to capture protons, to be created needs 0.5 TeV per pair of protons. If the magnetic moment of the resulting bosons is different, then the needed energy is also different.
To AlphaNumeric:
How many physicists from your community know what is magnetic hole?
Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
Your words are not the argument against magnetic hole. Physicist must find the error in formulas and logical deduction.
1. Tevatron. Collisions of proton and antiproton. Annihilation.
2. RHIC. Collisions of ions. Insufficient energy per colliding nucleon.
3. LHC. Collisions of protons. Minimal magnetic hole, able to capture protons, to be created needs 0.5 TeV per pair of protons. If the magnetic moment of the resulting bosons is different, then the needed energy is also different.
To AlphaNumeric:
How many physicists from your community know what is magnetic hole?
Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
QUOTE
No, it's because you're a crazy delusional nut job who just spouts BS and lies.
Your words are not the argument against magnetic hole. Physicist must find the error in formulas and logical deduction.
QUOTE (Ivan Gorelik+Sep 23 2009, 10:34 AM)
To Free Thinker:
1. Tevatron. Collisions of proton and antiproton. Annihilation.
2. RHIC. Collisions of ions. Insufficient energy per colliding nucleon.
3. LHC. Collisions of protons. Minimal magnetic hole, able to capture protons, to be created needs 0.5 TeV per pair of protons. If the magnetic moment of the resulting bosons is different, then the needed energy is also different.
To AlphaNumeric:
How many physicists from your community know what is magnetic hole?
Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
Your words are not the argument against magnetic hole. Physicist must find the error in formulas and logical deduction.
For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong.
1. Tevatron. Collisions of proton and antiproton. Annihilation.
2. RHIC. Collisions of ions. Insufficient energy per colliding nucleon.
3. LHC. Collisions of protons. Minimal magnetic hole, able to capture protons, to be created needs 0.5 TeV per pair of protons. If the magnetic moment of the resulting bosons is different, then the needed energy is also different.
To AlphaNumeric:
How many physicists from your community know what is magnetic hole?
Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
Your words are not the argument against magnetic hole. Physicist must find the error in formulas and logical deduction.
For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong.
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 23 2009, 10:48 AM)
For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong.
er.. it will be tested when the LHC is up and fully running? lol
er.. it will be tested when the LHC is up and fully running? lol
QUOTE
For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong.
We have.
Rpenner has pointed out his basic mistakes time and time again. Ivan won't learn and he won't accept any point of view but his own. Quite frankly discussing this with him is useless. He will keep on bothering scientists until the LHC has been in operation long enough to make it obvious he's wrong then he will move on to some other fear mongering idea so that he can keep people paying attention to him.
Let's be clear.
1. Ivan shows no comprehension of upper level physics in any way. Is there anyone here other than Ivan that disputes this?
2. Ivan has never been able to publish or even get anyone in the physics community to acknowledge his theories. Even the notable opponents of the LHC won't touch it.
3. He claims that this is because scientists fear the loss of their job but that point is invalidated by the fact that several papers have been widely discussed by CERN itself that are critical of the LHC... such as Otto Rossler's objections, etc. Those papers have been widely countered and eventually dismissed however, they have been discussed. No scientist is discussing Ivan's theories because he's a loony.
I say enough already... Ivan has already gotten far more attention than he deserves, all based on his simple technique of using fear to generate interest. It sickens me to think I am talking about him now but he needs to be countered or he will cause more misery.
All right, but what about testing that formula? What's it all about?
It would make me (and a lot of other non-scientists) sleep a whole lot better if the matter of this formula he keeps talking about is finally indisputably solved.
It would make me (and a lot of other non-scientists) sleep a whole lot better if the matter of this formula he keeps talking about is finally indisputably solved.
QUOTE
All right, but what about testing that formula? What's it all about?
You cannot test something that doesn't exist.
Can you test if God exists?
How about testing to see if Blarthfastingl exists? (Yes.. I made it up)
Or unicorns?
Ivan made up magnetic holes and added a bunch of pretend equations (or he actually thinks they are real equations which is sadder). There is no way to test that because there is nothing to test.
No magnetic holes have ever been observed.
No magnetic holes have ever been theorized other than by Ivan.
Ivan has constantly shown that he doesn't understand enough physics to see why he's wrong.
His equations are obviously based on nothing and don't make any sense ... nor are they predictive of any phenomena.
He claims to have solved the world's energy problems but has never built a model nor done anything but blather on about his theories.
Rpenner has pointed out numerous times the specific reasons why Ivan is wrong. What else do you want?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 23 2009, 10:53 AM)
How about testing to see if Blarthfastingl exists? (Yes.. I made it up)
Is that Slartibartfast's cousin?
Is that Slartibartfast's cousin?
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 20 2009, 10:41 PM)
Looks good for me. So the minimum standard for a LHC Disaster Scenario is:
“Explain how the LHC could cause a disaster and that all of physics is so well known and described by General Relativity + the Standard Model (of particle physics).”
But none of the examples given meet that requirement.
A hypothetical new particle or other type of high-energy phenomenon would be just as likely to be the result of cosmic ray collision, so it seems wholely unreasonable that it could be immediately civilization-ending dangerous.
A hypothetical accreting object, like hypothetically stable mbh or stranglets, would have to have narrowly defined properties to be a threat to civilization and not be detected by the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc. It cannot accrete too fast or it would have eaten the moon already, and it cannot accrete too slowly or it can never threaten mankind. When we take what we know of very old white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars, the lower bounds grow and the upper bounds cross and no dangerous possibilities remain. Such objects have been squeezed out of possibility by examining what is.
And when it comes to Ivan Gorelik, he is not even playing in the same field.
Oh, and by the way, any possible object similar to "Magnetic Holes" has been rejected already by the epic review paper which studied hypothetically accreting objects modeled after classical (non-quantum) black holes in a variety of physical theories. They are either too dangerous to be real or not dangerous enough to matter, ever.
In Ivan Gorelik's world these holes interact electromagnetically, not gravitationally. This means they stop in the Sun (and possibly the Earth) no matter how fast they start and the Cosmic Ray argument would predict no Sun if they were both real and dangerous in any way.
Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano, "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" Physical Review D 78, 035009 (2008), DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.035009
But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers.
Instead of talking about evidence whether his "Devil" is real or not, or how strong the "Devil" is, Gorelik would rather give us trivia about how many buttons are on his invisible waistcoat. And that's why Gorelik isn't doing physics.
Note to self: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=61816
“Explain how the LHC could cause a disaster and that all of physics is so well known and described by General Relativity + the Standard Model (of particle physics).”
But none of the examples given meet that requirement.
A hypothetical new particle or other type of high-energy phenomenon would be just as likely to be the result of cosmic ray collision, so it seems wholely unreasonable that it could be immediately civilization-ending dangerous.
A hypothetical accreting object, like hypothetically stable mbh or stranglets, would have to have narrowly defined properties to be a threat to civilization and not be detected by the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc. It cannot accrete too fast or it would have eaten the moon already, and it cannot accrete too slowly or it can never threaten mankind. When we take what we know of very old white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars, the lower bounds grow and the upper bounds cross and no dangerous possibilities remain. Such objects have been squeezed out of possibility by examining what is.
And when it comes to Ivan Gorelik, he is not even playing in the same field.
Oh, and by the way, any possible object similar to "Magnetic Holes" has been rejected already by the epic review paper which studied hypothetically accreting objects modeled after classical (non-quantum) black holes in a variety of physical theories. They are either too dangerous to be real or not dangerous enough to matter, ever.
In Ivan Gorelik's world these holes interact electromagnetically, not gravitationally. This means they stop in the Sun (and possibly the Earth) no matter how fast they start and the Cosmic Ray argument would predict no Sun if they were both real and dangerous in any way.
Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano, "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" Physical Review D 78, 035009 (2008), DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.035009
But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers.
Instead of talking about evidence whether his "Devil" is real or not, or how strong the "Devil" is, Gorelik would rather give us trivia about how many buttons are on his invisible waistcoat. And that's why Gorelik isn't doing physics.
Note to self: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=61816
QUOTE
AlphaNumeric: I work in the theoretical physics community, along side people who have or are working at CERN, and none of us fear the LHC at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| AlphaNumeric: I work in the theoretical physics community, along side people who have or are working at CERN, and none of us fear the LHC at all. |
Ivan Gorelik: Did you try to test the formula mc^2=pB?
QUOTE
Free Thinker: For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Free Thinker: For God's sake AlphaNumeric please test his formula, so we can all sleep at night if it's proven to be wrong. |
Matador: it will be tested when the LHC is up and fully running? lol
QUOTE
RobDegraves: Rpenner has pointed out his basic mistakes time and time again... No scientist is discussing Ivan's theories because he's a loony...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| RobDegraves: Rpenner has pointed out his basic mistakes time and time again... No scientist is discussing Ivan's theories because he's a loony... |
Free Thinker: All right, but what about testing that formula?..
It would make me (and a lot of other non-scientists) sleep a whole lot better...
QUOTE
RobDegraves: You cannot test something that doesn't exist...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| RobDegraves: You cannot test something that doesn't exist... |
rpenner: ...cosmic ray collision... ...the collapse of the moon, stars, Sun, etc... ...white dwarf stars and binary neutron stars... ...Cosmic Ray argument...
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Steven Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
QUOTE
Hawking: "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien steven hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
Ivan Gorelik,
I have news for you. You don't know what you're talking about. Congratulations.
I have news for you. You don't know what you're talking about. Congratulations.
Yeah, but he doesn't think that..
Ivan
Just repeating yourself hardly answers anyone's questions about the validity of your work.
Assertion is not the same as proof.
Here are a few questions for you.
1. Have you ever published any of your work in a peer reviewed paper of even moderate repute? If so, what was the reaction?
2. You claim to have solved the energy and pollution problems of the world with your nuclear press.... how is that going? Any model being built or even considered?
3. Have you ever gotten any actual physicist or actual scientist to look at your work and not file it under C for Crackpot? Several of the opponents of the LHC, Rainier Plaga for example, have had CERN look closely at their calculations before establishing that they are incorrect. They may not have agreed with R Plaga but they certainly examined his claim seriously enough. Has any scientist looked at your calculations without laughing?
4. Have you ever considered getting an actual degree in physics?
5. Why is it that you are trying to whip up fear instead of answering actual questions or objections to your work? Rpenner has pointed out a number of significant faults with your basic methodology and incorrect usage of math and scientific terms. Are you not interested at all in finding out if you are a loony or not or are you already convinced you are right at any cost?
Finally a word from me. You are a contemptible person who tries to prey on people's fears to advance himself. Too bad you likely don't believe in Karma.
Just repeating yourself hardly answers anyone's questions about the validity of your work.
Assertion is not the same as proof.
Here are a few questions for you.
1. Have you ever published any of your work in a peer reviewed paper of even moderate repute? If so, what was the reaction?
2. You claim to have solved the energy and pollution problems of the world with your nuclear press.... how is that going? Any model being built or even considered?
3. Have you ever gotten any actual physicist or actual scientist to look at your work and not file it under C for Crackpot? Several of the opponents of the LHC, Rainier Plaga for example, have had CERN look closely at their calculations before establishing that they are incorrect. They may not have agreed with R Plaga but they certainly examined his claim seriously enough. Has any scientist looked at your calculations without laughing?
4. Have you ever considered getting an actual degree in physics?
5. Why is it that you are trying to whip up fear instead of answering actual questions or objections to your work? Rpenner has pointed out a number of significant faults with your basic methodology and incorrect usage of math and scientific terms. Are you not interested at all in finding out if you are a loony or not or are you already convinced you are right at any cost?
Finally a word from me. You are a contemptible person who tries to prey on people's fears to advance himself. Too bad you likely don't believe in Karma.
RobDegraves you wrote that you are not a physicist. Who are you? Historian? I do not want to tell with you about my personal life. Flyingbuttressman and RobDegraves do not spam, please.
To Free Thinker and other astronomers: Golota V.V. proposed to seek in the asteroid belt the compact black or magnetic hole, which could be remained after the hypothetic Phaeton explosion.
According to my computation, the planet of terrestrial group (Phaeton) after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. The possible frequency of pulsar-like oscillations is about 1 MHz. It would be visible if the hole crosses the rarefied dust cloud, which can be made artificially from space satellite.
To Free Thinker and other astronomers: Golota V.V. proposed to seek in the asteroid belt the compact black or magnetic hole, which could be remained after the hypothetic Phaeton explosion.
According to my computation, the planet of terrestrial group (Phaeton) after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. The possible frequency of pulsar-like oscillations is about 1 MHz. It would be visible if the hole crosses the rarefied dust cloud, which can be made artificially from space satellite.
I am a physicist and I've already stated that what Gorelik is saying is rubbish that has no experimental or theoretical support at all.
Also, I think Gorelik should answer RobD's questions - they're valid, useful and you've fobbed him off because you don't have any decent answers for them.
Also, I think Gorelik should answer RobD's questions - they're valid, useful and you've fobbed him off because you don't have any decent answers for them.
Are most of the LHC safety assumptions not all based on Steven Hawkin's mbh evaporating theory?
If the LHC proves him right, Steven Hawkin would match, even surpass Einstein.
And on the other hand, if it turns out that Steven Hawkin was wrong, there will be nobody left to know, complain, morn or weep about it anyway.
Even Einstein made a blunder (cosmological constant), but this blunder would pale in comparison if Steven Hawkin got it wrong this time.
Unlike most of us, Steven Hawkin has nothing much to lose if things should go wrong at CERN. According to his doctors he should have died years ago anyway.
And if things go wrong, wouldn't a supernova make a nice tombstone for Steven Hawkin and indeed all mankind?
If the LHC proves him right, Steven Hawkin would match, even surpass Einstein.
And on the other hand, if it turns out that Steven Hawkin was wrong, there will be nobody left to know, complain, morn or weep about it anyway.
Even Einstein made a blunder (cosmological constant), but this blunder would pale in comparison if Steven Hawkin got it wrong this time.
Unlike most of us, Steven Hawkin has nothing much to lose if things should go wrong at CERN. According to his doctors he should have died years ago anyway.
And if things go wrong, wouldn't a supernova make a nice tombstone for Steven Hawkin and indeed all mankind?
You are a troll. As has already been stated, the formation of micro black holes requires unproven physics to be true, and in fact unproven physics that we should know about already. Unless the entire physics community has missed a trick this isn't very likely. On the other hand Hawking (note the 'g') radiation relies on physics that we know to be true, having been extensively tested in experiment.
Can we keep it polite? And please note 'Stephen Hawking'.
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 24 2009, 06:32 AM)
Can we keep it polite? And please note 'Stephen Hawking'.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 24 2009, 10:32 AM)
Can we keep it polite? And please note 'Stephen Hawking'.
You think my previous post was impolite?! Good grief, a troll and naive.
You think my previous post was impolite?! Good grief, a troll and naive.
I am starting to think that Free Thinker is a troll as well. We have answered his questions thoroughly and one would think he would be pleased with that... however now he is countering with rhetorical nonsense.
No it would not. We already explained why it doesn't really matter if Hawking is wrong or not.
1. If Hawking is wrong, then it's unlikely that the Extra Large Dimensions theory is right.. therefore no Black Holes.
2. Even if Hawking is wrong, the cosmic ray argument is still correct.
No it would not. We already explained why it doesn't really matter if Hawking is wrong or not.
1. If Hawking is wrong, then it's unlikely that the Extra Large Dimensions theory is right.. therefore no Black Holes.
2. Even if Hawking is wrong, the cosmic ray argument is still correct.
Unlike most of us, Steven Hawkin has nothing much to lose if things should go wrong at CERN. According to his doctors he should have died years ago anyway.
And if things go wrong, wouldn't a supernova make a nice tombstone for Steven Hawkin and indeed all mankind?
A ridiculous assumption. It would not be a tombstone as no information on Hawking would ever be seen by anyone. Also it makes nasty and ludicrous assumptions on Hawking's motivations that are hardly worth discussing.
Ivan
I am indeed not a physicist. Neither are you.
However I can reason and I can tell a liar when I see one.
If you don't answer my questions, it will only make it slightly more obvious to everyone what a self serving, dishonest crackpot you are.
So true! Accredited matter is so much more important than non-accredited...
Frickin' nutcase, how's the mud under your bridge?
QUOTE
Even Einstein made a blunder (cosmological constant), but this blunder would pale in comparison if Steven Hawkin got it wrong this time.
No it would not. We already explained why it doesn't really matter if Hawking is wrong or not.
1. If Hawking is wrong, then it's unlikely that the Extra Large Dimensions theory is right.. therefore no Black Holes.
2. Even if Hawking is wrong, the cosmic ray argument is still correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even Einstein made a blunder (cosmological constant), but this blunder would pale in comparison if Steven Hawkin got it wrong this time. |
No it would not. We already explained why it doesn't really matter if Hawking is wrong or not.
1. If Hawking is wrong, then it's unlikely that the Extra Large Dimensions theory is right.. therefore no Black Holes.
2. Even if Hawking is wrong, the cosmic ray argument is still correct.
Unlike most of us, Steven Hawkin has nothing much to lose if things should go wrong at CERN. According to his doctors he should have died years ago anyway.
And if things go wrong, wouldn't a supernova make a nice tombstone for Steven Hawkin and indeed all mankind?
A ridiculous assumption. It would not be a tombstone as no information on Hawking would ever be seen by anyone. Also it makes nasty and ludicrous assumptions on Hawking's motivations that are hardly worth discussing.
Ivan
I am indeed not a physicist. Neither are you.
However I can reason and I can tell a liar when I see one.
If you don't answer my questions, it will only make it slightly more obvious to everyone what a self serving, dishonest crackpot you are.
Prometheus, It seems you know everything about trolls. Perhaps because you're one yourself. And in such 'scientists' we should trust...
Rob, contrary to a mbh created by cosmic rays, a mbh created by the LHC will have no net motion relative to Earth and will therefor have much more time to suck in surrounding matter in case it should not evaporate immediately.
And this can make all the difference in the world, since this is our second and last line of defense in case a mbh, however unlikely, is created by the LHC.
Rob, contrary to a mbh created by cosmic rays, a mbh created by the LHC will have no net motion relative to Earth and will therefor have much more time to suck in surrounding matter in case it should not evaporate immediately.
And this can make all the difference in the world, since this is our second and last line of defense in case a mbh, however unlikely, is created by the LHC.
So true! Accredited matter is so much more important than non-accredited...
Frickin' nutcase, how's the mud under your bridge?
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 24 2009, 08:08 PM)
Prometheus, It seems you know everything about trolls. Perhaps because you're one yourself. And in such 'scientists' we should trust...
I get annoyed with people who butcher science for sensationalism and I'm not going to apologise for it. There was never anything in the LHC doom scenarios and now we have a huge ruck of people that are scared so that idiot science correspondents can get a raise and sell more newspapers, and stupid cranks like Ivan have bullshit to talk. If you don't like the conversation it's because you can't keep up. Do some reading and improve yourself. Don't expect to get given it on a plate.
I get annoyed with people who butcher science for sensationalism and I'm not going to apologise for it. There was never anything in the LHC doom scenarios and now we have a huge ruck of people that are scared so that idiot science correspondents can get a raise and sell more newspapers, and stupid cranks like Ivan have bullshit to talk. If you don't like the conversation it's because you can't keep up. Do some reading and improve yourself. Don't expect to get given it on a plate.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 24 2009, 08:32 PM)
If you don't like the conversation it's because you can't keep up. Do some reading and improve yourself. Don't expect to get given it on a plate.
You're right I don't like the conversation because I can't keep up with the level of knowledge concerning trolls. And I don't expect to get given that knowledge on a plate, neither am I intrested in obtaining it.
Please note that Nostradamus did not mention Paris, Rome or London but Geneva...
Could it be possible that, given quantum non-locality of particles in both space and time, the consciousness of some people is able to (a least partially) connect with other space and time locations in the Universe?
Quantum non-locality is most definitely science. Also it is science observed but not understood. There is much that is not properly known or even discussed about the far reaching effects of quantum positioning.
In a connected quantum way a disaster may have echos through time.
On a 'positive' note, if Nostradamus's prediction is correct, and there's a disaster at CERN, it seems to be limited to Geneva.
Your French-English translation does not agree with my sources. Why don't you be more forthright and say where you got your translation from?
Here is a source which purports to give the French original: http://nostradamusquatrains.com/Century9/Quatrain44.htm
The LHC is not located in Geneva, but straddles an international border. None of the disaster scenarios contemplated would merely require people flee a city or a country or continent and your "explanation" misses any mention of Saturn, Gold, Iron or Signs, all of which require a clear linkage to actuality to score this as a win for Nostradamus and all of which require placement in a physical theory before you can be taken seriously. So without magic, what do all these terms mean. And how is cause and effect related here.
Plus Nostradamus' record for prediction is below that of, say, Verne. His main function was as a French noise generator. (I think the GOP has been out of power for long enough that I may say that without risk of being called redundant.)
[Moderator: Respond to this post in a forthright and non-weasel manner or be perma-banned.]
That is not just repeating. In several my posts above I tried to explain what magnetic hole is. In several posts I explained why comparison of LHS collisions with cosmic-atmospheric collisions is a crude mistake. In one post I pointed out at the errors, connected with magnetic monopole, made in the articles J.-P. Blaizot,.. REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP and John Ellis... Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions. In this post I need to answer your questions.
That is not just repeating. In several my posts above I tried to explain what magnetic hole is. In several posts I explained why comparison of LHS collisions with cosmic-atmospheric collisions is a crude mistake. In one post I pointed out at the errors, connected with magnetic monopole, made in the articles J.-P. Blaizot,.. REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP and John Ellis... Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions. In this post I need to answer your questions.
Assertion is not the same as proof.
In my work about magnetic hole there are two independent mathematical proofs of mh’s reality, which give exactly the same results. Nobody still disproved these proofs. There are also several arguments proving ms’s reality.
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
2. You claim to have solved the energy and pollution problems of the world with your nuclear press.... how is that going? Any model being built or even considered?
I do not claim that I had already do that. Can you made an airplane yourself without help? I also can not build an atomic power plant of new type. Physicists know two types of nuclear reactions: fusion and fission. I proposed the third reaction with catalyst K40:
K40 + p -> n + Ca40 + 0.5 MeV;
K39 + n -> K40 + 8 MeV.
If CERN was CERN, but not CERC (last C - collaptical), and went two steps bottom (TeV -> GeV -> MeV), we would already know: does my reaction solve the energy problem or not.
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh. They say: “LHC will not work”. But that is their hope. I do not want just to hope. I must to know that our lives are out of danger. LHC must be closed. RHIC and Tevatron are also must be closed. These devices are at the edge of precipice.
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh. They say: “LHC will not work”. But that is their hope. I do not want just to hope. I must to know that our lives are out of danger. LHC must be closed. RHIC and Tevatron are also must be closed. These devices are at the edge of precipice.
4. Have you ever considered getting an actual degree in physics?
No. I am antibanger. Bigbangers will not let me go in scientific building. Here you can find the list of antibangers: www.cosmologystatement.org/
That is “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community”, signed by hundreds of antibangers. If you are indeed interested in science, you must have some books of them on your bookshelves. One of the main purposes to build the LHC was to prove the model of Big Bang. Bigbangers want to see at the first microseconds of Big Bang. But they will not prove their wrecked theory. They can lead the Earth to terrestrial big bang. So, bigbangers are not just only the adherents of Big Bang theory, but they are possible future performers of our planet’s big bang.
About what faults do you speak? Write me a math formula. Your words about “methodology” are spam and rubbish.
About what faults do you speak? Write me a math formula. Your words about “methodology” are spam and rubbish.
…cosmic rays… cosmic rays.. cosmic rays..
I must repeat:
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Steven Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien steven hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
You're right I don't like the conversation because I can't keep up with the level of knowledge concerning trolls. And I don't expect to get given that knowledge on a plate, neither am I intrested in obtaining it.
QUOTE (prometheus+Sep 24 2009, 08:32 PM)
I get annoyed with people who butcher science for sensationalism and I'm not going to apologise for it.
I love science and I don't butcher science for sensationalism.
I'm not a scientist, so I don't envy any other scientist and I'm not competing for any Nobel price. I am very worried and I'm not going to apologise for it. That's all.
I love science and I don't butcher science for sensationalism.
I'm not a scientist, so I don't envy any other scientist and I'm not competing for any Nobel price. I am very worried and I'm not going to apologise for it. That's all.
But you are interested in continuing a worthless thread with more ignorance and stupidity?
Define troll.
And then STFU and go back to whatever it is that you don't do well...
Define troll.
And then STFU and go back to whatever it is that you don't do well...
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 24 2009, 09:00 PM)
But you are interested in continuing a worthless thread with more ignorance and stupidity?
Define troll.
And then STFU and go back to whatever it is that you don't do well...
You keep on hiding your lack of real arguments behind words such as trolls and stupidity.
Define troll.
And then STFU and go back to whatever it is that you don't do well...
You keep on hiding your lack of real arguments behind words such as trolls and stupidity.
But you are stupid!
In reading this thread, you have contributed nothing but garbage from Nostradamus' snake-oil sales pitches and some random crap that you don't understand. Not to mention misspelling Dr. Hawking's name multiple times even in the face of subtle corrections by other posters.
Subtlety doesn't seem to work. Intelligent discourse isn't your forte, or you wouldn't be here.
Obviously, insults won't work, either. Therefore you are a troll in love with the sound of your own voice, or a damned fool.
As i said, STFU.
In reading this thread, you have contributed nothing but garbage from Nostradamus' snake-oil sales pitches and some random crap that you don't understand. Not to mention misspelling Dr. Hawking's name multiple times even in the face of subtle corrections by other posters.
Subtlety doesn't seem to work. Intelligent discourse isn't your forte, or you wouldn't be here.
Obviously, insults won't work, either. Therefore you are a troll in love with the sound of your own voice, or a damned fool.
As i said, STFU.
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 21 2009, 10:49 AM)
Please note that Nostradamus did not mention Paris, Rome or London but Geneva...
Could it be possible that, given quantum non-locality of particles in both space and time, the consciousness of some people is able to (a least partially) connect with other space and time locations in the Universe?
Quantum non-locality is most definitely science. Also it is science observed but not understood. There is much that is not properly known or even discussed about the far reaching effects of quantum positioning.
In a connected quantum way a disaster may have echos through time.
On a 'positive' note, if Nostradamus's prediction is correct, and there's a disaster at CERN, it seems to be limited to Geneva.
Your French-English translation does not agree with my sources. Why don't you be more forthright and say where you got your translation from?
Here is a source which purports to give the French original: http://nostradamusquatrains.com/Century9/Quatrain44.htm
The LHC is not located in Geneva, but straddles an international border. None of the disaster scenarios contemplated would merely require people flee a city or a country or continent and your "explanation" misses any mention of Saturn, Gold, Iron or Signs, all of which require a clear linkage to actuality to score this as a win for Nostradamus and all of which require placement in a physical theory before you can be taken seriously. So without magic, what do all these terms mean. And how is cause and effect related here.
Plus Nostradamus' record for prediction is below that of, say, Verne. His main function was as a French noise generator. (I think the GOP has been out of power for long enough that I may say that without risk of being called redundant.)
[Moderator: Respond to this post in a forthright and non-weasel manner or be perma-banned.]
OK... I am going to give one more crack at explaining this. I hope you won't just ignore it again.
Obviously you didn't read my earlier post about this since I have already addressed this... however I will do so again just to be helpful.
Right... let's get to the basics.
1. I think we can all agree that an MBH can only be either charged or uncharged. Seems pretty safe as an assumption.
2. Another safe assumption, if the LHC can create MBH's, so can cosmic rays. The LHC accelerates protons to near the speed of light, which is exactly what cosmic rays are. The only difference is the resultant velocity and that is addressed below.
3. If a MBH can be charged, it would have never been able to pass through our own Sun without getting trapped no matter what it's velocity might be. That is because charged attraction is much much greater than gravitic attraction.
4. If an MBH was formed and was neutral, even if it got caught by the Earth, it's gravity is unlikely to accumulate anything ever. The most expert calculations indicate a period of about 1 billion years or more. Keep in mind that the MBH will never actually settle and be immobile at the center of the Earth because it would not interact enough with the atoms of the Earth to slow down appreciably for a long time. If it's velocity is less than the escape velocity of the Earth, it will remain in orbit within the planet, constantly going around inside the world.
5. If cosmic rays could form MBH's, the universe would look a lot different.
A. Cosmic rays are ubiquitous in the universe. Every stellar object gets hit with high energy cosmic rays every minute of every day thousands of times. Right now cosmic rays are hitting us.
B. The universe has objects whose size and density are so much greater than ours that it beggars the imagination. There are stars who are 45 000 times bigger than our Sun. There are Neutron stars that are hundreds of thousands of times denser than the Earth. Not to mention Dwarf Stars, Quasars, etc.
C. If cosmic rays could create MBH's, many of these objects simply could not exist. Cosmic rays would have hit them, a MBH would have been formed and the MBH could simply not have escaped some of these even at near the speed of light. Ergo... if proton vs proton collisions could create a MBH, we would not see these objects in the night sky.
OK... this is about as airtight as it can get. Not only is the logic fairly obvious but you can read the various reports on the CERN site that have all the math and proofs and have also been extensively peer reviewed all over the world with a unanimous approval by every scientific organization that has looked at them.
Something that very few reports have ever achieved and could not achieve unless the conclusion was so obvious as to make it impossible to argue against.
Edited to add...
OK.. just saw Rpenner's post. So I am adding this to his generally correct summation.
Nostradamus has no record of successful predictions at all. None of his predictions have ever been used to predict an event before it happened. None.
In addition, it is easily provable that Nostradamus did not use "psychic" means for his predictions but instead copied extensively, sometimes word for word for entire chapters, the work of other, older texts of prophecy and mysticism.
QUOTE
Rob, contrary to a mbh created by cosmic rays, a mbh created by the LHC will have no net motion relative to Earth and will therefor have much more time to suck in surrounding matter in case it should not evaporate immediately.
And this can make all the difference in the world, since this is our second and last line of defense in case a mbh, however unlikely, is created by the LHC.
And this can make all the difference in the world, since this is our second and last line of defense in case a mbh, however unlikely, is created by the LHC.
Obviously you didn't read my earlier post about this since I have already addressed this... however I will do so again just to be helpful.
Right... let's get to the basics.
1. I think we can all agree that an MBH can only be either charged or uncharged. Seems pretty safe as an assumption.
2. Another safe assumption, if the LHC can create MBH's, so can cosmic rays. The LHC accelerates protons to near the speed of light, which is exactly what cosmic rays are. The only difference is the resultant velocity and that is addressed below.
3. If a MBH can be charged, it would have never been able to pass through our own Sun without getting trapped no matter what it's velocity might be. That is because charged attraction is much much greater than gravitic attraction.
4. If an MBH was formed and was neutral, even if it got caught by the Earth, it's gravity is unlikely to accumulate anything ever. The most expert calculations indicate a period of about 1 billion years or more. Keep in mind that the MBH will never actually settle and be immobile at the center of the Earth because it would not interact enough with the atoms of the Earth to slow down appreciably for a long time. If it's velocity is less than the escape velocity of the Earth, it will remain in orbit within the planet, constantly going around inside the world.
5. If cosmic rays could form MBH's, the universe would look a lot different.
A. Cosmic rays are ubiquitous in the universe. Every stellar object gets hit with high energy cosmic rays every minute of every day thousands of times. Right now cosmic rays are hitting us.
B. The universe has objects whose size and density are so much greater than ours that it beggars the imagination. There are stars who are 45 000 times bigger than our Sun. There are Neutron stars that are hundreds of thousands of times denser than the Earth. Not to mention Dwarf Stars, Quasars, etc.
C. If cosmic rays could create MBH's, many of these objects simply could not exist. Cosmic rays would have hit them, a MBH would have been formed and the MBH could simply not have escaped some of these even at near the speed of light. Ergo... if proton vs proton collisions could create a MBH, we would not see these objects in the night sky.
OK... this is about as airtight as it can get. Not only is the logic fairly obvious but you can read the various reports on the CERN site that have all the math and proofs and have also been extensively peer reviewed all over the world with a unanimous approval by every scientific organization that has looked at them.
Something that very few reports have ever achieved and could not achieve unless the conclusion was so obvious as to make it impossible to argue against.
Edited to add...
OK.. just saw Rpenner's post. So I am adding this to his generally correct summation.
Nostradamus has no record of successful predictions at all. None of his predictions have ever been used to predict an event before it happened. None.
In addition, it is easily provable that Nostradamus did not use "psychic" means for his predictions but instead copied extensively, sometimes word for word for entire chapters, the work of other, older texts of prophecy and mysticism.
The only real fear I sense here is the fear of the unknown. Which is no reason not to do something. There is no one hundred percent guarantee of not having any error in any experiment, still no reason to stop. You could always make the experimentation illegal and then you would have scientists smuggling parts for unregulated colliders that cost twice the price with none of the safety. Making something illegal does not stop interests. If it fascinates, people will do it.People love smacking stuff together with great force. Maybe it will shed light, maybe not. Only one way to know for sure. WOW, this thread received serious face time, I had no idea colliders were so scary to some. It would seem by this line of fear reasoning, that if I looked at something bright through a telescope, it would melt my face off.
QUOTE
Ivan
Just repeating yourself hardly answers anyone's questions about the validity of your work.
Just repeating yourself hardly answers anyone's questions about the validity of your work.
That is not just repeating. In several my posts above I tried to explain what magnetic hole is. In several posts I explained why comparison of LHS collisions with cosmic-atmospheric collisions is a crude mistake. In one post I pointed out at the errors, connected with magnetic monopole, made in the articles J.-P. Blaizot,.. REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP and John Ellis... Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions. In this post I need to answer your questions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ivan Just repeating yourself hardly answers anyone's questions about the validity of your work. |
That is not just repeating. In several my posts above I tried to explain what magnetic hole is. In several posts I explained why comparison of LHS collisions with cosmic-atmospheric collisions is a crude mistake. In one post I pointed out at the errors, connected with magnetic monopole, made in the articles J.-P. Blaizot,.. REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP and John Ellis... Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions. In this post I need to answer your questions.
Assertion is not the same as proof.
In my work about magnetic hole there are two independent mathematical proofs of mh’s reality, which give exactly the same results. Nobody still disproved these proofs. There are also several arguments proving ms’s reality.
QUOTE
Here are a few questions for you.
1. Have you ever published any of your work in a peer reviewed paper of even moderate repute? If so, what was the reaction?
1. Have you ever published any of your work in a peer reviewed paper of even moderate repute? If so, what was the reaction?
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here are a few questions for you. 1. Have you ever published any of your work in a peer reviewed paper of even moderate repute? If so, what was the reaction? |
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
2. You claim to have solved the energy and pollution problems of the world with your nuclear press.... how is that going? Any model being built or even considered?
I do not claim that I had already do that. Can you made an airplane yourself without help? I also can not build an atomic power plant of new type. Physicists know two types of nuclear reactions: fusion and fission. I proposed the third reaction with catalyst K40:
K40 + p -> n + Ca40 + 0.5 MeV;
K39 + n -> K40 + 8 MeV.
If CERN was CERN, but not CERC (last C - collaptical), and went two steps bottom (TeV -> GeV -> MeV), we would already know: does my reaction solve the energy problem or not.
QUOTE
3. Have you ever gotten any actual physicist or actual scientist to look at your work and not file it under C for Crackpot? Several of the opponents of the LHC, Rainier Plaga for example, have had CERN look closely at their calculations before establishing that they are incorrect. They may not have agreed with R Plaga but they certainly examined his claim seriously enough. Has any scientist looked at your calculations without laughing?
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh. They say: “LHC will not work”. But that is their hope. I do not want just to hope. I must to know that our lives are out of danger. LHC must be closed. RHIC and Tevatron are also must be closed. These devices are at the edge of precipice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. Have you ever gotten any actual physicist or actual scientist to look at your work and not file it under C for Crackpot? Several of the opponents of the LHC, Rainier Plaga for example, have had CERN look closely at their calculations before establishing that they are incorrect. They may not have agreed with R Plaga but they certainly examined his claim seriously enough. Has any scientist looked at your calculations without laughing? |
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh. They say: “LHC will not work”. But that is their hope. I do not want just to hope. I must to know that our lives are out of danger. LHC must be closed. RHIC and Tevatron are also must be closed. These devices are at the edge of precipice.
4. Have you ever considered getting an actual degree in physics?
No. I am antibanger. Bigbangers will not let me go in scientific building. Here you can find the list of antibangers: www.cosmologystatement.org/
That is “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community”, signed by hundreds of antibangers. If you are indeed interested in science, you must have some books of them on your bookshelves. One of the main purposes to build the LHC was to prove the model of Big Bang. Bigbangers want to see at the first microseconds of Big Bang. But they will not prove their wrecked theory. They can lead the Earth to terrestrial big bang. So, bigbangers are not just only the adherents of Big Bang theory, but they are possible future performers of our planet’s big bang.
QUOTE
5. Why is it that you are trying to whip up fear instead of answering actual questions or objections to your work? Rpenner has pointed out a number of significant faults with your basic methodology and incorrect usage of math and scientific terms. Are you not interested at all in finding out if you are a loony or not or are you already convinced you are right at any cost?
About what faults do you speak? Write me a math formula. Your words about “methodology” are spam and rubbish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. Why is it that you are trying to whip up fear instead of answering actual questions or objections to your work? Rpenner has pointed out a number of significant faults with your basic methodology and incorrect usage of math and scientific terms. Are you not interested at all in finding out if you are a loony or not or are you already convinced you are right at any cost? |
About what faults do you speak? Write me a math formula. Your words about “methodology” are spam and rubbish.
…cosmic rays… cosmic rays.. cosmic rays..
I must repeat:
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Steven Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear semi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear semi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien steven hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 24 2009, 09:55 PM)
Your French-English translation does not agree with my sources. Why don't you be more forthright and say where you got your translation from?
Here is a source which purports to give the French original: http://nostradamusquatrains.com/Century9/Quatrain44.htm
The LHC is not located in Geneva, but straddles an international border. None of the disaster scenarios contemplated would merely require people flee a city or a country or continent and your "explanation" misses any mention of Saturn, Gold, Iron or Signs, all of which require a clear linkage to actuality to score this as a win for Nostradamus and all of which require placement in a physical theory before you can be taken seriously. So without magic, what do all these terms mean. And how is cause and effect related here.
Plus Nostradamus' record for prediction is below that of, say, Verne. His main function was as a French noise generator. (I think the GOP has been out of power for long enough that I may say that without risk of being called redundant.)
[Moderator: Respond to this post in a forthright and non-weasel manner or be perma-banned.]
I fail to see any big difference between the two translations.
And, a second 'small' LHC accident, only a bit larger this time (destroying Geneva for example), is always possible. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
And since I don't work or live in Geneva, I don't have to worry much about this.
So there is really no need for me to discuss this any further.
[Moderator: Mmmmm. 100% pure concern-trolling weasel.]
Here is a source which purports to give the French original: http://nostradamusquatrains.com/Century9/Quatrain44.htm
The LHC is not located in Geneva, but straddles an international border. None of the disaster scenarios contemplated would merely require people flee a city or a country or continent and your "explanation" misses any mention of Saturn, Gold, Iron or Signs, all of which require a clear linkage to actuality to score this as a win for Nostradamus and all of which require placement in a physical theory before you can be taken seriously. So without magic, what do all these terms mean. And how is cause and effect related here.
Plus Nostradamus' record for prediction is below that of, say, Verne. His main function was as a French noise generator. (I think the GOP has been out of power for long enough that I may say that without risk of being called redundant.)
[Moderator: Respond to this post in a forthright and non-weasel manner or be perma-banned.]
I fail to see any big difference between the two translations.
And, a second 'small' LHC accident, only a bit larger this time (destroying Geneva for example), is always possible. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
And since I don't work or live in Geneva, I don't have to worry much about this.
So there is really no need for me to discuss this any further.
[Moderator: Mmmmm. 100% pure concern-trolling weasel.]
QUOTE (Free Thinker+Sep 25 2009, 05:40 AM)
But, if things should go badly wrong, there will be no second chance either.
The same could be said for crossing the street.
The same could be said for crossing the street.
so...who gets to 'push the button'
It's hard to believe that Ivan is still allowed to post here.. but what the heck.
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
QUOTE
In my work about magnetic hole there are two independent mathematical proofs of mh’s reality, which give exactly the same results. Nobody still disproved these proofs. There are also several arguments proving ms’s reality.
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In my work about magnetic hole there are two independent mathematical proofs of mh’s reality, which give exactly the same results. Nobody still disproved these proofs. There are also several arguments proving ms’s reality. |
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
From Rpenner
I will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
QUOTE
But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers.
From RpennerI will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers. |
From Rpenner
I will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately
Why does speed make them evaporate?
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Cosmic rays are typically protons not neutrons and the LHC will be using protons, not neutrons.
Moving on...
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh.
Who are those scientists specifically?
Yes... actually I went through your list. Do you have any actual scientist of any kind of repute or just people from the lunatic fringe?
Let's see... of the ones that can be verified by link or search you have...
Yes... actually I went through your list. Do you have any actual scientist of any kind of repute or just people from the lunatic fringe?
Let's see... of the ones that can be verified by link or search you have...
Peter J Carroll. Winter 2008/9.
Chancellor of Arcanorium College.
Ah yes.. the famous Psychonaut Institute...
Seriously... do you have any actual scientist that have published in your favor? If so whom?
I understand that these are specific questions but considering that you are apparently convinced that this will end the world, one would think you would not mind being forthcoming in your answers.
I will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately
Why does speed make them evaporate?
QUOTE
Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers. |
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Cosmic rays are typically protons not neutrons and the LHC will be using protons, not neutrons.
Moving on...
QUOTE
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best. |
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh.
Who are those scientists specifically?
QUOTE
That is “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community”, signed by hundreds of antibangers.
Yes... actually I went through your list. Do you have any actual scientist of any kind of repute or just people from the lunatic fringe?
Let's see... of the ones that can be verified by link or search you have...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community”, signed by hundreds of antibangers. |
Yes... actually I went through your list. Do you have any actual scientist of any kind of repute or just people from the lunatic fringe?
Let's see... of the ones that can be verified by link or search you have...
Peter J Carroll. Winter 2008/9.
Chancellor of Arcanorium College.
Ah yes.. the famous Psychonaut Institute...
Seriously... do you have any actual scientist that have published in your favor? If so whom?
I understand that these are specific questions but considering that you are apparently convinced that this will end the world, one would think you would not mind being forthcoming in your answers.
Well. I see that magnetic hole is hard for you to understand.
Let’s solve much simpler problem. Your life depends from the correct solution of this problem.
Please, answer three questions.
1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed he number of destroyed protons?
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
3. Authors of the article of 2008 had taken that result (2003). Are the authors of these articles are frauds?
Here is a part of that article: doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP
PS: According to approximate schedule, the first 0.45 TeV collisions appointed on the 30-th of November; the first 3.5 TeV collisions appointed on the 14-th of December.
Let’s solve much simpler problem. Your life depends from the correct solution of this problem.
Please, answer three questions.
1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed he number of destroyed protons?
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
3. Authors of the article of 2008 had taken that result (2003). Are the authors of these articles are frauds?
Here is a part of that article: doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP
QUOTE
At each catalysis event energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole moving through iron is given by
L = 1 / (sigma*rho) = 1 cm.
In the course of scattering N^2 times the monopole moves the distance L*N and thus the number of scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition L*N = R_Earth, corresponding to N = 10^9. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
L = 1 / (sigma*rho) = 1 cm.
In the course of scattering N^2 times the monopole moves the distance L*N and thus the number of scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition L*N = R_Earth, corresponding to N = 10^9. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
PS: According to approximate schedule, the first 0.45 TeV collisions appointed on the 30-th of November; the first 3.5 TeV collisions appointed on the 14-th of December.
I see you've elected to avoid answering my questions. It's rather a sad attempt at diversion... I'm not the one making a claim but it's rather you that should answer questions.
However... what the heck.
Which paper? There are several.
Which paper? There are several.
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
Let's get this straight.. is it a magnetic monopole you are talking about or a magnetic hole?
This however....
makes no sense at all. I realize that English is not your first language so I will not be critical but in order to answer your question I have to know what you are talking about.
makes no sense at all. I realize that English is not your first language so I will not be critical but in order to answer your question I have to know what you are talking about.
3. Authors of the article of 2008 had taken that result (2003). Are the authors of these articles are frauds?
Again I am not sure what you are asking.
Are you saying that the article quoted below contradicts the later report? If so, how does it do that?
You need to quote both passages and tell me what part is contradicted if you want me to comment on it.
Last... let's look at magnetic monopoles...
Your quote is about a magnetic monopole that could only be created if extra dimensions exist. I don't believe that your theory includes this at all. Also... I don't see any errors in basic reasoning in the article you quote... nor apparently has anyone who has reviewed it.
So... how about you answer my questions now rather than evade them?
No... you avoided these ones....
No... you avoided these ones....
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
QUOTE
It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
From Rpenner
QUOTE
But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers.
From Rpenner
I will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
QUOTE
Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately
Why does speed make them evaporate?
QUOTE
Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
QUOTE
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Cosmic rays are typically protons not neutrons and the LHC will be using protons, not neutrons.
Moving on...
QUOTE
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
QUOTE
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh.
Who are those scientists specifically?
I want names and specifics... not general.. "Oh.. I showed it to someone who thought it was great".
Specifics...
Additionally ....
I answered the questions you gave me that I could understand. Maybe something is lost in the translation between Russian and English but some of what you said makes no sense. That is hardly my fault.
Specifically...
If you are asking about magnetic monopoles... I answered by quoting the full article of the report you were looking at...
Specifically...
If you are asking about magnetic monopoles... I answered by quoting the full article of the report you were looking at...
Specifically...
Consider a
magnetic monopole carrying a magnetic charge. It is conceivable in a theory with large extra dimensions
that such a state could have a mass comparable toM∗ and thus could be produced at the LHC. Moreover,
magnetic monopoles can catalyse proton decay. Can this be a problem? At each catalysis event energy
is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate
the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are
expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole
moving through iron is given by
λ =
1
σstrongρ
1 cm . (23)
In the course of scattering N2 times the monopole moves the distance λN and thus the number of
scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition
λN = REarth, corresponding to N = 109. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping
monopole will destroy 1018 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons. Given
this, we do not think it necessary to estimate the production rate for such new states because, even if
there is no suppression in the production at the LHC, they do not present any conceivable threat.
I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all.
Lastly... are magnetic monopoles the same as magnetic holes? If not.. why are we discussing them in conjunction with your theory?
I have answered your questions... Answer mine.
However... what the heck.
QUOTE
1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed he number of destroyed protons?
Which paper? There are several.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed he number of destroyed protons? |
Which paper? There are several.
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
Let's get this straight.. is it a magnetic monopole you are talking about or a magnetic hole?
This however....
QUOTE
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
makes no sense at all. I realize that English is not your first language so I will not be critical but in order to answer your question I have to know what you are talking about.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field; b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields? |
makes no sense at all. I realize that English is not your first language so I will not be critical but in order to answer your question I have to know what you are talking about.
3. Authors of the article of 2008 had taken that result (2003). Are the authors of these articles are frauds?
Again I am not sure what you are asking.
Are you saying that the article quoted below contradicts the later report? If so, how does it do that?
You need to quote both passages and tell me what part is contradicted if you want me to comment on it.
Last... let's look at magnetic monopoles...
Your quote is about a magnetic monopole that could only be created if extra dimensions exist. I don't believe that your theory includes this at all. Also... I don't see any errors in basic reasoning in the article you quote... nor apparently has anyone who has reviewed it.
So... how about you answer my questions now rather than evade them?
RobDegraves!
Please, be HONEST.
I answered your questions.
Answer my questions too, please.
Ask to answer your friends.
Answer shortly: yes; no.
The main articles are two. The first I citated upper.
Please, be HONEST.
I answered your questions.
Answer my questions too, please.
Ask to answer your friends.
Answer shortly: yes; no.
The main articles are two. The first I citated upper.
QUOTE
I answered your questions.
No... you avoided these ones....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I answered your questions. |
No... you avoided these ones....
Again you assert rather than prove. Let's look at those who have disproved your proofs that you have yet to answer.
QUOTE
It is not a theoretical result of any kind unless your comprehensive theory correctly unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it does not. You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion at the very least. It's damn silly, in other words.
From Rpenner
QUOTE
But Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" are -- since all he has is some made-up guesses and some equations that start with his made-up guesses and then only go on to calculate invisible internal numbers.
From Rpenner
I will now add a few specific ones of my own.
Concerning magnetic holes...
QUOTE
Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately
Why does speed make them evaporate?
QUOTE
Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
You speak of evaporation of magnetic holes..not collision. Why would a magnetic hole evaporating lead to a shower of particle?
QUOTE
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Cosmic rays are typically protons not neutrons and the LHC will be using protons, not neutrons.
Moving on...
QUOTE
No. But I took part in four International conferences (1991, 2000, 2004, 2005) and my abstracts or articles were published there. At the last conference, my work was named one of the best.
A conference of scientists said your work was one of the best?
Ergo... I wonder why you have not attracted anyone to help you build one of your amazing nuclear presses then.
Also... who said your work was one of the best. Names please.
QUOTE
Some reasonable physicists looked at my last work (magnetic hole). They did not laugh.
Who are those scientists specifically?
I want names and specifics... not general.. "Oh.. I showed it to someone who thought it was great".
Specifics...
Additionally ....
I answered the questions you gave me that I could understand. Maybe something is lost in the translation between Russian and English but some of what you said makes no sense. That is hardly my fault.
Specifically...
QUOTE
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
If you are asking about magnetic monopoles... I answered by quoting the full article of the report you were looking at...
Specifically...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole leave a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field; b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields? |
If you are asking about magnetic monopoles... I answered by quoting the full article of the report you were looking at...
Specifically...
Consider a
magnetic monopole carrying a magnetic charge. It is conceivable in a theory with large extra dimensions
that such a state could have a mass comparable toM∗ and thus could be produced at the LHC. Moreover,
magnetic monopoles can catalyse proton decay. Can this be a problem? At each catalysis event energy
is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate
the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are
expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole
moving through iron is given by
λ =
1
σstrongρ
1 cm . (23)
In the course of scattering N2 times the monopole moves the distance λN and thus the number of
scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition
λN = REarth, corresponding to N = 109. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping
monopole will destroy 1018 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons. Given
this, we do not think it necessary to estimate the production rate for such new states because, even if
there is no suppression in the production at the LHC, they do not present any conceivable threat.
I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all.
Lastly... are magnetic monopoles the same as magnetic holes? If not.. why are we discussing them in conjunction with your theory?
I have answered your questions... Answer mine.
RobDegraves!
Please, be HONEST.
Answer my questions, please.
Answer shortly: Yes; No.
1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed the number of destroyed protons?
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole go out of
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
Here is an excerpt of the paper doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP
Your answer: "I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all", is not an answer, but a trick.
My answers:
1. No.
2.a. No.
2.b. Yes.
Your answers:
1. ?
2.a. ?
2.b. ?
In fact, this part of the paper is quite simple. This problem can be solved by school-children.
-----------------------
Your answer: "I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all", is not an answer, but a trick.
My answers:
1. No.
2.a. No.
2.b. Yes.
Your answers:
1. ?
2.a. ?
2.b. ?
In fact, this part of the paper is quite simple. This problem can be solved by school-children.
-----------------------
Ivan wrote: I answered your questions.
Please, be HONEST.
Answer my questions, please.
Answer shortly: Yes; No.
1. Does authors of paper about safety of collider correctly computed the number of destroyed protons?
2. Will the hypothetic magnetic monopole go out of
a. the Earth, having the proper gravity and magnetic field;
b. the stone, exactly like Earth, but without the gravity and magnetic fields?
Here is an excerpt of the paper doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP
QUOTE
At each catalysis event energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole moving through iron is given by
L = 1 / (sigma*rho) = 1 cm.
In the course of scattering N^2 times the monopole moves the distance L*N and thus the number of scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition L*N = R_Earth, corresponding to N = 10^9. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
L = 1 / (sigma*rho) = 1 cm.
In the course of scattering N^2 times the monopole moves the distance L*N and thus the number of scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition L*N = R_Earth, corresponding to N = 10^9. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons.
Your answer: "I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all", is not an answer, but a trick.
My answers:
1. No.
2.a. No.
2.b. Yes.
Your answers:
1. ?
2.a. ?
2.b. ?
In fact, this part of the paper is quite simple. This problem can be solved by school-children.
-----------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At each catalysis event energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. It is straightforward to estimate the number of protons that could be destroyed before the monopole escapes the Earth. Monopoles are expected to have a strong cross-section with normal matter. As a result the mean free path of a monopole moving through iron is given by L = 1 / (sigma*rho) = 1 cm. In the course of scattering N^2 times the monopole moves the distance L*N and thus the number of scatters it experiences before escaping the Earth is determined from the condition L*N = R_Earth, corresponding to N = 10^9. In each collision a nucleon is destroyed so the escaping monopole will destroy 10^18 nucleons: negligibly small compared to the total number of nucleons. |
Your answer: "I see no rational errors with this, therefore I do not see how magnetic monopoles could be a danger in any way... assuming that they exist at all", is not an answer, but a trick.
My answers:
1. No.
2.a. No.
2.b. Yes.
Your answers:
1. ?
2.a. ?
2.b. ?
In fact, this part of the paper is quite simple. This problem can be solved by school-children.
-----------------------
Ivan wrote: I answered your questions.
QUOTE
RobDegraves wrote: No... you avoided these ones....
"Advance of perihelion" is not connected with the theory of MHs.
I named some properties: R; h; B; ... Do you want more?
RobDegraves, in order to answer your others questions, I will rewrite the part of my text, changing in it some words (evaporation, velocity) and explaining places of your questions.
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Stephen Hawking.
In the article “The safety of the LHC” you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes (magnetic monopoles, magnetic dipoles).
Difference: Kinetic energies of these created holes (of equal rest mass) relatively surrounding matter are drastically different.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have almost zero kinetic energies.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have the kinetic energies, which are thousands times greater, than their rest energies.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture the slowly moving particles and, as a result, holes grow bigger. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes are ruined almost immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
In order to understand what magnetic collapse is, and how magnetic hole can be ruined, let investigate two analogues cases: (A) nuclear collapse of eV-neutrons on nuclear quasi-holes; and (B) destruction of nuclear quasi-holes by TeV-neurons.
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear quasi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole.
A.There is a vessel, filled by dense neutron gas. Let’s neglect the neutron’s property to decay. Neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. The same vessel, but neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV. Let’s neglect the possibility of creation of “elementary particles zoo’. The only possible particles are: nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Destruction of the hole. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
The main conclusion: If the magnetic hole has analogues properties as the nuclear quasi-hole then: magnetic hole, created at the collider, will explode the Earth. Magnetic holes, created by collision of cosmic proton with atmospheric protons, are ruined by particles of atmosphere.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear quasi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien stephen hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
--------------
RobDegraves wrote: “…publications?”
Yes, dear RobDegraves, rules in science are against us: in order the theory of magnetic holes was taken seriously to attention, its author must have ranks in science. As a result, the theory is neglected. The LHC will be switched on, despite the errors made in CERN’s articles about safety of LHC. The Earth will be exploded by neglected magnetic holes. According to approximate schedule the first collisions (450 GeV per proton) will be carried on the 30-th of November; the first collisions (3.5 TeV per proton) will be carried on the 14-th of December.
If magnetic moment of x-boson is equal to magnetic moment of proton, then the magnetic collapse can start under 510 GeV energy per pair of colliding particles. If it is ten times bigger, then magnetic collapse can start under 5.1 TeV per pair of protons, or 2.55 TeV per proton.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| RobDegraves wrote: No... you avoided these ones.... From Rpenner: You neglect vacuum polarization and the advance of Mercury's perihelion |
"Advance of perihelion" is not connected with the theory of MHs.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gorelik can't tell us what the physical properties of his "holes" |
I named some properties: R; h; B; ... Do you want more?
RobDegraves, in order to answer your others questions, I will rewrite the part of my text, changing in it some words (evaporation, velocity) and explaining places of your questions.
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Stephen Hawking.
In the article “The safety of the LHC” you can find dozen comparisons with cosmic rays.
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes (magnetic monopoles, magnetic dipoles).
Difference: Kinetic energies of these created holes (of equal rest mass) relatively surrounding matter are drastically different.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have almost zero kinetic energies.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have the kinetic energies, which are thousands times greater, than their rest energies.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture the slowly moving particles and, as a result, holes grow bigger. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes are ruined almost immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
In order to understand what magnetic collapse is, and how magnetic hole can be ruined, let investigate two analogues cases: (A) nuclear collapse of eV-neutrons on nuclear quasi-holes; and (B) destruction of nuclear quasi-holes by TeV-neurons.
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear quasi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole.
A.There is a vessel, filled by dense neutron gas. Let’s neglect the neutron’s property to decay. Neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. The same vessel, but neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV. Let’s neglect the possibility of creation of “elementary particles zoo’. The only possible particles are: nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
B. Destruction of the hole. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.
The main conclusion: If the magnetic hole has analogues properties as the nuclear quasi-hole then: magnetic hole, created at the collider, will explode the Earth. Magnetic holes, created by collision of cosmic proton with atmospheric protons, are ruined by particles of atmosphere.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear quasi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems (alien free thinkers) will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien stephen hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”
--------------
RobDegraves wrote: “…publications?”
Yes, dear RobDegraves, rules in science are against us: in order the theory of magnetic holes was taken seriously to attention, its author must have ranks in science. As a result, the theory is neglected. The LHC will be switched on, despite the errors made in CERN’s articles about safety of LHC. The Earth will be exploded by neglected magnetic holes. According to approximate schedule the first collisions (450 GeV per proton) will be carried on the 30-th of November; the first collisions (3.5 TeV per proton) will be carried on the 14-th of December.
If magnetic moment of x-boson is equal to magnetic moment of proton, then the magnetic collapse can start under 510 GeV energy per pair of colliding particles. If it is ten times bigger, then magnetic collapse can start under 5.1 TeV per pair of protons, or 2.55 TeV per proton.
Ivan: You have neglected to consider that your putative stationary "hole" is alternatively blasted from side-to-side by succeeding beams. Plus it is subject to the huge magnetic flux of the steering magnets. So either the "hole" stays in the machine and gets whipsawed or recoils out of the machine tangental to the earth (since it is essentially on the earth's surface) and quickly exits the atmosphere. So, even giving your dumb idea the slightest credence the side effects of actually being created in the machine's environment would seem to be poisonous.
(No doubt you will next argue that the machine feeds the hole but in fact that would just make it "bigger" and more likely to be hit and be punched out of the atmosphere).
Why am I "feeding" that "hole" that is your idea?
(No doubt you will next argue that the machine feeds the hole but in fact that would just make it "bigger" and more likely to be hit and be punched out of the atmosphere).
Why am I "feeding" that "hole" that is your idea?
QUOTE (NoCleverName+Sep 26 2009, 09:29 AM)
Ivan: You have neglected to consider that your putative stationary "hole" is alternatively blasted from side-to-side by succeeding beams. Plus it is subject to the huge magnetic flux of the steering magnets. So either the "hole" stays in the machine and gets whipsawed or recoils out of the machine tangental to the earth (since it is essentially on the earth's surface) and quickly exits the atmosphere. So, even giving your dumb idea the slightest credence the side effects of actually being created in the machine's environment would seem to be poisonous.
(No doubt you will next argue that the machine feeds the hole but in fact that would just make it "bigger" and more likely to be hit and be punched out of the atmosphere).
Why am I "feeding" that "hole" that is your idea?
Every reassuring answer is very welcome. Thanks!
(No doubt you will next argue that the machine feeds the hole but in fact that would just make it "bigger" and more likely to be hit and be punched out of the atmosphere).
Why am I "feeding" that "hole" that is your idea?
Every reassuring answer is very welcome. Thanks!
umm.. is Free thinker and Ivan related? Like cousins or something?
I'm happy to see other people wondering about these things and getting interesting ideas. There are aspects I don't understand well enough to comment on.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.