tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post259954077795911971..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Black Holes at the LHC - againSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8277645489910810812008-05-22T19:10:00.000-04:002008-05-22T19:10:00.000-04:00Yes, it's crazy. Sorry, but I really don't have th...Yes, it's crazy. Sorry, but I really don't have the time to debunk everybody's idea about what the LHC might be able to do when one doesn't know particle physics. The following doesn't have anything to do with you particular.<BR/><BR/>___<BR/><BR/>Folks, I think it's about time to close this comment section, it has exceeded a length where one can have a sensible discussion. Thanks everybody for Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-22619968895118135022008-05-22T19:04:00.000-04:002008-05-22T19:04:00.000-04:00Hi,Actually, I think Hasanuddin thinks that matter...Hi,<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think Hasanuddin thinks that matter-matter collisions will attract each other. His new model claims that matter and antimatter repel each other gravitationally, and matter-matter attracts each other. I think that he thinks that these "matter collisions" at the LHC will clump together, and reach high enough energy that a stable MBH will be formed (which is also predictedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20764783514717766832008-05-22T16:11:00.000-04:002008-05-22T16:11:00.000-04:00You can't produce Black Holes at the LHC because I...You can't produce Black Holes at the LHC because I own the copyright <A HREF="http://quantumnonsense.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-hole.html" REL="nofollow">The Black Hole </A>. I Designed The Black Hole, I know you might think thats stupid, but the universe is stupid. Although not as stupid as me, only a fool would create an object he can never escape from; thats me "The fool!" <BR/>"Here is a Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14235808412345041294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91122376062975160982008-05-22T15:31:00.000-04:002008-05-22T15:31:00.000-04:00Hi Tayman,I have no idea what 'dogpiling' is suppo...Hi Tayman,<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what 'dogpiling' is supposed to be. Of course the LHC doesn't just hit single protons into each other, that's why to get a number of events per time interval we multiply the cross-section with the luminosity. I can't quite recall the luminosity for the LHC at 14 TeV but I think it is planned to reach something like 10^33/cm^2/s. I have no clue why that person Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55689812000763549222008-05-22T14:15:00.000-04:002008-05-22T14:15:00.000-04:00Actually, Hasanuddin posted a comment on your blog...Actually, Hasanuddin posted a comment on your blog about his model:<BR/><BR/>http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/lhc-at-nature-insight.html#c5813482062560311948Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90195333525140842652008-05-22T14:12:00.000-04:002008-05-22T14:12:00.000-04:00Hi BeeI have been following the LHC for about a mo...Hi Bee<BR/><BR/>I have been following the LHC for about a month and a half now. I know that the safety arguments are solid, but I was just curious about one thing: Hasanuddin, who is advancing a model that says the LHC could create stable MBHs, has stated on his blog that LHC collisions are more dangerous than cosmic ray collisions because "dogpiling will occur." I have skimmed his model and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64564786874361321272008-05-22T07:08:00.000-04:002008-05-22T07:08:00.000-04:00Hi Walter, “I believe they were also writing for a...Hi Walter,<BR/><BR/> “I believe they were also writing for a different target audience, as well.”<BR/><BR/>“However, I do not believe that Taylor was writing 'bad science', but rather in certain areas he strayed from an in-depth understanding which no one then yet had”<BR/><BR/>"So, now that we've had this brief segue, we can turn the topic back over to the speculation as to whether Hawking's Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5329367865323761682008-05-21T17:43:00.000-04:002008-05-21T17:43:00.000-04:00Hmmm.... Calorimetric valuations of luminosities, ...Hmmm.... Calorimetric valuations of luminosities, and what was Joe Kapusta saying about "alien communication possibilities?"<BR/><BR/>It's a new way in which we force new versions of, "the mapping of our universe."<BR/><BR/>Perceptions and valuations of the universe typically then reveal the value of "time dissipation" according to these calculations? "IN relation to our sun" and the lifetime of PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23026872720860934212008-05-21T16:18:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:18:00.000-04:00Phil:By the time that "your" Bill Kaufmann got aro...Phil:<BR/><BR/>By the time that "your" Bill Kaufmann got around to writing his book, six years had elapsed since John Taylor's book had been copyrighted.<BR/><BR/>I believe they were also writing for a different target audience, as well.<BR/><BR/>However, I do not believe that Taylor was writing 'bad science', but rather in certain areas he strayed from an in-depth understanding which no one thenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3447190454147606272008-05-21T09:03:00.000-04:002008-05-21T09:03:00.000-04:00Hi JTanker,I didn't write the Wikipedia article, a...Hi JTanker,<BR/><BR/>I didn't write the Wikipedia article, and I don't know who did. I don't even know what exactly your question is. I have repeated now roughly ten times one does not need any particles of negative energy for the Hawking effect. You have a black hole with mass M. It emits an energy E. The remaining mass of the black hole is M-E. You can write that as M+(-E) if you wish, but thisSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19056058429661786532008-05-21T08:58:00.000-04:002008-05-21T08:58:00.000-04:00Hi Walter,Yes, this is correct. It was somewhat sl...Hi Walter,<BR/><BR/>Yes, this is correct. It was somewhat sloppy to say they move around. What I meant so express is just that one can ask whether it makes a difference to have exactly thermal Hawking or some deviation from it. Turns out, no it doesn't make a big difference, for one the deviations are too small, but also because the LHC is a hadron collider, so the pdfs come in everywhere. AnywaySabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21344542288564961782008-05-21T07:23:00.000-04:002008-05-21T07:23:00.000-04:00Hi Walter,“I doubt that John Tayor wrote the cover...Hi Walter,<BR/><BR/>“I doubt that John Tayor wrote the cover, and it was written to make it a best-seller.”<BR/><BR/>True as the old saying goes “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. That said how about we judge a book by its content or in this case table of contents and perhaps compare it with one that gives the subject a more serious treatment. First “Black Holes: The End of the Universe?”:<Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81354038286313639142008-05-21T04:36:00.000-04:002008-05-21T04:36:00.000-04:00Bee writes: "...black hole does not lose energy be...Bee writes: <I>"...black hole does not lose energy because matter falls into it. ...I dislike the explanation with Hawking-evaporation from particle pairs at the horizon for exactly this reason..."</I><BR/><BR/>The Wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation uses the following clearly fallacious argument since 2006. An argument that implies the existence of a yet undiscovered fundamental force of "JTankershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01016299097944020569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37454892401674514072008-05-21T00:13:00.000-04:002008-05-21T00:13:00.000-04:00Phil:Sorry, I didn't check Antiqbooks for it. I h...Phil:<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I didn't check Antiqbooks for it. I have the paperback, and the cover is different, and reads from top to bottom as:<BR/><BR/>"BLACK HOLES THE GREAT INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER! THE BIZARRE, UNBELIEVABLE, TRUE STORY OF THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN SPACE - AND ITS THREAT OF DOOM FOR ALL MANKKIND BY JOHN B. TAYLOR THE END OF THE UNIVERSE?" [different size type, with "BlackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87252415560236270132008-05-20T07:56:00.000-04:002008-05-20T07:56:00.000-04:00Hi Nick,Yeah, as M pointed out, I have heard of th...Hi Nick,<BR/><BR/>Yeah, as M pointed out, I have heard of this paper. Since we're talking about the LHC though, <A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0109085" REL="nofollow">this one</A> might be more appropriate.<BR/><BR/>And yes, it says the MBHs wouldn't evaporate as fast as suggested by integrating over Hawking's thermal spectrum all the way down to the new fundamental scale. The reason is Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43327760516836347982008-05-20T03:08:00.000-04:002008-05-20T03:08:00.000-04:00Hi Nick,I'm just curious if you know of this paper...Hi Nick,<BR/><BR/><I>I'm just curious if you know of this paper?</I><BR/><BR/>Looking at the list of authors, I hope that she knows it ;-)<BR/><BR/>Cheers, M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17498591485531530042008-05-20T01:01:00.000-04:002008-05-20T01:01:00.000-04:00Hi Walter,“Here's that book I referenced:”"Black H...Hi Walter,<BR/><BR/>“Here's that book I referenced:”<BR/><BR/>"Black Holes" by John G. Taylor, Professor of Mathematics at King College, University of London, copyrighted 1973 [ISBN: 0-380-00327-9]; [Library of US Congress Catalog Card Number: 73-20572]”<BR/><BR/>It seems you forgot to give the full title of the book which is <A HREF="http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/how/14731.shtml" REL="nofollow">Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78265410420772151172008-05-19T23:25:00.000-04:002008-05-19T23:25:00.000-04:00Hi again, Bee.I'm just curious if you know of this...Hi again, Bee.<BR/><BR/>I'm just curious if you know of this paper:<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0111052<BR/><BR/>I can't quite understand the abstract, but is it saying MBHs may not evaporate as quickly as thought? If I'm wrong, please forgive me, I have no knowledge in the area.<BR/><BR/>Also, on the subject of stable MBHs, if one was produced that escaped the earth, would it be a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36391667900339709042008-05-19T23:19:00.000-04:002008-05-19T23:19:00.000-04:00The GLAST satellite is a gamma ray observatory and...The GLAST satellite is a gamma ray observatory and might be capable of detecting "Hawking Radiation" from presumptive evaporating microblackholes, which is one of the projected search features. If so, then it might verify the existence of "Hawking Radiation".<BR/><BR/>"The GLAST spacecraft rolled out from the Astrotech processing facility to Launch Pad 17-B over the weekend. The spacecraft was Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11871996719102902012008-05-19T20:18:00.000-04:002008-05-19T20:18:00.000-04:00Hi Bee:Here's that book I referenced:"Black Holes"...Hi Bee:<BR/><BR/>Here's that book I referenced:<BR/><BR/>"Black Holes" by John G. Taylor, Professor of Mathematics at King College, University of London, copyrighted 1973 [ISBN: 0-380-00327-9]; [Library of US Congress Catalog Card Number: 73-20572]<BR/><BR/>John got himself in trouble a few years later when he started speculating about the 'occult' after having had a run-in with Uri Geller; and IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77347272271973303242008-05-19T17:01:00.000-04:002008-05-19T17:01:00.000-04:00Hi Dany,I have no idea what you're trying to say. ...Hi Dany,<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what you're trying to say. GR clearly has black holes as solution. You can not remove them "by the proper choice of the coordinate system (ref frame)" as you write. What you can remove by changing the coordinate system is the singularity that the metric in the Schwarzschild coordinate system has at the horizon. This singularity is not physical but an artifact of Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65270016442971393712008-05-19T16:52:00.000-04:002008-05-19T16:52:00.000-04:00Hi Bee,Bee:” I think M*P* referred to the singular...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>Bee:” I think M*P* referred to the singularity theorems…This does not necessarily mean there is a singularity inside. Though this has to be the case in GR, one would expect there to be QG effects that come into play, such that the singularity is actually avoided.”<BR/><BR/>Sure. That what I meant and referred to Y.B. Zeldovich et al results. I was not able to see any unreasonableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75668403279045292442008-05-19T16:04:00.000-04:002008-05-19T16:04:00.000-04:00Bee:The high-energy/astrophysics physics community...Bee:<BR/><BR/>The high-energy/astrophysics physics community was much smaller back then, but yes, the idea of collapsed-star blackholes had been around for decades already in 1974 when I was discussing its ramficiations with others. Lots of books, even, had been written about them. None had been detected indirectly, but searches were being proposed.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the Universe was on Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90792388375864031832008-05-19T13:53:00.000-04:002008-05-19T13:53:00.000-04:00Walter: when Hawking came up with his idea [circa...Walter: <I>when Hawking came up with his idea [circa 1974] of "evaporating black holes", the idea of collapsed-star black holes was well established and accepted in the physics community</I><BR/><BR/>That comes as a surprise to me. I can recall plenty of discussion even in the early to mid nineties on whether astrophysical black holes actually exist. The situation only clarified with Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80623227015660938672008-05-19T13:33:00.000-04:002008-05-19T13:33:00.000-04:00Hi Walter/JTankerYes, this is the reason why the b...Hi Walter/JTanker<BR/><BR/>Yes, this is the reason why the black-holes in the BEC assertion is nonsense. Maybe I should have explained it, but I thought it is obvious: the density is far too low, we'd have produced them all the time at already existing particle colliders during the last decades. Why all the talk about black holes at the LHC? Because there we will squeeze more mass into a small Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com