March 2005
Also see www.risk-evaluation-forum.org
The
fact that heavy particles created by accelerators like RHIC or LHC could have
very low speed in the terrestrial referential is specific to accelerators (this
is different from cosmic rays production of particles). These heavy particles
with very low speed could
present a danger for Earth security.
This study is a private study and it had neither the time
nor the important founds that could need such a study. Some ideas, hypothesis or
calculus given in this study could be wrong, or just as a first evaluation,
but some important factors of danger are pointed
out.
Summary
: (1
page)
The
particle accelerator LHC will be the most powerful 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.
At this very
moment particle potentially dangerous ( strange quarks) are produced with
opposite speed particles in the accelerator RHIC (USA). If this production of strange quarks
has not still given a catastrophic event, what will happen if this production
continue during mouth and years ?
Arguments are provided about risk of low speed quarks
stranges in the new context of possibility of quarks stranges created by
evaporation of a “black holes” in RHIC
[Ref.38].
About
the Black holes production with opposite speed collisions in
LHC :
Probability of production : 40% to 60 % or
more.
Probability for black holes not to evaporate 20 % to 30 %
(in case of effective evaporation detected in RHIC [Ref.38], a 2% or 5% risk
will remain with a possible evaporation lower than predicted in case of higher
energies in LHC).
In
this case, with Greg Landsberg's (particles physicist) calculations, we see
that, using the LHC during ten years, 3.160 (US notation 3,160) micro black
holes could be captured by Earth.
The
speed of the captured micro black holes will decrease because of their
interaction with terrestrial matter and at the end they will stop at the center
of Earth. The important pressure there, could then continue to make them grow.
Calculus indicate a relatively important absorption of matter and this could
mean a possible main danger for Earth.
_____________________________________________________________________
The LHC particle accelerator will be the most powerful 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
[from Ref.11].
I.
COSMIC RAY MODEL IS NOT VALID FOR RHIC AND LHC :
LHC
accelerator from CERN will also produce strange quarks, monopoles and could
produce Micro Black Holes (MBH).
CERN
study 2003.001 [Ref.1] indicates no danger for Earth, but its arguments are
incomplete and are discussed here.
This
paper considers mainly heavy particles like strange quarks, monopoles or micro
black holes (MBHs) with low speeds and this is unique to accelerators. As an
example, an important issue is about the rate of accretion of matter subsequent
to MBH creation. This study explores processes that could cause accretion to be
significant. Other dangers of heavy
particles with low speeds are also discussed.
At
this very moment particle potentially dangerous ( strange quarks) are
produced with opposite speed collisions in
RHIC.
RHIC
physicists observing what was supposed to be a quarks-gluons plasma with a
strange behaviour are questioning and wondering if in fact this plasma is not a
black hole [Ref.38]. Coming from this “plasma” strange quarks are
detected.
Note:
This plasma could perhaps be revealed as a micro black hole [Ref.38], but we
will maintain the term “plasma” for the
moment.
We
have seen that the cosmic ray model is very different from accelerators where
particles with opposing speeds collide.
Some authors DDH quoted in [Ref.14
page 21] assume that, in case of strange quarks production “confined to central rapidity
, if RHIC is
used during 6 mouth a year during 10 years it could statistically produce “one
dangerous strange quark” !
If
only “one” strange quark is approximately at zero speed there could be danger
and destruction of the planet with a supernova-like
effect.
RHIC
[Ref.14] and CERN studies [Ref.1 & Ref.2] estimate that a quarks stranges
production “confined to central rapidity” was “hard to justify on any theoretical
ground” ! (I quote the terms used in [Ref.14 p20])
.
Some
arguments indicate that such a production at central rapidity could be possible
:
The
production of the quarks-gluons plasma reduce the speed and retains the particles created in the collision
[Ref.33]. This phenomena is called in French “ suppression des jets
(particles beams suppression)” and it is used in RHIC to detect the plasma
production.
A
second argument can be suggested : In RHIC when the production of the quarks-gluons plasma had began,
the physicists have been amazed to notice that it was acting as a “liquid drop”
and not as a “gas” [Ref. 33].
The hypothesis suggested was that this could be due to the low temperature of
the plasma. We can imagine that strange quarks produced in a liquid medium could
be more retained by the plasma than if the medium had the comportment of a gas.
These arguments indicate that strange quarks could loose more speed and that
a production “confined at central rapidity” could be possible.
A
third argument could be described in using our own evaluation of very low
speeds. We had seen for micro black holes that we could have statistically
probability of speeds < 4 m/sec. If this could be applied to strange quarks
this could mean possibility of danger.
It is
important to notice that with strange quarks danger could be now :
At this very
moment strange quarks are produced in the accelerator
RHIC.
If
the production of strange quarks has not still given a catastrophic event, what
will happen if this production continue during mouth and years ?
The
same problem could also happen in the LHC.
We
estimate a minimal risk for strangelets on the order of 2%. We might
estimate as high as 10 % if we want to be wise because the danger is
primary !
II. Low speed Micro black holes : arguments for
danger in LHC.
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) space-time
dimensions (string theory etc..) are valid could be more than 60%. 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. 9 & Ref.11]
2.
The CERN study [Ref.1] indicates that MBHs present no danger because they will
evaporate with Hawking evaporation. However, Hawking evaporation has never been
tested.
In
several surveys, physicists have estimated a non trivial probability that
Hawking evaporation will not work. [Ref. 32] Our estimation of Hawking evaporation failure is 20%, or
perhaps as much as 30%.
The
following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation
will fail.
3.
The cosmic ray model is not valid for the MBHs production in LHC. It has been
said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC (1 TeV), show that
there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy
particles at a zero speed target (similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's
surface). In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed.
With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) restricted relativity indicates
that 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 is different from the situation at RHIC or LHC,
where particles with opposing speeds collide and where “heavy particles with
low speed” are created..
4. In
case of evaporation failing, the low speed MBHs created in accelerators could be
captured by earth. Using Greg Landsberg's (particles physicist) calculation
[Ref. 3], in this case, of one black hole with velocity less than escape
velocity from earth produced every 105 seconds at the LHC, we have
3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs captured by Earth in ten years.
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 interaction
(mainly accretion) with matter. CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1] did not study low speed
MBHs and to evaluate the risk, we must consider that different processes could
mean more accretion :
a. If
a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a
proton. b. If a MBH accrete a quark, 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 charge 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 colours.
c.
The CERN study's [Ref.1] calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius"
for the accretion cross section. 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.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.
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 all these MBHs will go toward the precise
gravitational center of earth as suggested by Kip Thorne [Ref. 18 p. 111]. After
numerous interactions they will stop there at rest and then coalesce into a
single MBH. Our calculus indicates that the mass of such a MBH would be in the
range of 0.02 g or maybe much more.
A
classical pressure evaluation at the center of earth is of 4 x 1011 Pa. 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 degenerate
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
degenerate pressure to counterbalance the pressure of all the Earth matter.
Pressure is constant in an homogeneous liquid, but it is not the same in an
heterogeneous medium composed of atoms and of a MBH.
To
indicate the pressure we must use the equation :
Pressure P = Force F / Surface S
Here F is the weight of all the matter of Earth and this do not
change.
If we reduce
surface (the surface of
the MBH will be very small), we are obliged
to notice that Pressure P will increase.
With MBH of 0.02 g
, calculus indicate on MBH surface an impressive increase of pressure in the
range of : P
» 7 .10
23 Pa (nearly thousand billions times more
important).
The
high pressure in the center of Earth region will push strongly all the matter in
direction of the central point where the MBH will be.
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.
III.
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 (zigzag
trajectory), 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 unknown
particles, black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non
definitive theories [Ref. 34 and Ref.37]. As an example : vacuum energy is
evaluated as 10-29 g /cm3 by the cosmologists and as
1091 g / cm3 by the physicists in particles theory
[Ref.34].
We
estimate this danger due to ignorance, ranging from a minimal 2% risk to
5%.
IV. Conclusion:
Heavy
particles with low speed created by accelerators like RHIC or LHC using
“opposite speed collisions” could present a danger for Earth
security.
First
we must notice that « At this very moment » particles (strange
quarks) that present a possibility of danger are produced in the accelerator
RHIC using “opposite speed collisions”.
About
production of black holes we remark that the CERN study [Ref. 1] is a remake of
a similar study for the earlier RHIC [Ref. 14] adapted to the LHC. 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
0% risk or a 100% risk. This is not a good evaluation of a risk percentage!
If we
add all the risks we could estimate an overall risk for RHIC between 4 % and 10 %. LHC with higher energies adds all the
risks and evaluation is between 11 % and 22 % ( perhaps more)
!
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. 5] .Even
testing the LHC could be dangerous. Even the simple use of the RHIC with
opposite speed particle 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!
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
with opposite speed particles. We must understand this evidence and stop
these kind of experiments before it is too late!
_____________________________________________________________________
2
** Hawking evaporation argument left a 20 %
risk !
3
** For Black holes in LHC : no conclusions from the cosmic
rays.
5
** Micro Black Holes could have very low speeds
6
** Micro Black holes accretion radius in case of low
speeds:
7
** MBH Speed will decrease (accretion process in case of low speed
)
8
** Others accretion factors:
9
** Could charged Micro Black Hole bind to an atom in the matter
?
10 ** Micro Black Hole in the center of Earth: New
accretion processes.
11 ** Conclusion about
accretion rate :
V
** RISK EVALUATION
VI ** CONCLUSION :
ANNEX 1 : Discussion about
MBH Production :
ANNEX
2 : Arguments About Failing of
Hawking Evaporation:
ANNEX
3 : Discussion about gauge
forces.
ANNEX
4 : Discussion about MBH bind
to an atom in the matter.
References :
I
** SLOW SPEED STRANGELETS
in RHIC: Immediate danger ?
In year 2000, in United States the particle
accelerator RHIC has success in producing a quark-gluon plasma [Ref.12,
Ref.33].
Note:
This plasma could perhaps be revealed as a micro black hole [Ref.38], but we
will maintain the term “plasma” for the
moment.
When
this plasma is produced « strange quarks » are detected
[Ref.33].
A danger study [Ref.14] has been done before RHIC
began working because this sort of quarks could present a main danger for
the planet itself, changing all the ordinary matter in strange matter and
liberating an important quantity of energy.
Even if the
conclusions of this danger study are reassuring, it is good to be critical about
the arguments presented.
1/ We must notice
first that all the authors agree on the fact that the existence of high energy
cosmic rays for billiards of years are is not a sufficient safety argument for
RHIC [Ref 14. page 23] and [Ref.1
page 5].
The
strange quarks could only be dangerous in case of very low
speed.
In
the case of cosmic rays, the center of mass keeps after the interaction a high
speed and this is different from the RHIC experiment with “opposite speed
collisions”, in which the center of mass speed is low with reference to the
matter of Earth.
Some
authors DDH cited in [Ref.14 page 21]
affirm that, in case of production of quarks stranges “confined
to central rapidity”, if RHIC is
used during 6 mouth a year during 10 years with opposite collisions of gold
atoms, it could statistically produce “one dangerous strange quark” !
It is
important to understand that even « one » dangerous quark strange
could destroy the planet with a supernova-like
effect.
RHIC
[Ref.14] and CERN studies [Ref.1 and Ref.2] estimate that a quarks stranges
production “confined to central rapidity” was “hard to justify on any theoretical
ground” ! (I quote the terms used in [Ref.14 p20])
.
We
present arguments could indicate that such a production at central rapidity
could be possible :
The
production of the quarks-gluons plasma reduce the speed and retains the particles created in the collision
[Ref.33]. This phenomena is called in French “ suppression des jets
(particles beams suppression)” and it is used in RHIC to detect the plasma
production.
A
second argument can be suggested : In RHIC when the production of the quarks-gluons plasma had began,
the physicists have been amazed to notice that it was acting as a “liquid drop”
and not as a “gas” [Ref. 33].
The hypothesis suggested was that this could be due to the low temperature of
the plasma. We can imagine that strange quarks produced in a liquid medium could
be more retained by the plasma than if the medium had the comportment of a gas.
These arguments indicate that strange quarks could loose more speed and that
a production “confined at central rapidity” could be
possible.
A
third argument could be described in using our own evaluation of very low
speeds, as seen in the micro black
holes chapter . We had seen for micro black holes that we could have
statistically probability of speeds < 4 m/sec. If this could be applied to
strange quarks this could mean possibility of
danger.
Note: Discussion about strangelets with low speed ?
:
Perhaps strangelets will have a typical velocity of 0.1c
as Greg Landsberg suggest for MBH in [Ref.3] and we have seen that this could
mean strangelets with speed < 4 m/sec :
Another hypothesis could be that strangelets will have
rapidity dispersion as DDH (Dar, de Rujula and Heinz) equation [Ref.19]. This
equation dP / dy =
pd (y – Y/2)
[Ref.14 page 20] and [Ref.2] indicate a strangelet production
completely confined to central rapidity.
N
.
*
*
_____________* . *
_____________________________ Speed
v
0
c
F.
Calogero ( Dipartimento
di Fisica, Università di Roma "La Sapienza" Istituto Nazionale di Fisica
Nucleare, Sezione di Roma ) in [Ref.4] in year 2000 who
refers to DDH thinks there is a possible danger.
With such a rapidity distribution, the argument of
persistence of the moon ( cosmic rays have collision with the moon since
millions of years and the moon is still here ) is not appropriate.
We can read in his study (“Might a laboratory
experiment destroy planet Earth ?”)
… have shown that the safety margin provided by the
persistence of the Moon essentially
evaporates”.
I
also remark study for LHC CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1 page 5], indicate that “no
safety conclusion can come from cosmic rays”.
2/
The argument proposed in [Ref.14 page 22 to 24] is to reduce this “risk
probability” in using data coming from evaluation of the number of supernovae in
Astronomy. With these data [Ref 14. page 24] the risk probability is reduced with a
108 factor below the security value needed by
RHIC.
Such
value can be discussed because the explosive effect due to strange quarks could
happen in a way different of a supernovae effect. As an example it could happen
with explosives jolt.
3/ As
a second argument, from the authors of the risk study for RHIC, indicate to
reduce more the risk probability in arguing that iron could be used instead of
gold for the calculus. This argument could also be discussed because in RHIC
experiment, it is with gold (more heavy) and not iron that we have obtained the
strange quarks.
If
the two latest arguments were wrong, then there could be risk for the
security of Earth.
We
must add that such a low probability could be under-estimated (we must remember
the “challenger effect” when the NASA had predicted on risk on 100.000 for a
crash).
CERN [Ref.1] study indicate that no star composed of
strange quarks has been detected.
I give here a reference that seems to go against this
opinion in [Ref.21] we can read :
“Chandra telescope looking at X rays has
observed 3C58 and another star
which could be composed with quarks up down and strange (their
temperature is different from classical neutron star).”
The Astronomical proof is difficult to obtain but when we
have doubt we must abstain. Strangelets could be a real potential
danger
Risk
evaluation for Strangelets :
We
remark in LHC study CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1 page 6] for strangelet, the use of
recent studies, extrapolations and possibility of
doubt.
LHC
conditions are different from cosmic rays conditions and strangelets would move
slowly and could present danger.
It
would be reasonable to consider at least a 2% risk for strangelets and
because of main risk for Earth if we want to be wise we should consider of 10
% the risk for strangelets.
The
precaution principle seems to indicate not to experiment, mainly with opposites
speed particles collisions.
At this very
moment particle potentially dangerous ( strange quarks) are produced with
opposite speed particles in the accelerator RHIC (USA).
If this
production of strange quarks has not still given a catastrophic event, what will
happen if this production continue during mouth and years ?
The
same problem could also happen in the LHC accelerator from
CERN.
LHC
particle accelerator from CERN could produce Strangelets and Micro Black Holes
(MBH). CERN [Ref.9 & Ref.11] indicate a possible rhythm of producing one MBH
every second. CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1] ( and
also [Ref.2] ) is a risk evaluation study from “LHC Safety Study Group”.
This evaluation is very important because a risk could exist of a possible
complete destruction of planet Earth. CERN 2003-001 conclude that there is no
danger !
I had
sent to CERN in 2003 and beginning of 2004 a first critical study and CERN
answers are included in this new more accurate
study.
Nowadays physical theories as string theory, brane
theory, M theory need more than four dimensions of space-time [Ref.20]. In these
theories we have 4 open dimensions (3 of space 1 of time) and others are rolled
dimensions. These (4+d) theories have more reasons to be trust because they give
more physicals answers, they join quantum theory and relativity and they
give explanations for particles properties, etc...
If
the theories with more than 4 dimensions are true (if the number of dimensions
increase), calculus in CERN Study [Ref.1] [Ref.2] indicate that Micro Black
Holes (MBH) will be created in
CERN LHC accelerator.
“Compared
with the expectation that heavy-ion collisions at the LHC will produce a
concentration of energy over a length scale 1 TeV –1
~ 10
-17 cm, we see that the ( 4+d ) black hole will be produced if
M (concentration of matter) not much larger than 1 TeV. This is confirmed by
detailed estimates in Refs.[20,21].
Thus it is important to recalculate the stability bounds of black holes
in ( 4+d ) dimensions”.
Also in “LHC Safety Study Group” document [Ref.2] we can
read the same conclusions. With:
d Number of
rolled dimensions
M* Fundamental Mass Scale
in a (4+d) space
time
R Size of
rolled dimensions.
“In case of (4+d) dimensions, if M* =1
TeV R <= 0.7 mm, d >=
2
Copious production of MBH in LHC”
.
Others articles [Ref.9][Ref.11] indicate a possible rhythm of producing one black
hole every second.
String theory needs 10D, M theory and branes theories
need 11D.
We
estimate that theories with (4+d) dimensions have more chances to be true ( 40 %
or 60 % and perhaps 80 %) than 4D theories. Danger is main danger so our
security estimation will be that Black hole could have a 80 % probability
to be produced in LHC.
See
discussion about MBH production in ANNEX
1.
2 **
Hawking evaporation argument left a 20 %
or 30 % risk !
CERN
study [Ref.1] conclusion page 12 :
“Black hole production does not present a conceivable
risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal
process”.
Comment: The thermal process means evaporation of the
black holes and this has been described by the Stephen Hawking theory. If such
an evaporation works there will be no problem
!
The
black hole evaporation is totally theoretical and no experiment has proved its
truth .
Note: Kip S. Thorne who has been working on evaporation
with Hawking tells us [Ref.18 page 479-480] :
“It’s possible, we understand quantum fields far less
that what we believe and it’s a mistake when we think black holes evaporate. We
resist to such a scepticism because of the appearance of perfection in which
standard laws of curved space time join quantum
fields.
It is however true that we should feel more in ease if
astronomers could effectively observe clues of black holes
evaporation”.
Black holes in Astronomy have an important mass, so the
evaporation is very tiny and cannot be seen. Primordial MBH effects could be
detected, but we are far from a proof of Hawking
evaporation.
The
brightness theory could reveal false when tested. Hawking theory is a very well
constructed theory and that means that evaporation could have 80 % chances to
work. This left 20 % risk ( and maybe 30 % risk if we want to get insurance in
the risk evaluation ).
CERN
2003-001 considers evaporation is sure acquiring of science. This is dangerous
presumption. CERN 2003-01 equations (Eq.18) (Eq.19) (Eq.20) (Eq.21) (Eq.22) and
the conclusions that follows have a 20 % or 30 % risk to be wrong
!!!
It is
dangerous to believe that there is no danger to test Hawking evaporation in
greatness size on our planet !!!
“This would also confirm
Hawking' s prediction, which has never yet been put to the test. Even
more intriguingly, this 'Hawking radiation' might hold clues about the fabric of
space itself”.
Or also we can cite Andrew
Hamilton :
« 15 Apr 2003 update. Adam Helfer (2003) “Do
black holes radiate?” (gr-qc/0304042) opens with the statement: ``The prediction
that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is often considered one of the
most secure in quantum field theory in curved space-time. Yet this prediction
rests on two dubious assumptions ...''. This delightfully readable
review paper does an excellent job of convincing the reader that Hawking
radiation is still far from being an established prediction of the quantum
physics of black holes. The paper gives the clearest exposition of Hawking
radiation that I know of, emphasizing the physical concepts while simplifying
the mathematics to its barest essentials (not that the mathematics is simple
even in stripped form). »
This main risk of evaporation failing has not been
discussed in CERN 2003-001.
The unlimited confidence in Hawking evaporation seems
dangerous !
Another hypothesis would be that Hawking evaporation
works but less than predicted.
See
Arguments about possible failing of Hawking evaporation in ANNEX
2.
3
** For Black holes in LHC : no conclusions from the cosmic
rays.
We
all have believed that cosmic rays with high energies level, greatest than any
accelerator energies, prove that accelerators are
safe.
We
will point out the differences between MBH in cosmic rays and MBH in LHC but
before a question: If cosmic rays were producing natural black holes when then
collide with Earth matter, why haven’t we observe these black holes ?
Maybe
three reasons :
1/ We have
not prepared experiences to find them.
3/
They are not much reactive and they cross Earth as neutrinos [Greg Landsberg
hypothesis Ref.3] and escape in space.
We
also propose to ”built a detector of black holes produced by cosmic ray”
so we can study them without any danger. Such an experiment is to do, before any
use of accelerators in this energy range with opposite speed
collisions.
1/
Case of cosmic ray in interaction with the matter of a planet (or a
star):
With
such a quick move (if we refer to the planet or the star), if the MBH are
not reactive ( Greg Landsberg proposition [Ref.3] ) they will “always” cross
planets or stars and loose in space.
Rapidity distribution is given with Gauss curb dispersion
: N = a . e ^ (– b’ (v
-V)2 )
.
* *
*
*
______________________________________________________ Speed
0 V
c
Rapidity distribution is given with Gauss curb dispersion
: N = a . e ^ (– b v2 ) .
N = Number of MBH
* . *
*
.
*
______________________________________________________ Speed v
0 c
In
case of opposite speed collisions in RHIC or in LHC, rapidity distribution is
centred on zero speed and this could mean that some low speed MBH could be
captured by terrestrial gravity.
In
this case, with Greg Landsberg's (particles physicist) calculations [Ref.3], we
see that, using the LHC during ten years, we could have 3.160 (US notation
3,160) micro black holes captured
by Earth.
Note: I quote Greg Landsberg (particle physicist) in
March 2003 [Ref.3] who answers to James Blodgett in the hypothesis of
Hawking evaporation could fail:
“Perhaps you missed the fact that black hole at the LHC
is never produced at 0 velocity. It typically moves with the velocity of 0.1c or
so. The reason is that the black holes are produced not in the interaction of
protons, but in the interaction of quarks! Each quark carries a random (and
small) fraction of proton energy, so the sum of the two momenta is always large.
One can easily calculate what's the probability of producing a black hole
with the velocity less than escape velocity, i.e. with beta < 2x10
–5 or gamma = 1.0000000002.
That implies that the momentum of the black hole after collision is <
2x10 -5*M ~ 100 MeV, which happens with < 10 -5
probability”.
Using the
fact that one black hole could be produced every second and using Greg Landsberg
calculation [Ref.3] of probability
of producing black hole with velocity < escape
velocity from Earth, we find one MBH could be captured by Earth every 10
5 sec .
Using LHC during ten years we could have 3160 MBH
captured by Earth.
5 ** Micro Black Holes produced with opposite speed
collisions could have very low speeds :
Our
calculus indicate that MBH could have very low speeds just after having been
produced. (one MBH at every range of 4
m/sec).
Note: Very low speed for MBHs
?
I quote
again Greg Landsberg calculations[Ref.3]:
“The black hole at LHC would typically moves with the
velocity of 0.1c”.
That means that average speed of MBH will be of 0,1c.
As we see before, Gauss curb of speed distribution, in
case of particles coming from opposite side, is N = a . e ^( – b v 2
).
An average speed of 0.1c indicate a Gauss curb with wide
parameter “b”.
So we can see that MBH with velocity < “Earth escape
velocity” (speed < 0.00004c) are located in the middle of Gauss
curb.
*
*
* *
_________*________.___.___*_______________________ Speed v
0 0.1c
c
On the top of distribution curb we can approximate that
probability of number of MBH with a specific range of speed is given by simple
random law ( proportional to the speed interval ).
If we have 3160 MBH located between 0 and 0.00004c (
» 11.000 m/sec) random calculus gives the scale of the
probability range: 11.000 /
3160 » 4 m/sec.
Also probability to have one
MBH with : 4 m/sec <
speed MBH < 8 m /sec
etc …
We see here the probability of very low speed MBH “is not zero” and we need to evaluate if low speed MBH present more risks !
If
MBH are produced, captured by Earth, and do not evaporate, the evaluation of
accretion rate becomes very
important.
We
will see here processes of accretion in case and low
speeds.
Note:
We will see that MBH captured by Earth will at the end stay at rest in the
center of Earth and in this case we could have others very dangerous
accretions processes.
6 ** Black holes capture radius in case of low
speeds:
At
what distance does the MBH with low speed will capture matter when it is inside
Earth and what will the cross section or the surface we must use for capture and
accretion ?
Note : Cross section
accretion is made by calculation of the
volume of the cylinder swept by the moving black hole at speed v in matter with
density r. With
Rs the radius of the black hole (
“Schwarzschild radius”), the accretion rate is given by :
GA »
p . Rs 2 r v ( With speed of light c = 1 we
have in Eq.12 [Ref.1]
GA »
p . Rs 2 r
)
Gravitational or electrical capture radius
:
CERN
2003-001 [Ref.1 & Ref 2] calculus for accretion rate uses “Schwarzschild
radius ” to calculate cross section and has supposed that that the MBH had speed
of light “ c “.
If
MBH has slow speed, “We must no more use Schwarzschild radius for calculus of
accretion.” If MBH speed was
zero, the gravitational force (or the electrical force if the MBH is charged)
would mean accretion at a distance greatest than the Schwarzschild
radius.
The
term to use is “capture radius”.
If the particle is
not bind in an atom it will fall in the vortex if its speed is smaller than
the escape velocity (gravitational or electrical) .
If the particle is bind by electric forces to atom and could not move, that means, by reciprocity that it is the black hole which will try to get in orbit and then will fall on the bind particle.
This
capture radius depend of speed v of the MBH. If the speed is low the capture
radius could be in the range of
10–10 meters (atom distance) and in this case accretion will
be important.
For
most calculus we will use Schwarzschild radius but we must know that in case of
low speeds we would have an important increase of accretion, using the
“capture radius”!
If a particle passes with small speed v at distance r > Schwarzschild radius Rs, it could be caught and absorbed if speed v s small enough.We will first calculate r as a function of speed v in the context of Newton gravitational law. It is the same calculus as gravitational liberation calculus. Particle will be caught if we have centrifuge acceleration < gravitational acceleration :Centrifuge force give acceleration a to escape a = v 2 / r
If we had 4D we should have Gravitational attraction with Newton law gives a = G m / r 2 with m mass of black hole .
Particle would be caught if we had : v 2 / r < G m / r 2
That gives r < G m / v 2 [Eq. GCR]
Remark
: Calculus with general relativity gives the same result with a
difference of only correction factor < 2 if distance is > 1,5 Rs ( photon sphere radius is
3GM/2c2 with Newton law and is 6GM/2c2 with general
relativity).
If the MBH get charges “capture radius” is getting far
more important.
If atoms are bind with
electric forces we will have using Coulomb law :
F = K q1q 2 / r2 =
m a = m v2 / r
à r
< K q1q 2
/ m v2
.
Accretion radius depend of speed v : we will call it
Rv.
The problem is complicated by the fact that it depend of
the number and of the size of rolled dimensions.
An example : In (4+d)D for speed of 7000 m/sec :
with Greg Landsberg evaluation of Schwarzschild radius of
Rs = 1,7.10–19 meters.
Classical calculus indicate that light is captured by a
black hole and orbit at a distance of :
1,5 Rs .
We could write :
R300000km/sec = 1,5 .
1,7.10–19 meters = 2,5 . 10 –19
meters.
With
[Eq.GCR] r v2
= G m
à r
v2 = r’v’2 = Gm
à r’= r
v2 /v’2
If we have if speed is of 7 km/sec (case of low speeds)
we have :
R7km/sec = R300000km/sec. (3.
108 m/sec)2 / (7. 103 m/sec)2 = 2,5 . 10 –19 . (3.
108 / 7 .103)2
R7km/sec » 5 .10 –10 meters
We must notice that :
The Newton law has been tested in short distances of one
Nanometer (10 –10 meters) [see Chapter of MBH production], we must
suppose than the size of rolled dimensions is smallest than 10 –10 meters.
If the distance is >> than size of dimensions, we are in a 4D context and
classical calculus with Planck length indicate a smallest capture radius
:
The general equation proposed in the context of this
evaluation is :
2. 10
–2 / v 2
> Rv > 10–18 meters , Rv <= 10–10
meters
[Eq.
RS]
Note : If the capture radius is in the range of atom
distance 10–10 meters, accretion could be
important.
7 ** MBH Speed will decrease :
Accretion processes in case of low
speeds
MBH captured by Earth will catch matter with “cross
section”, “capture radius” and also using different accretion processes.
The speed of the MBH will decrease and it’s mass will increase and at the
end MBH will stop at rest in the precise center of the Earth [Ref.18
p111].
Greg Landsberg evaluation of accretion of a trapped black
hole is of 3 hours to gobble a single atom
[Ref.3].
Note: Greg Landsberg evaluation
[Ref.3]:
“ Even if a black hole become
trapped, since the interaction cross section is ~10-38 m
2, so given the velocity < 7000 m/sec, the black hole would sweep
through an effective volume of ~10-34 m3 = 10
-4 angstrom3. So, it would take a STABLE black hole ~3
hours to gobble a single atom (density of the solids is ~1
atom/angstrom3).
In fact, it turns out that since the black hole is so
small, it interacts with the surrounding matter with about the same strength as
a neutrino”.
“Some time
ago we even calculated if one can convert a neutron star into a black hole in
such an UHECR collision. (Neutron star has density 1015 higher than
the Earth.) The answer is no”.
1/ If MBH
accrete a quark it will accrete the all nucleon.
When a quark is caught all the nucleon is caught ( the
black hole has got a charge which is not complete (for an example : -1/3),
these divided charge is unstable and the MBH will try to get other divided
charges to reach a completed number of charges) (see the others processes as
electric processes and gauge forces, described afterward ).
Using a quark radius of 5.10^-19 m (Note : an upper limit for the
size of quarks and electrons: they must be smaller than 10-18 meters
[Ref.29]), we will have an interaction radius of : 1,7. 10^-19 m + 5.10^-19 m =
6,7.10^-19 m and the volume swept for interaction is to multiply with a
factor 15.
We must notice that this value should be increased
because we have used for calculus Schwarzschild radius and we have seen that in
case of low speed the accretion radius is larger.
(Schwarzschild radius is valuable in case of speed of
light).
The complete equation for calculus is :
With V speed of MBH, n = number of particle for
interaction (here quark) in an atom, S1 section of interaction (here section
with radius = radius of quark+
radius of MBH) , S2 section of atom and µ diameter of an atom we can calculate
the accretion rate with cross section :
GA = V
.(p / 4) n . S1
/ (S2 . µ)
[ Equation ACS 1]
We must compare this value of 2 nucleons caught every
second in case of low speed MBH to the accretion of MBH created by cosmic rays and crossing
Earth :
As speed is important we can use cross section accretion
with Schwarzschild radius and such a MBH crossing Earth will only accrete 200
nucleons.
As minimal mass of MBH is of 2000 nucleons we see that
speed and mass of MBH will not change much and these suits with hypothesis that
Cosmic rays MBH could not destroy a planet like Earth. Calculus can be extended
to stars and neutrons stars !
Discussion for cosmic
rays :
The calculus of atoms swept by a cosmic rays MBH
with high speed crossing Earth : we would have at extreme crossing
of: N = 1,2.10 7 m
(Earth diameter) (p/4) /.10-10 m » 10 17 atoms.
As speed is important we can use cross section
accretion with Schwarzschild radius :
With radius of
1,7. 10 –19 m
proposed by Greg Landsberg.
Accretion will be of :
10 17 atoms . 3 . 56 . p( 1,7. 10 –19 m )2 /
p( 0,5 . 10 –10 m)2 = 200 nucleons
As minimal mass of MBH is of 2000 nucleons we see that
speed and mass of MBH will not change much and these suits with hypothesis that
Cosmic rays MBH do not present danger !
Calculus of cosmic rays MBH
crossing Sun and Neutron stars :
With the hypothesis that a MBH crossing Earth could catch
2. 10 2 nucleons we see that it could cross planets, stars, and
neutron stars without being caught ( This would explain the persistence of
stars).
Note: Neutron stars [Ref.18 page 213,214 ] have a mass
between 0,1 to 2 solar mass.
Earth density is 5,52 g/cm3 and Earth diameter
is 12756 km.
Sun density is 1,4 g/cm3 and Sun diameter is
14 . 10 5 km
If MBH crossing Earth catches 2. 10 2
nucleons, the MBH crossing Sun will catch :
2. 10 2 . 1,4 g/cm3 . 14 . 10
5 km / (5,52 g/cm3 . 12756 km) » 5600 nucleons.
In a neutron star of 2 solar mass the MBH will catch :
5,6 . 10 3 . 2
» 11.200 nucleons.
[Another hypothesis could be that : If MBH passes in one
nucleon it will accrete it, but this indicate a strong accretion and persistence of stars could disfavour
this hypothesis ].
Process 2 : Low speed MBH accretion of
electrons:
Using Greg Landsberg calculation, I
quote:
As iron has 26 electrons with Greg Landsberg calculation
this means that MBH will catch ~9
electrons every hour.
We have not to take in account, only the low speed of the
MBH, we have also to take in account the quick speed of electrons
turning around the nucleus and this will increase the probability of interaction
(this argument is also proposed by Blodgett in [Ref.13]). We must also
suppose that when an electron is caught the MBH will quickly caught a proton.
All these processes give an
evaluation of accretion greatest than 2 protons/sec to 20
protons/sec.
Note: calculus of accretion of electrons with low
speed .MBH :
à For electron the localisation zone could be between 10
–13 m and 10
–18 m, depending also of decoherence.
Localisation zone is the main probability zone to find
the electron.
If we consider that in case of slow speeds MBH radius is
of 1,7. 10 –19 m.
With n = 26
electrons in iron atom, radius of atom 5. 10 –11 m, V = 7.
103 m and µ=10-10 m
[Equation ACS1] gives : GA = 7. 103 .(p / 4) 26 .
(1,7. 10 –19 m
)2 /[ (5 . 10 –11 m )2 .
10-10 ]. GA » 1,7 . 10-2 electrons / sec.
As speed of electron around the nucleus is of
~10 6 m /sec and because speed of electron
turning around the nucleus increase the probability of interaction, we should
have to replace the speed of 7.
103 m of MBH crossing the Earth with the speed of V = 10 6 m /sec. Replacing we
have: GA » 2,4 electrons / sec.
à [ Another hypothesis could be that a MBH entering the
electron zone ( we suppose here of radius 0,5 .10 –18 m ) could catch
the complete electron, with n = 26
electrons in iron atom, radius of atom 0.5. 10 –10 m V = 10 6 m /sec and
µ=10-10 m [ Equation ACS
1] gives : GA = 106 .(p / 4) 26 .
(0,5 . 10 –18 m
)2 /[ (5 . 10 –11 m )2 .
10-10 ].
GA
» 20 electrons /
sec.
When an electron is caught the
MBH will quickly caught a proton and will become neutral as in
[process A1] described afterward.
This means that MBH could caught 20 protons /sec in the
beginning of the process.
An estimation in a first approach could be : 2 electrons / sec < GA < 20 electrons / sec
.
(in case
of low speed the accretion radius
could be more important than the Schwarzschild radius and this could mean an
accretion more important).
Calculus of accretion curb ( with cross section
accretion) :
If we suppose accretion of 2,4 protons/sec and if we
compare the increase of the cross section surface and the increase of mass of
the MBH we notice that an exponential process could begin!
Note: Exponential accretion process due to cross section
accretion.
Calculus As mass of MBH is in the beginning of 2000
nucleons with accretion of 2,4 protons /sec we see that it will need 830 sec to
double it’s mass. When mass M of MBH double, the Schwarzschild radius R double (
in Eq.8 in [Ref.1] we have R=2GM )
à Surface for accretion increase is multiplied with a
factor 4. When mass increase speed of MBH decrease .
If masse double we have kinetic energy MV2 /2
=2MV’2 /2 and V’= V/
1,4
Accretion rate of electrons (and of corresponding
protons) is proportional to surface S1 of MBH in [Eq. ACS1] : GA = V .(p / 4) n . S1
/ S2 .µ.
GA = V .(p / 4) 26 .
R2 / ((0,5. 10 –10 m)2 . 10 –10 m)
= 8.10 31 V .
R2
After 830 sec we see that GA = 8.1031 . 4R2 . V
/ 1,4
For a number n of this scale of time we have an increase
for GA of : 4n / 1,4
n .
With in the beginning 2,4 protons/sec we have :
GA = 2,4 . 4n / 1,4 n
» 2,4 . 3 n
GA
» 2,4 . 3 n
With time t
= n . 830 sec we can
also write
GA = 2,4 . 3 t /
830 = k . 3 t (k =
constant).
GA » k . 3 t
We have an exponential process that could begin
only with cross section accretion!
Note: if we use in case of low speeds the capture radius
RSpeed instead of Schwarzschild radius, the accretion process could
be much stronger !
Process 3 : gauge
forces.
In case of very short distances super symmetrical theory indicate that strong gauge forces
could occur and increase accretion.
See discussion about gauge forces in ANNEX
3.
Process 4 : falling in terrestrial gravitational field :
A possible butterfly process ?
If the “capture radius” is in the range of atom
distance 10 –10 m we could have a dangerous process (I have
called it the “butterfly process”) : the MBH could go from an atom to the
other like a butterfly goes from one flower to another, loosing it’s speed after
each interaction and after accretion falling in terrestrial gravitational field
.
When using the capture radius, we have seen that if the particle is bind by electric forces to atom and could not move, by reciprocity it is the black hole which will try to get in orbit and then will fall on the bind particle.
Note : Butterfly process : The process that
could happen if the capture radius is in the range of distance of
10–10 m : As nucleus are bind with electric forces, the black hole
will go from a bind nucleus to the other, like a butterfly goes from one
flower to the other, loosing it’s speed after each interaction (that mean a
new increase of capture accretion radius) and so the process could
repeat.
Will the MBH loose it’s speed after capture ? Difficult
calculus in relativity context is to do !
Another hypothesis is that after accretion the MBH loose
only a small part of it’s speed and goes more directly in the direction of the
center or Earth.
Discussion: Here we consider the extreme case were the
“charged MBH” speed is zero.
If we consider Earth gravitational acceleration is g = 9,81 m/s2, distance
between two atom nucleus r = 10 –10 meters, we will have the
classical falling time in Earth gravitational field ( MBH falling of the
distance between two atoms ) of
:
Dt = (2 r /g)
1 / 2 = (2 . 10 –10
/ 9.81 ) 1 / 2 » 4,5. 10 - 6
sec.
Calculus of gravitational accretion radius in this case
:
In this case the maximal speed will be of v = g Dt = 4,4. 10
- 5 m / sec so we can
calculate capture accretion radius [see chapter about Capture
radius]:
With [Eq. RS] we have : RSpeed = 7,5 . 10 –11 /
v2 and with v =
4,4. 10 - 5 m / sec
radius is :
1,7 . 10 –6 meter > RSpeed > 10–18 meters with RSpeed <= 10–10
meters.
and that
means :
10 –10 meter >
RSpeed >
10–18 meters.
à If size of rolled dimensions is limited and if capture
accretion radius is < distance between two atoms r
» 10 –10 meters gravitational accretion process
will not be a very active process.
à If capture radius if in the range of atom distance 10
–10 m we can have the dangerous “butterfly process” and the MBH could
go from an atom to the other like a butterfly goes from one flower to the other
.
Process 5: electric forces
:
If the black hole has caught an electron because of
“cross section or of capture radius”, it will then go toward the nearest
positive charges and will catch a quark.
If the black hole charge is not complete (for an
example : -1/3), these divided charge is unstable and the MBH will try to
get other divided charges to reach a completed number of charges. MBH can catch
photons which are the mediator of electro-weak force, it could probably catch
gluons etc..
Will a MBH in the atom nucleus catch the others neutrons
and protons with gravitational effects, gauge forces and electric forces
?
In case of the use of electrical forces, the accretion
could be very quick and calculus indicate an accretion between 2,4
proton/sec to 134 protons/sec but this value has to be lowered because
after the capture of a proton the charged MBH is getting neutral and the
electrical capture process will only act again after a new capture of an
electron.
Note: Calculus of accretion
due to electrical forces:
We can calculate the falling time D t used by a
charged MBH to cross the radius of an atom
(here radius of iron atoms is considered » 0.5 . 10 –10 meter
). Here we also consider the extreme case were the “charged MBH” speed is
zero.
We will consider nucleus in Earth matter as not moving
because they are bind by electric forces.
With the Coulomb law of forces between two charges q1 , q 2 and M
mass of MBH we will have : F = K q1q 2 /
r2 = M a à
acceleration a =
K q1q 2 / M r2 .
With only one electron captured by the MBH, as the number
of positive charges in an iron nucleus is 26 we could have
with:
K = 9.10
9 N m 2 /C
2
and q = 1,6 10 –19 Coulomb M = 3,27 10 - 24 kg
.
a = 9.10
9 . 26 . ( 1,6 10
–19 Coulomb)
2 / 3,27 10 - 24
kg . (0.5 . 10 –10 meter) 2 .
a = 7,4 .10 17 m / sec2 and Dt = (2 r /
a) 1 / 2 = (2 . 0,5. 10
–10 / 7,4 .10
17 )1/2.
Dt = 1,3. 10
-14 sec.
If we use the smallest accretion rate calculated for
electrons of :
GA » 2,4 electrons / sec , we see that electric
accretion is very quick and does not change the accretion rate of
protons.
This indicate in this example a global accretion of
: GA » 2,4 protons /
sec
à An hypothesis is that when MBH has captured one proton
and is in the nucleus with very small speed at short distances of the others nucleons it will perhaps
caught all the nucleus ( perhaps with gravitational and gauge forces active in
very short distances [see Process about Gauge forces] When the MBH will be not far from the
nucleus, gauge forces could drive
the MBH directly to the nucleus ).
With such a process we would have with 56 nucleons :
GA » 56 .
2,4 protons /
sec
GA » 134 protons / sec ( GA » 500.000
protons / hour ) but this value has to be lowered
because after the capture of a proton the charged MBH is getting neutral and the
electrical capture process will only act again after a new capture of an
electron
Note: About Electric forces :
all the processes for accretion of nucleon in case of low speed
MBH :
If the black hole has caught
an electron because of “cross section or of capture radius”, it will then go
toward the nearest positive charges and may catch a quark.
If the black hole charge is not complete (for an
example : -1/3), these divided charge is unstable and the MBH will try to
get other divided charges to reach a completed number of charges. MBH can catch
photons which are the mediator of electro-weak force, it could probably catch
gluons etc..
As MBH is in the atom nucleus it will probably with
gravitational effects and other effects catch quickly the others neutrons and
protons.
Three processes of accretion are described as
examples:
Process
A1
: MBH charge –1 à catch quark up with charge 2/3 à MBH Charge –1/3 à Instability àCatch quark up with charge 2/3 à MBH charge 1/3 à Instability à Catch Quark down with charge – 1/3 à Neutrality
à Catch with “capture radius” effect an electron
à MBH charge –1 à
etc..
Process A2 : MBH neutral
à Catch with “Capture Radius” effect a Quark up or down in
a proton à Catch the others Quarks of the nucleon to complete
charge à MBH Charge +1 à Catch an electron à MBH Neutral à etc ..
Process A3 : MBH with charge
–1 à Catch one nucleon à Catch the all nucleus ? à MBH with Charge + 26 à Catch electrons very quickly
…
Remark : There is not only the problem of divided
charges, there is also the problem of colours of quarks. There a three colours
for quarks red blue or green and the sum of these colour must be white. It is
not possible to separate the colours so the quarks will stay all together if one
is caught.
Process 6 : Final and exponential process : Breaking
atoms connections forces :
When mass is growing with different processes ( cross
section, electric and gravitational forces or pressure in the center of
Earth as we will see further) we will notice that
:
There is a moment where gravitational accretion rate
becomes greatest than atoms connexion forces and this will increase the
exponential process:
Calculus for MBH process breaking atoms connections
forces.
If accretion rate was linear
we would have in the beginning a number n
of nucleons caught by MBH with increasing mass in iron atom (56 nucleons)
as function of time t given by :
n = n0 + 56 t / Dt with
n0 = 2000 .( number of
nucleons in10 gold atoms and Dt time for accretion of on nucleus) and masse increasing
: m = ( 2000 + 56 t / Dt ) .1,7 10 –27 kg .
When mass is growing with the precedent processes ( cross
section, electric and gravitational forces or pressure in the center of
Earth as we will see) we will notice that :
There is a moment where gravitational accretion rate
becomes greatest than atoms connexion forces and this will increase the
exponential process:
Gravitational Forces > Atoms connections
Forces:
Metal as iron is bind with “metallic” connection force
which is relatively weak force compared to electric ionic force or
covalence force. Reticulations defaults in the metal could also increase
weakness of this metallic connexion force.
As MBH mass m1 is growing, gravitational
forces G m1m2 / r2 could become as strong as
electric forces
Kq1q2 / r2 and then accretion will grow strongly
because of breaking nucleus binding. This occurs when mass of MBH m1
> (K/G) q1q2 / m2
To have an idea we will calculate the mass needed for
breaking electric forces in iron but with only two simple
charges.
With q1
= q2 = 1,6
10 –19 Coulomb and m2 = 56 x 1,7 10
–27 kg ( mass of iron
nucleus).
K = 9.10 9 N m
2 /C 2 G
= 6,67 10 –11 Nm2/kg2
Replacing m1 > (9 10 9 / 6,67
10 –11) . (1,6 10 –19 )
2 / 56 x 1,7 10
–27.
Electric force could be broken if Mass of MBH
> 3,6. 10
7 kg.
Here we have been calculating the level for breaking
electric forces between two charges.
Calculus is to do, to know if smallest mass is needed for
breaking the atoms “metallic connexions forces”
?
Note: we will also see that in the center of Earth
“metallic connexion forces” are weaker because of
temperature.
8 ** Others accretion
factors:
We present here plenty of others factors, some are very
important, some are less important, but all of them have to be considered in the
case of non working evaporation.
1. The
number of black holes :
If we take the number of 316 black holes a year captured
by Earth and if we suppose a use of LHC during 10 years we could have to
multiply the accretion rate by a:
316 x 10 = 3160
factor.
2. The number of dimensions means more
accretion.
The studies CERN 3849/1 and afterwards CERN 2003-001
consider a 10 dimensions space time (page 12 [Ref.1] we note « d = 6 » which
fits with “string theory”).
M theory for an example needs 11 dimensions (d = 7) and
this would mean accretion 36.100 times more important.
CERN questioned about this problem,
answers:
“In contrast to earlier studies, the study in CERN 200-01
has considered a generic number of dimensions and its conclusions are valid even
if this number is sent to infinity”.
Comment: It is very important to precise that this
answer is valid only if Hawking evaporation works. If Hawking evaporation do
not work, or is weaker, a greatest number of dimensions has an influence:
The number of dimensions is directly bind to the easy creation and the stability
of MBH.
Note: Calculus of
the increase of accretion due to 11 dimensions instead of 10:
Using CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1] (Eq.17) of Scharzschild
radius:
Rs = (K’/ M*) . (M / M*) 1/1+d » TeV
–1 ( M/ M*) 1/1+d
Calculus gives a comparison between the radius in 11
dimensions RS1and radius in 10 dimensions (calculus with a number of
rolled dimensions d=6 in CERN 2003-001) RS10 : RS11 /
RS10 = 190 The black hole radius will
be 190 times larger !
With such a radius the surface swept by the black hole
will be to multiply with a factor of :
(RS11 / RS10 ) 2
= 36.100 à accretion of matter with cross section process will be
36.100 times more important.
We will not use this argument for calculus but a complete
study should have to take this in account.
Increase
of dimensions number = increase of MBH production and of MBH
stability.
CERN 2003-001 [Ref.1]:
With 4 dimensions : no MBH produced
.
With (4+d) dimensions with mass »1 TeV then MBH could be
produced.
Comment : CERN study was realised with 10
dimensions.
In case of
failing of Hawking evaporation, the hypothesis of 11D will means that a
smaller energy would be needed to create black
holes!
If a smaller energy is
necessary, these could mean that black holes could perhaps be created with
energy < 1 TeV. These could happen in RHIC or also in the LHC test. It is not
impossible that the RHIC experiment have already created MBH with slow accretion
in the year 2000 and that MBH are slowly growing in the earth.
In RHIC it seems, they have
only detected quarks-gluons-plasma for the moment .Let us be optimistic
!!!
9
** Could charged Micro Black Hole bind to an atom in the matter
?
If MBH do not evaporate and are charged will they bind to
some atom in the matter ?
I cite Greg Landsberg [Ref.3]
:
“ As I told you before, it does not matter what reference
frame you use the answer is still the same. If the black hole acquires charge
(either colour or electric) it would merely loose energy due to strong
interactions or ionisation, and bind to some atom in the matter. Then it
will simply sit there forever, as the atomic size is infinite compared to the
Schwarzschild radius. The same way as electrons do not fall on the protons in a
regular atom, the atom with a black hole will be as stable. But of course, this
is merely an assumption, because as I said there is nothing preventing BH to
decay, and thus it will”.
My opinion is that such a process cannot occur : See
Arguments in ANNEX 4
10 ** Micro Black Hole In the center of
Earth:
Calculus has shown that in ten years 3160 MBH could be
captured by Earth. All MBH will progressively loose they speed because of
numerous interactions. After a time ( calculus has to be realised to evaluate
this time) all these MBH will go toward “the precise gravitational
center” of Earth as proposed by Kip
Thorne [Ref.18 pp111] and after numerous interactions they will stop there at
rest and then they will coalesce in only one MBH. Our calculus indicate a
possible mass of 0,02 g or much more.
Note: Calculus of mass and radius in the center of
Earth:
What will be
the mass of MBH at rest in the center of Earth ?
For an evaluation we must suppose that MBH arrives in the
center of Earth with speed zero. This would be the case if the MBH crossing one
Earth radius caught all nucleus when it passes (with cross section action,
gravitational butterfly process, electrical and gauge forces processes for
example).
[ Note : The MBH could also oscillate before stopping at
rest in the center of Earth and in this case the evaluation could be different
and calculus would have to be done].
With 56 nucleon for iron, 6.10 6 m for Earth
radius and 10 –10 m atom diameter, we could approximate the number of
nucleons caught while the 3160 “small speed MBH” will be descending to the Earth
center in a butterfly process ( this does not implies that this process will
occur but it is useful for a first approach evaluation) : 3160. 56 . (6.10
6 m / 10 –10 m) » 10 22 nucleons
caught.
This means mass of
10 22 .1,661 . 10 – 27 kg » 1,7 . 10 – 5 kg »
0,02 g
.
When a MBH will be in the center of Earth, after maybe
some oscillations, it will not move anymore ( even if it caught some atom )
because of it’s high mass inertia.
In the center of Earth new processes will happen:
1/ A possible new process of accretion due to the
electric forces.
2/ A very dangerous process due to the high pressure that
will give an impressive increase of
accretion.
1. A possible new process of accretion due to
electric forces in the center of Earth :
If we consider as an hypothesis that in center of Earth
the MBH will be exactly located between the two electric clouds of two atoms of
iron.
First the MBH could catch quickly one electron. This
electron will then move no more because it will be captured by the high inertia
mass MBH. The MBH will have charge –1 and the nucleus of the atom will have
charge +1.
The electric forces will mean the falling of the atom
nucleus toward the MBH.
The electronic pressure due to electrons around the
nucleus could prevent the falling for a while but the price to pay could be the
capture of all the electrons.
Calculus indicate in this case accretion in the range
of 10 -6 g/
sec.
This value could be increased by the strong
pressure in the center of Earth as we will see.
Note: Calculus of accretion
due to electric forces in the center of earth
:
In the context of a first
evaluation we can calculate as extreme :
For the two symmetrical atoms we would have capture of 2
x 26 = 52 electrons then the two nucleus will go in direction of the MBH and MBH
will also catch the two symmetrical
nucleus.
Note: The MBH will not move because of his high inertia
due it’s important mass and because of the symmetrical process of
capture.
The falling distance for the nucleus will only be of 0.5 x 10 –10 meters
.
We will have for iron (see calculus for electric forces)
:
F = K q1q 2 / r2 =
m a
à
acceleration a =
K q1q 2 / m r2 .
q1= 26 . 1,6 10 –19 Coulomb , q 2 = 52 . 1,6 10
–19 Coulomb (MBH charge) and so :
a » 1,3 . 10 21 m / sec2 and Dt = (2 r /
a) 1 / 2 = (2 . 0.5. 10
–10 / 1,3. 10
21 ) 1 / 2
.
Dt = 2,7 . 10
- 16 sec
So we can have a first evaluation of accretion
rate (note : we should count also the time needed for the capture of
electrons):
If we have hypothesis that when the nucleus arrives close
to the MBH, the MBH will quickly absorb the complete atom
nucleus.
With D t = 2,7. 10 – 16 sec and as accretion will
work with two nucleus together we will have accretion in one second of :
2 / (2,7. 10 - 16 ) » 7,4 . 10 15 iron nucleus / sec
and an accretion rate of GA = 7,4 . 10 15 . 56 . 1,7 . 10
–27 kg / sec
» 7. 10 -10 kg / sec.
GA
» 7. 10 -7 g/ sec.
If center of Earth is made of
uranium [Ref.28] we would have:
q1= 92 . 1,6 10 –19 Coulomb q 2 = 184 . 1,6 10
–19 Coulomb (MBH charge)
we will have :
a » 4. 10 21 m / sec2 Dt = 1,5.10
- 16 sec and accretion rate of : GA = 5,4. 10 -9 kg / sec.
GA
» 5,4. 10 -6 g /
sec
2. The high pressure in this region push
strongly all the matter in direction of the central point where the MBH will
be.
A classical pressure evaluation at the center
of earth is of 4 x 1011
Pa [Ref.28]. 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 degenerate 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 degenerate pressure to
counterbalance the pressure of all the earth matter. Pressure is constant in an
homogeneous liquid, but it is not the same in an heterogeneous medium composed
of atoms mixed to a MBH. To indicate the pressure we must use the equation :
Pressure P = Force F / Surface S
.
“F” is the weight
of all the matter of Earth and this do not change. If we reduce surface “S”
(the surface of the MBH
is very small in comparison with the surface of the electronic cloud of atoms), we are obliged
to notice that Pressure “P” will increase.
With MBH of 0.02 g , calculus indicate on MBH surface
an impressive increase of pressure in the range of : P » 7
.10 23 Pa (nearly thousand billions times more
important).
The high pressure in this region will 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 with an important pressure the caught
will be quick.
Note: Calculus of accretion due to pressure in the center
of Earth :
The following process could
happen:
In center of Earth the MBH will be exactly located
between the two electric clouds of
two atoms. It is the pressure of the cloud of electrons surrounding the
nucleus which maintains the stability of atoms and prevent the atoms to be
crushed. When pressure increases
the MBH will be in direct contact with these electrons and will catch
them. Then it will get electric charges and the nucleus will no more be
protected by electrons cloud. The nucleus will then fall directly into the MBH.
Because of the lack of the atom that has been caught and
because of the strong pressure, another atom will approach the MBH in the center
of Earth and the same process will work again and again…
What will be the pressure in the center of
Earth:
Pressure P = Force F / Surface
S.
In the center of Earth, pressure is of 360 .10
9 Pascal [Ref.28]. It is the pressure of all the matter in Earth that
pushes on the central atoms.
If in the center of Earth we have pressure on the
electronic cloud of an atom ( radius R of 0,5 . 10-10 meters )
of 360 .10 9 Pascal, we will have
pressure on a MBH surface with radius R’ (calculated for MBH of 0,02 g ) of 3,7 . 10-17 meters of :
P = 360 .10 9 Pa . 4 p R2 / 4 p R’ 2
= 360 .10 9 Pa .
(0,5. 10-10 / 3,7 .
10-17 ) 2
On the MBH surface we obtain an impressive pressure
of: P
» 7 .10 23 Pa
.
Calculus of accretion rate due
to high pressure in the center of Earth :
First we will use usual
pressure of 360 .10 9 Pa
.
GA = ( 2 . 56 . 1,7 . 10 –27
kg/sec) / 3. 10 - 14 sec
» 6,3. 10 -12 kg / sec.
GA » 6,3 . 10 -9 g/ sec.
With uranium we would have :
GA = ( 2 . 238 . 1,7 . 10 –27
kg/sec) / 6. 10 - 14 sec
» 1,3. 10 -11 kg / sec.
GA
» 1,3 . 10 -8 g/ sec.
We can compare this with accretion GA = 5,4. 10 -6 g/sec calculated for
electric forces in the center of Earth.
At extreme, if we used the value found with uranium (
GA » 1,3 . 10 -8 g / sec) in a context of very
high pressure of P = 7. 10
23 Pascal we would find :
GA » 1,3 . 10 -8 . ( 7. 10 23
)1/2 / (360 . 10 9 )1/2 » 2 .10 -2 kg / sec = 20
g/sec
We must correct this value
because the matter cannot pass so quickly in a MBH [the matter will “twist
and shout” before entering the MBH and it’s speed will be decreased (See
also Eddington limit described further)].
If we want to give a value to accretion in the center of
Earth we must reduce this value:
For an evaluation we can give
an accretion range in center of Earth in the range of 1g/sec to 10 g
/sec.
This result indicate nevertheless that we would
have an impressive increase of accretion in the center of the
Earth.
Note: Will Eddington limit
decrease accretion rate ?
I quote here an answer from
Jean-Pierre Luminet ( July 2004):
“Astrophysicists have calculated a long time ago that an
accreting black hole cannot absorb more matter than a certain rate called
Eddington limit. The reason is that any matter entering the black hole is
radiating energy. This energy is slowing down the entering matter, and so a
balance appears at the critical rate ( this has been verified with astronomical
observations of “black holes candidates”). So, the accretion rate is very weak
and could , for an example, permit to a micro black hole to stay in the center
of Earth during thousands of millions of years without any
risk”.
Comment : Eddington limit is active in case of
astronomical black hole with relatively important accretion and could be less
active in case of MBH accreting one atom after the other as described in high
pressure accretion process in the center of Earth. This process could have an
importance if the MBH is growing.
An accurate calculus of such a factor has to be done in
this case.
Note:. Other accretion factors in the center of the
Earth:
a. High temperature means more
accretion:
Theories describing the center of Earth [Ref.28] indicate
a possible presence in the heart of
our planet of energetic radioactive atoms like uranium 235, 238 and potassium 40
and this means high temperatures ( > 6.000 degrees ? [
Ref.28]).
High temperature could reduce a little the high pressure
but high temperature also means an increasing of weakness of the atoms connexion
binding forces. The high level of atoms vibrations because of temperature also
increase probability of accretion [Ref.13].
The eventual presence of heavy atoms like uranium nucleus
in the center of Earth could also increase mass
accreted.
b. The smallest, the black
hole is the biggest the tide forces will be [Ref.18 page31,32]
.
This means that in short distances the tide forces will
disorganise the particles waves and will make accretion more
easy.
3. Conclusion in the center of Earth
:
In the center of Earth, the high pressure, the high
temperature, the increasing mass associated with a possible new electrical force
process could mean important increase of capture and a possible beginning of an
exponential dangerous accretion process.
When MBH will be in the center of Earth, in the
beginning value for accretion could
be in the range of 1g/sec to 10 g/sec
11 ** Conclusion about accretion rate with
MBHs :
A new accretion evaluation in case of evaporation failing
has to count all this factors.
The classical accretion rate evaluation for black holes
trapped by Terrestrial gravity, presented by Greg Landsberg [Ref.3] would
be in case of evaporation failing of
3.10 – 25
gram / sec.
I cite Landsberg : “That means that in, say,
1,000,000 years = 3x10 13 sec, the trapped black hole would consume
<1010 protons, i.e. 10 -12 mole ~ 10 -11
gram of stuff around it”.
With low speeds, we must take in account the large
“capture radius” , the electric forces, the gauge forces, the number MBH, the
high pressure in the center of Earth, the number of dimensions, etc.. and we must also evaluate the
consequences of a MBH that would not bind in an
atom.
Our evaluation indicate a possible accretion process
with values bigger than 1g/sec to 10 g/sec and we could have risk of beginning of
an exponential process.
Accretion rate needs a more precise evaluation before any
LHC test and also before increasing luminosity in
RHIC.
III
** MONOPOLES
Note : Monopoles in CERN study
:
We can read in CERN study [Ref 1] that
:
“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 / sstrong r
» 1
cm
(Eq.23)
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
IV.
OTHERS PARTICULES AND SCIENCE INCERTITUDES
LHC will reach [Ref.11] temperature of about ten thousand trillion
degrees centigrade ».
In such a surrounding it is possible to foresee
unexpected particles.
In LHC new particles, or unexpected particles could be
created. Is there no danger ?
Using our presents theories we can predict that the “new
particles we suppose to detect with LHC” will present no danger except perhaps
strangelets, micro black holes or monopoles.
Nevertheless, it is important to notice that we have
not a final theory in physic, we ignore the composition of an enormous
part of the dark matter and dark energy of Universe, quintessence, vacuum
energy, and so many theories are non definitive theories [Ref. 37 et
Ref.34]. As an example : vacuum energy is evaluated as
10-29 g /cm3 by the cosmologists and as
1091 g/cm3 by the physicists in particles theory
[Ref.34, Ref.22]. There is also the problem of unexpected particles not
predicted in our theories and if such particles were created, we have no
evaluation of the possible danger that they could present if they had slow speed
and were captured by Earth.
It would be wise to consider that the more powerful the
accelerator will be, the more unpredicted and dangerous events may occur
mainly in case of opposite particles collisions
!
V ** RISK EVALUATION
:
1. About risk evaluation
:
CERN 2003-001 presents risk as a choice between a « 0 %
risk or a 100 % risk » .
This is not the good evaluation of a risk percentage
!
2. The risk evaluation means for a physicist to know
about a very large number of theories in physic. As an example, the particles
physical theories are different of
black holes physic, branes physic, Astronomy,
etc…
3. Quick evolution of theories shows also the need of
prudence and a risk evaluation could be obsolete in a few
years.
Tomorrow another theory will perhaps indicate a greatest
number of dimensions and that could mean that MBH production could occur with
lower energies or be more important that
predicted.
4. Risk evaluation is always subjective and we can
only propose our own evaluation of probability for
danger.
Risk Evaluation is of crucial importance, because
“safety of Earth is in the
game”.
2.
Risk evaluation in case of accelerators used with opposite speed collisions
:
a.
For Micro Black Holes :
Probability of MBH production in LHC (
Probability of (4+d) Theories) is 40% to
80%.
Risk of Hawking
evaporation fail : 20 % to 30 %.
Risk of MBH captured by Earth is (Landsberg
calculus) 100 %
Risk of charged MBH do not bind to an atom
30% to 60 % (my own opinion is 100
% but I prefer accept 40 % or 60% not to be in opposition with
Landsberg).
Accretion more important than predicted, we
estimate 50 % to 70% (but calculus must be more precise and could show risk of
100 %).
Risk with MBH could be of
:
60 % x 30 %
x 100 % x 60 % x 70 % » 7 % risk
for Earth.
If accretion was important and dangerous we
have:
60 % x 30 %
x 100 % x 60% x 100 % » 10
% risk for
Earth.
In case of failing evaporation, the risk evaluation for
MBH could be of 4% in RHIC and between 7 % and 10 % for
LHC.
In case of evaporation the risk evaluation could be of
0.1 % for RHIC and 1% for LHC.
b. For
Strangelets:
We must remember the “Challenger effect” when the NASA
had evaluated to 1/100.000 the risk of a crash. In case of opposite particles
collisions, a minimal evaluation of risk for strange quarks should be of 2 % to 5 % risk ( but may be 10 % or 20 %
risk if we want to count large because of the importance of risk )
c. Estimation of danger in relation with our ignorance of
ultimate physical laws:
Others particles, black energy, black mass, quintessence,
vacuum energy , non definitive theories …
We can estimate a minimal evaluation of this danger as
2 % risk ( may be 5 % or 7 % in
case of increasing energies).
3. LHC and RHIC Risk
evaluation:
RHIC add strangelets risk (2% to 5%) and ignorance
risk (2% to 5 %) so the evaluation is between 4 % and
10 %.
LHC with higher
energies adds all the risks:
If we add Micro black holes risk (1% to 10%), strangelet
risk (2% to 5%) and risk “in relation of our ignorance (2% to 7%)” we arrive
to:
We are far from the Adrian Kent [Ref.5]
risks that should not go over 0,000001 %
of risk a year to have a chance to be
acceptable.
VI **
CONCLUSION :
Opposite speed collisions are creating on Earth very
specific conditions, different from the natural cosmic rays
collisions.
The risk evaluation indicate for RHIC a risk between 4 %
to 10 % (perhaps more).
The risk evaluation indicate for LHC a risk between 11 %
to 22 % (perhaps more).
« At this very moment » possible dangerous particles (strange
quarks) are produced in the accelerator RHIC
.
We must wait for safe data coming from astronomical
source etc.. and not oblige knowledge with an enormous accelerator using
opposite speed particles to get more power in the collision, but surrounded
with incertitude zones
About black holes, the study for “RHIC” had concluded
that no black hole will be created. For “LHC” 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 6.000.000.000 peoples” and complete destruction
of our beautiful planet.
The caution principle indicate not to experiment with
opposite speed particles collisions.
Even LHC test could reveal a main danger
!
We must have reflexions about the limits ofour
knowledges.
1/ We must
create a “special critical team” coming from various physical
disciplines, who will try again and again to have reflections about the possible
danger of accelerators, work and discuss on every
hypothesis.
2/ We must experiment in a safe way (Example : observing
the black holes created by the cosmic rays with appropriate
detectors).
The best calculus, the best theory could reveal to be
wrong when tested.
We must remember” human being means possible
mistakes” :
« Errare Humanum Est ! »
Such a danger shows the need of a far more larger study
before any experiment!
New studies to realize before producing “low speed” heavy
particles :
** Interaction between MBH and Quarks in (4+d) dimensions
and in curved space-time.
** Interaction between MBH and Gluons in (4+d) dimensions
and in curved space-time
** Interaction between MBH and Electrons in (4+d)
dimensions and in curved space-time.
** Interactions in case of rolled dimensions with
different sizes.
** Interactions with Quarks, Gluons etc.. in case of
Gauge forces.
** Interactions in case of under evaluated number of
dimensions.
** If MBH
get charges, will it bind in an atom for ever as Greg Landsberg
suppose.
** Interactions of strangelets in case of more
dimensions.
** Detection of MBH created by cosmic
rays
** Detection of primordial MBH created after the Big
Bang
** Astronomical sign about existence of greatest number
of dimensions.
** Astronomical search of strange quarks stars
** Precise evaluation of accretion rate with electric
forces, gauge forces etc..
** Precise evaluation of accretion rate in the center of
Earth using general relativity
** Complete theories of space-time using astronomical
data and not dangerous experiments.
** etc..
1954
1960 Explosion in Idaho
1986
TCHERNOBYL
2005 ….RHIC ……? 2007 ….LHC
………..?
Modern men hit stones and discover Strangelets and Micro
Black Holes. It was the end of civilisation!
»
Some proverbs to
finish :
« Science without conscience is a ruin of soul
! »
« It is better to prevent than to cure ! »
« When in doubt, don’t !
»
___________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1 : Discussion about MBH Production :
MBH production : An answer from Jean-Pierre Luminet CNRS
:
“Producing MBH with such a low energy could only be
possible in case of a supplementary dimension in the scale of 1 mm (in the very
speculative model of Dimopoulous et
al.).
This
hypothesis is invalidate by recent ( spring 2003) experiments by Baessler and
al. using neutrons and demonstrating that there is no deviation of gravity law
in 1/r2 until scale of NANOMETER (10 –9 meters) . So there could no
be any supplementary dimension with a size (curb radius) greater that this
scale”.
Comment : Dimopoulos
approach is one of the three classical approach of rolled dimensions ( others
are approach of Randall-Sundrum and approach of Ovrut which involves
supersymmetry).
Looking in literature we find different sizes of rolled
dimensions from 1 mm [Ref.26] or more to 10-35 meters (planck
distance) [Ref.20].
If we multiply the number of rolled dimensions we can
allow smallest sizes.
I quote CERN 2003-001 that for MBH production in (4+d)
dimensions:
“ The
extreme case is to choose
M* = 1 TeV i.e.
close to the électoweak breaking
scale to avoid the hierarchy problem . With this choice one must have R
<= 0.7 mm for d > =2 in order to reproduce the
correct value for the Planck mass. Recent experiments have probed the
gravitational force law at scales down to 0.1 mm and disfavour the
possibility with d = 2 but allow higher d and/or larger
M*
”.
These conclusions could indicate that with a great number
of rolled dimensions ( 6 or 7 in branes theories) we could have deviation of
the gravity law in 1/r2
at “scales < nanometer”.
What is the
mass and the radius of MBH at LHC ? :
I quote Greg Landsberg in 07/2004
:
Greg Landsberg has used in this calculus the fact that
two particles are included in the interaction with one TeV each (?)
!
Also Greg Landsberg :
“Schwarzschild radius is a function of a BH mass. I used
mass of ~1 TeV and radius of ~1 TeV^-1 and ignored numerical coefficients of the
order 1. Depending on the parameters of the model, cross section can vary from a
fraction of a nb (10^-37 m^2) to tens of fb (10^-43 m^2) at the
LHC”.
ANNEX
2 : Arguments About Failing of Hawking
Evaporation:
Earth surface is flat : that
is what they believed until it was proved it’s wrong !
Earth is not turning : that is what they believed until
it was proved it’s wrong !
The Sun turns around Earth : that is what they believed
until it was proved it’s wrong !
The black holes will evaporate: that is what they
believed until it will be proved it’s wrong ?
The argument of evaporation « 20 % failing
risk » is for me sufficient to stop experiment, but I will try to find
(with my small level of knowledge) others arguments. Some arguments are probably
wrong but some may be right. Even if all are wrong, the risk is not excluded
!
1. Hawking theory of quantum fields in curved space time
= final theory ?:
Hawking [Ref.17] has been obliged to mix quantum theory (
fluctuation of vacuum, tunnel effect, Hilbert space, negative energy, …) and
relativity, each one based in a separate space time and in extreme conditions of
space and time. Prudence tell us before LHC experiment to wait for a more complete unified theory ( M
theory and brane theory are in elaboration ).
2. Slowing time on horizon
problems :
In their proper time the particles are falling toward
black holes, but “general relativity” tell us that in our relative position of
non moving observant, we will see a slowing of time near the MBH horizon [Ref.18
page 229]. We must remark :
2.1. Hawking evaporation needs “ quantum vacuum
fluctuations” near the horizon:
We are in the “non moving observant position” and we
observe the stopping time on horizon.
The stopping time could prevent vacuum fluctuations.
The vacuum fluctuations are in relation with Heisenberg
equations.
Equation like DE D t >= h / 4 p includes
time and is not valid if time stops.
Evaporation process may perhaps virtually exist and be
observed by a observant falling in the black hole like Unruh radiation but for
us “non moving observant” ( at the contrary of Hawking affirmation of
fluctuations particles changing in evaporation particles ) all this is frozen in
the stopped time of horizon.
2.2. Hawking evaporation needs
two particles, one with negative energy.
We know that such a negative
energy particle cannot exist in our universe [Ref.6].
The creation of such a particle cannot occur in the
outside of the black hole because it would be in our universe. It can only occur
on the horizon and as time is stopped there, it cannot occur.
For Hawking evaporation “negative energy” particles must
be caught by the black hole.
In any case the slowing of time we will observe, will
prevent “negative energy particles” to reach the horizon, so the black hole will
not be able to give back an energy he has never absorbed. Evaporation could
never occur !
3. Also about negative energy problem :
Hawking evaporation process needs negative energy
[Ref.6].
Such energy which is a theoretical prediction
experimented with Casimir effect [Ref.23] (it is also in relation with
anti-gravitation) is not enough experimented notion to assure Hawking
evaporation security when testing on our beautiful planet
!
4. Entropy problem :
Hawking work was first based
on Jacob Bekenstein work which assert ( to save the second thermodynamical
principle) that black hole entropy was equivalent to the black hole
surface.
Even if equations seems similar , I
remark :
4.1. Entropy
measure is Joule / Kelvin and it is different from surface measure
which
is m
2.
4.2. Black hole surface needs only one measure which is
the radius and this is far different from the disorder measure of
entropy.
4.3. With the stopping time and the tear of space we are
no more in a close system has needed for the second thermodynamic principle.
This could be a false problem in the case of a black hole. In the beginning of
his study Hawking himself and all the black hole experts where admitting the
idea that thermodynamic principle could be not applied to black holes [Ref.18
page 454]. Hawking affirms that the
black holes laws are thermodynamic laws in
disguise.
He may be wrong. If entropy is different of black hole
surface, then there is no black hole temperature and no evaporation
!
We can read Kip’s Thorne who has been working with
Hawking [Ref.18 page 472, 473] :
“Hawking was prudent in the beginning of his career, but
in 1974 he had changed and he told him : “I prefer to prove I am right that be
rigorous”.
And so in 1974 after having solidly demonstrated that a
black hole emit radiation, Hawking will go further and affirm without a real
proof that the similitude between thermodynamic laws and black holes mechanic
were more than coincidence”.
6. No experiment has never get measures of recombination
of particles issued from the vacuum
fluctuations.
Calculus with Heisenberg equation gives time of
recombination, but no “experiment” has measured it.
If this recombination was quickest than evaluated, we
will not have scattering of particles due to the tide effect and no
evaporation.
In his third conclusion Hawking [Ref.17] admits that
“no particle scattering situation as predicted has been observed for the
moment “(even if he supposes they will be).
I remark also : Even if particles (for an example
electron and positron) created from vacuum fluctuations are separated by tide
effect, gravitational forces near horizon are strong enough to make these
particles fall one after the other in the black hole. Such an enormous energy
would be necessary to escape, that it could barely been provided by the vacuum
fluctuations.
7. Unruh radiation has not
been observed and would mean that entropy and temperature are relative notions
:
Unruh radiation is the
equivalent of Hawking radiation but in the case of a watcher in a constant
acceleration. This radiation has also never be observed because of its very tiny
effect.
This radiation would mean that a non moving thermometer
will not indicate the same temperature as a thermometer moving with constant
acceleration [Ref.31]. This means that temperature and entropy are not absolute
notions, but are relative notions depending of the watcher and of it’s
acceleration. Such a concept will change the all physic and this is not
enough secure notion for secure conclusions about
entropy.
Djordje
Minic from Virginia Tech [Ref.31] indicate that “the interpretation of
entropy in a quantum gravity context is already very complex but the Unruh
radiation in the context of an accelerated watcher is less
clear”.
8. There is no inside of black
hole and so no tunnel effects :
In 1958 David Finkelstein has
proposed a space-time diagram of implosion from a star to a black hole (
[Ref.18] Page 265).
This diagram is including
different referentials as the referential of the
watcher falling in the black hole and the referential of watcher non moving with
reference to the black hole.
From this diagram could comes a confusion because
it is mixing different referentials and this confusion could lead to false
conclusions.
We must refer to knowledge coming from restricted
relativity : Watchers observes different length and times, depending of speed.
Observing a black hole :
If a first watcher is not moving with reference to the
black hole, he will observe creation of an horizon at the Schwarzschild radius
and he will observe a time stopping on this
horizon.
If a second watcher is falling in the black hole, it is
different ([Ref.18] page 254).
For him there will not be a Schwarzschild radius. He will
fall until he reaches the singularity
( String theory perhaps will give information about that singularity. For
the falling watcher this singularity could be as large as Planck length
).
The first watcher observes particles falling with
decreasing speed and horizon will never be reached because of slowing time and
time stopping on horizon ( [Ref.18] page 271 and relativist equations of
Oppenheimer and Snyder [Ref.18 page 229] ). For him, the falling particles will
increase black hole radius but will never be absorbed in the inside of the black
hole because for him there is no inside of the black hole
?
The two aspects of these different point of view seen
from different referential are all true and each one depend of the referential
we have chosen.
The Schwarzschild radius could only be observed by a
watcher not moving (with reference to the black hole). The use of Finkelstein
diagram could lead to false conclusions about “what is inside the black
hole”, as inversed time, inversed space etc.. For the first watcher horizon
is the limit and for him the horizon is the discontinuity
!
We should come back to the old name of “discontinuity of
Schwarzschild” used during the years 1920 to 1950 ([ Ref 18] page 266) if we are
located in a space zone not moving with reference to the black hole. If we
change this, we must precise the referential we use.
We should never speak of
“inside the black hole”, this has no meaning in any referential we can
refer
!
Hawking evaporation is mixing what happens “in the inside
of the black hole with what could happen in the outside” adding tunnel effect
from quantum mechanic. In such a context we have seen that “there is no inside”
of the black hole and so that Hawking evaporation can not work
!
Note : J.A.Wheeler had proposed this tunnel effect in
years 60 and after a discussion with KipThorne and David Sharp he admitted this could not
occur ([Ref 18] page 269).
9. Hawking evaporation is
based on uncertain values of vacuum energy:
The value of vacuum energy is
something uncertain. As an example : vacuum energy is evaluated as
10-29 g /cm3 by the cosmologists and as 10 91 g
/ cm3 by the physicists in particles theory [Ref.34].
ANNEX
3 : Discussion about gauge forces:
In case of very short
distances super symmetrical theory
indicate that strong gauge forces could occur and increase accretion.
When a black hole appears in the crushing of a star, that
means that the strong force which is repulsive in very short distances as been
broken by gravitational force. In this case nothing can prevent the star to
crush in a black hole. The process is different for a MBH but we can suppose
that approaching of the horizon of the MBH gravitational force becomes at a
moment as strong as “strong force”!
About reality of gauge forces in short distances, I had
send to CERN references of an article from French literature [Ref.25] :
“It is possible that at very small scales of distance as
Planck scale, gravity could get values as electric force. That will give a value
10 43 times bigger”.
The answer of CERN was
:
“Dr Luisada quotes an article which refers to
hypothetical theories in which gravity can be as strong as gauge forces at LHC
energies. I do not know if these theories are believable, but they do not
provide a loophole to the argument, since the analysis in CERN 2003-001 has also
considered this case.
Dr Luisada is worried that effects of quantum gravity may
lead to lethal phenomena. Even assuming the very speculative case of a low
quantum gravity scale, black hole formation is dominated by the classical
effects. The process actually screens the short-distance part of the theory,
making quantum gravity phenomena (which are not lethal!)
unobservable”.
Comment : CERN 2003-001 has considered this case, but
with active Hawking evaporation and high speed MBH ( accretion with
Schwarzschild radius at speed c ). We will see that gauge force will helps
accretion in the final phase of electric or gravitational
accretion.
I now cite another article
[ref.24]:
“In a 6, 10 or 11 dimensions space-time :
The gravitational interactions are growing with energy et
quantum effects produced by gravitation are more important close to Planck
energy.
In this energy gravitation becomes equal to others
forces”.
We must also notice: Gauge forces are not the only reason
of increase of accretion forces.
General relativity indicate
:
“If we refer to a non moving ( with reference to the
horizon ) person on the horizon the gravitation force
becomes infinite”.
In case of MBH we will be not moving with reference to
the horizon, so we must expect strong gravitation forces and probably Gauge
forces in case of short distances !
When MBH is arriving at very
short distance of the bind nucleus, using gravitational and electrical forces,
gauge
forces will at the end oblige the MBH to go quickly and directly toward the
nucleus and so the MBH will capture it. If the MBH is small and the atom
strongly bind with “metallic connexions forces” an hypothesis could be that,
after the capture the MBH will have it’s speed return to zero .
ANNEX
4 : Discussion about MBH bind to an atom in the matter
:
If MBH do not evaporate and
are charged will they bind to some atom in the matter ?
I cite Greg Landsberg [Ref.3]
:
“ As I told you before, it does not matter what reference
frame you use the answer is still the same. If the black hole acquires charge
(either color or electric) it would merely loose energy due to strong
interactions or ionisation, and bind to some atom in the matter. Then it
will simply sit there forever, as the atomic size is infinite compared to the
Schwarzschild radius. The same way as electrons do not fall on the protons in a
regular atom, the atom with a black hole will be as stable. But of course, this
is merely an assumption, because as I said there is nothing preventing BH to
decay, and thus it will”.
Comment : It seems to me
that this process present a risk not to occur :
I agree with Greg Landsberg when he says the black hole
will loose energy and after a great number of interactions it’s speed will be
close to zero. What will happen then ?
The smallest MBH mass is equivalent to 10 gold atom mass
which mean mass equivalent to “about 2000 neutrons”
!
Will the MBH take the place of a nucleus as a new kind of
atom as Greg Landsberg suppose ?
This is a new physical model and such a model needs many
secure studies before affirmation that it will be the good way to treat that
problem.
Such an hypothesis has never been tested, so for risk
evaluation we can imagine that such a process present minimal risk of 30 %
to 40 % not to work :
Why does this process could not work : I try to find some
reasons:
1/ If MBH has got a negative charge or a divided charge
it will not orbit around the nucleus because of it’s important mass. Without
quantified orbit the electrons would loose energy and fall in the nucleus.
MBH will not have such a quantified orbit. It will go directly to the
nucleus and we will probably follow the process described before ( see
[Processes A1, A2, A3] with divided charges of quarks). The MBH will
catch nucleon or maybe the complete atom nucleus.
2/ If
neutral MBH catch a quark in a proton and after complete his charge to +1
by trapping the other quarks. Will it stay with this charge +1 and stay in the
nucleus as a proton at rest ?
In the nucleus also nucleons are located on quantified
orbits (this is different from the MBH).
With gravitational forces, and gauge forces it could
catch the others nucleons in the nucleus and have a more important positive
charge (Precise calculus has to be done !).
MBH would not replace the nucleus in the atom because a
black hole does not catch only nucleons but also catch particles which are
forces mediators as photons or gluons. So a MBH could not have
normal interactions with the electrons and the others nucleons in an atom. If
forces mediators are caught, the relation between black hole and electrons will
not obey to stable quantum authorised orbit law. Black hole is a space time
vortex and this is different from a classical “particle”. A Black hole present
no limit for matter accretion and a different behaviour in presence of
particles.
If there was a quantum stability, a heavy black hole
could not be able to catch matter. If it had positive charges, it would be
surrounded of electrons as a very big atom. These electrons would push the cloud
of electrons of the others atoms and so they will prevent accretion of these
atoms.
3/ Many others questions are to be resolved :.
Others problems could prevent a MBH to bind into an atom
: This could come from a mass of the MBH >> 2000 nucleons and also
from space time deformation or gauge forces.
For an example, if there is no quantum orbit does the
electrons, when turning around the MBH, loose their energy in emitting
synchrotron radiations and then fall in the vortex
?
How does the laws of Quantum theory and how atom models
theories could be applied in the surrounding of the MBH because of the important
space time deformation ?...etc…etc…
In [Ref.30 page 5] Greg Landsberg accepts these
limitations. I quote:
“Fundamental limitation : our lack of knowledge of
quantum gravity effects close to the Planck
scale”
______________________________________________________________
G A Accretion rate
v speed of
the black hole
r Mean
density of the matter through which the black hole passes (
iron).
g
Acceleration of Gravitation on Earth g = 9,81 m/sec
2.
K Coulomb force
coefficient = 9.10 9 N m
2 /C 2
m MBH mass if one TeV =
10 gold atom mass in the beginning = 10 x 197 x 1,7 10 –27 kg
M
Concentration of matter
M* Fundamental Mass Scale
in a (4+d) space
time
R Size of
rolled dimensions.
r
Distance
d Number of
rolled dimensions
q
electric charge
q = 1,6 10
–19 Coulomb
me
masse of electron me =
9,109. 10^-31 kg = 0,511
MeV
Number of charges of iron : 26
K q q’= 9.10 9 N m 2 /C 2 x
( 1,6 10 –19
Coulomb) 2 = 23 . 10 –29 .
References :
1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during
heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : Report of the LHC Safety Study
Group. CERN 2003-001 28 February
2003.
2.. Study of potentially dangerous events during
heavy-ion collisions at the LHC :
LHC Safety Study Group. J.P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen,
GG. Ross, P. Sonderegger, H-J. Specht « No date for this study,
available Internet May 2004 ».
3..E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James
Blodgett March
2003.
James Blodgett Internet Forum.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA
4.. Might a laboratory experiment destroy planet
Earth F. Calogero
2000
Available in Forum.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
5..A critical look at risk assessment for global
catastrophes CERN-TH
2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105 Revised
April 2003. hep-ph/0009204 Adrian Kent
6..Trous noirs Nrumiano http
://nruminiao.free.fr/fetoiles/int_noir2.html
7..Black holes at the large hadron collider Phys Rev Lett 87, 161602
(2001)
8.. Working paper: a cosmic ray/micro-black hole
model James
Blodgett
Available in Forum.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
9.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the
end of short distance physics
Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002)
056010
10.. Discovering new physics in the decays of black
holes. Greg Landsberg. Phys Rev. Lett.88, 181801
(2002)
11.. CERN to spew black holes Nature 02 October
2001
12.. Brookhaven national laboratory News 5 may 2004
New Machine
Record for Heavy Ion Luminosity at RHIC
13.. Collider mini black holes: loss of protective
considerations James
Blodgett
2004
Available in Forum.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
14.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC
September 28,1999
W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and
F.Wilczek
15.. Spectre des rayons
cosmiques de très haute énergie
Source [GAI]
16.. Atlas de l’Astronomie
Albin Michel 1983
17.. Stephen Hawking Physics Colloquiums - Gravitational
Entropy (June '98).
18.. 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.
19.. “will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy
our planet
?”.
A.Dar, A. De Rujula and U. Heinz,, August 1999, submitted to
Nature
20.. L’Univers élégant.
Brian Greene. Laffont september 2000.
ISBN
2-221-09065-9
Original
title The elegant Universe. ISBN 0-393-04688-5 Norton. New
York.
21.. Science & Vie N°107 Juin 2002 “stars with quarks
in our galaxy”
22..Science & Vie N°1029 Juin 2003 “ L’énergie du
vide”
23.. La Recherche N°376 Juin 2004. « La force qui
vient du vide »
24. La Recherche » (
1990 ? ) about « La supersymétrie
étendue » :
25. Ciel et Espace Avril
2003 page 43
26..Brane worlds and Extra Dimensions. Brian Gantz PHY 312. May 11,
2000
27.. James Blodgett Working paper (about cosmic
rays)
James Blodgett Internet Forum.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
Avalaibable at : Risk Evaluation Forum PO BOX 2371 Albany, NY 12220 – 0371 USA
28..Science & Vie N° 1042. Juillet 2004. « Centre de
la Terre. »
29.. Power of ten. 10exp-16.htm Bruce Bryson
200-04
30..Greg Landsberg i chep 2002 Amsterdam Internet Key: Greg
Landsberg
http://www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/BSM/BSM-4/BSM-4-3.landsberg.pdf
31..Science & Vie N°1043 Août 2004 Théorie du
Tout.
32.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.
33..
Science et vie N°1050 Mars 2005 « Matière en route vers son ultime
continent »
34.. La recherche N°384
Mars 2005. pourquoi l’Univers accélère.
35.. Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?",
Rept.Prog.Phys. 66 (2003) pp. 943-1008
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Questions whether black holes
radiate.
36.. V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of
quantum evaporation of a black hole," Physics Letters A, Vol 209 Num 1 (1995)
pp. 13-20. Asserts that Hawking radiation
does not exist.