Dear Eric Baird:

On May 8, 11:14*am, Eric Baird wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:45:48 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear VTNAME:

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a
blackhole created in a lab expt??

We can "Chicken Little" about anything.

If GR is right, then the black holes, if produced,
must evaporate in microseconds.

Typo?
I think you probably meant to say,
: If QM is right, then the black holes, if produced,
^^^
: must evaporate in microseconds.

No, GR is correct. GR predicts black holes(, even Newton predicts
black holes... just more massive ones). QM does not (yet) do
gravitation.

But the collider may provide some "terrain" between the discrete (QM)
and the continuous (GR)... then we'll see. Or maybe not...

David A. Smith

On Fri, 9 May 2008 06:14:17 +1200, Eric Baird wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:45:48 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Dear VTNAME:

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a
blackhole created in a lab expt??

We can "Chicken Little" about anything.

If GR is right, then the black holes, if produced, must evaporate
in microseconds.


Typo?
I think you probably meant to say,
If QM is right, then the black holes, if produced, must evaporate
^^^
in microseconds.

Have a Nice Day,
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
www.relativitybook.com

It is Hawkin's theory that predicts the decay of black holes by hawkin
radiation. His theory is a modification to GR using a QM approach.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Dear Cosmik de Bris:

"Cosmik de Bris" wrote in
message .com...
....
It is Hawkin's theory that predicts the decay of
black holes by hawkin radiation. His theory is a
modification to GR using a QM approach.

1) It is "Hawking".
2) It is not a modification of GR. GR *assumes* the local laws
of physics are the same, regardless of where / when / how-fast.
That includes QM as one of those laws. "Synthesis" might be
better than "modification", because neither was changed... just
better understood.

"dual to black holes" evaporated, not in the expected scatter of
"watch gears", but a fireball (aka. light). Frankly, I think it
might end up being more efficient than either fusion or fission
for making energy. I'd just like it if they did not have to use
gold, for a change.

David A. Smith

On May 5, 7:13*pm, Bob Tian wrote:
On May 1, 9:42*am, Harold Saxon wrote:





On 5 Apr, 15:07, "adman" wrote:

*Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the
probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to
the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this
possibility.

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen
Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for
human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the
probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of
the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order
of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123
means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total
number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's
answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1
followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if
nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name
for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero
probability".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times
less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could
not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to
write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire
universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we
should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The probability of this universe forming by chance is 1 in 10^10^123.
Ok, let's not argue with that.

Let's say we hold a billion people random raffle.


Ok, so far, but remember you used "we hold".

The raffle is drawn
and Judy wins. But you point out, the "probability of Judy winning by
chance is 1 in 1 billion. There's no way she could've won a random
raffle draw. She must have cheated and rigged the draw." See the
problem? The odds of ANY person winning is also a billion to one. If
anyone else had one, you could've made the same argument and accused
anyone of cheating. But the truth is, so long as the raffle was drawn,
the probability that somebody will win is 100% guaranteed. Somebody
MUST win. Judy, simply lucked out.

I agree. This is clear.



So let's say that our universe participated in the cosmic raffle.

So in this case, how is the raffle setup? In the previous case you
said "we hold" a raffle, which is something people can relate to.

You are setting ua a straw man already, with a false analogy fallacy
on top.


So
did many other universes. Universe A has more stars than us and twice
as many galaxies. Universe B has more pulsars and less planets.
Universe C has purple planets with pink rings. etc. The cosmic raffle
is drawn. Each of these universes (including ours) has an equal chance
of winning (1 in 10^10^123). Even so, when the raffle is drawn, one of
these universes MUST win, even if its chances were small. The chance
of this is 100% guaranteed. So, as you can see, somebody had to have
won. Judy simply lucked out. Somebody had to have won the cosmic
raffle as well. Our universe simply lucked out. Both raffles were
completely random. It's a logic fallacy to claim that the odds of the
resulting winner is small, thus she cheated and rigged/designed the
raffle. It's a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.


NO, it's the type of false analogy someone who is not in a proper
state of mind can come up with.

In Judy's case, we know there was a type of raffle that was
engineered. In the cosmic analogy case, we know nothing. Prove first
there was a raffle and I accept your analogy.

Until you prove your analogy is valid, everyone can assume it is a
false one especially when it cannot be verified.

Because, all it takes is to have the conditions for the type of cosmic
raffle you mentioned and given enough time, our univesre and life will
emerge.

How do the condition for the raffle emerge? Youy get back to the same
problem, with another probability for that. Actually, if there was a
raffle, the probability of life i9n our universe is:

P(life) = P(raffle) x P(universe sustaining life)

which is even smaller.

Mike


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sun, 11 May 2008 04:27:33 +1200, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote
(in article ):

Dear Cosmik de Bris:

"Cosmik de Bris" wrote in
message .com...
...
It is Hawkin's theory that predicts the decay of
black holes by hawkin radiation. His theory is a
modification to GR using a QM approach.

1) It is "Hawking".

Yes, I was so careful to remember not to put Hawkings that I left the "g" off
as well.

2) It is not a modification of GR. GR *assumes* the local laws
of physics are the same, regardless of where / when / how-fast.
That includes QM as one of those laws. "Synthesis" might be
better than "modification", because neither was changed... just
better understood.

Yeah OK, thanks.


"dual to black holes" evaporated, not in the expected scatter of
"watch gears", but a fireball (aka. light). Frankly, I think it
might end up being more efficient than either fusion or fission
for making energy. I'd just like it if they did not have to use
gold, for a change.


Are there any calculations of this energy and its efficiency?


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Dear Cosmik de Bris:

"Cosmik de Bris" wrote in
message .com...
On Sun, 11 May 2008 04:27:33 +1200, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
wrote
(in article ):
....
"dual to black holes" evaporated, not in the
expected scatter of "watch gears", but a
fireball (aka. light). Frankly, I think it might
end up being more efficient than either
fusion or fission for making energy. I'd just
like it if they did not have to use gold, for a
change.

Are there any calculations of this energy and
its efficiency?

Not that I am aware of. Since only a relative handfull of
interactions occured, and petajoules involved in achiveing each
interaction... they would not make it up in volume. See, I think
they only achieved comversion of "non-rest energy" into light...
they got the gold nucleii back (in whatever form).

Once a classical black hole is formed... the only path out is via
quantum tunnelling... and the easiest form for that is as
photons. Which could yield some serious energy... maybe not
enough to power the collider's operations... but maybe more
later.

David A. Smith

On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT), dlzc wrote:

Dear Eric Baird:

On May 8, 11:14*am, Eric Baird wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:45:48 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear VTNAME:

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a
blackhole created in a lab expt??

We can "Chicken Little" about anything.

If GR is right, then the black holes, if produced,
must evaporate in microseconds.

Typo?
I think you probably meant to say,
: If QM is right, then the black holes, if produced,
^^^
: must evaporate in microseconds.

No, GR is correct. GR predicts black holes(, even Newton predicts
black holes... just more massive ones). QM does not (yet) do
gravitation.

But the collider may provide some "terrain" between the discrete (QM)
and the continuous (GR)... then we'll see. Or maybe not...

David A. Smith

Oh, okay, sorry David, I misunderstood the point that you were making.

I took your sentence to mean something like
"If GR is right, black holes will evaporate"
(of course, evaporation is a QM thing, not a GR thing, which you
obviously know, which is why I thought it was a trivial typo).

But ...
What you were actually saying was more along the lines of
"If GR is right, and even if black holes form ... then thanks to QM
and Hawking radiation, they ought to evaporate almost immediately
anyway, so they ain't dangerous."

I misunderstood the emphasis. Crossed wires.

(We now return you to your regular programming ... )

=Erk= (Eric Baird) www.relativitybook.com
: " Do you expect me to talk? "
: " No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to ...
: (tappetty-tappetty tap)
: ... DANCE! "
: -- "Goldfinger, The Musical"

Dear Eric Baird:

Eric Baird wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT), dlzc
wrote:
....
No, GR is correct. GR predicts black holes(, even
Newton predicts black holes... just more massive
ones). QM does not (yet) do gravitation.

But the collider may provide some "terrain" between
the discrete (QM) and the continuous (GR)... then
we'll see. Or maybe not...

Oh, okay, sorry David, I misunderstood the point
that you were making.

I took your sentence to mean something like
"If GR is right, black holes will evaporate"

Correct.

(of course, evaporation is a QM thing, not a GR
thing, which you obviously know, which is why I
thought it was a trivial typo).

Evaporation is a "the laws of physics are the same for all
observers" thing. Upon which GR is founded.

But ...
What you were actually saying was more along
the lines of "If GR is right, and even if black holes
form ... then thanks to QM and Hawking radiation,
they ought to evaporate almost immediately
anyway, so they ain't dangerous."

I misunderstood the emphasis. Crossed wires.

(We now return you to your regular programming ... )

Hawking radiation combines Unruh radiation and the equivalence
principle, both classical observations. The attachment to QM is
more subtle than you imagine.

David A. Smith

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:02:20 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Dear Eric Baird:

Eric Baird wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT), dlzc
wrote:
...
No, GR is correct. GR predicts black holes(, even
Newton predicts black holes... just more massive
ones). QM does not (yet) do gravitation.

But the collider may provide some "terrain" between
the discrete (QM) and the continuous (GR)... then
we'll see. Or maybe not...

Oh, okay, sorry David, I misunderstood the point
that you were making.

I took your sentence to mean something like
"If GR is right, black holes will evaporate"

Correct.

(of course, evaporation is a QM thing, not a GR
thing, which you obviously know, which is why I
thought it was a trivial typo).

Evaporation is a "the laws of physics are the same for all
observers" thing. Upon which GR is founded.

Yea-ah ... I do understand some of the general arguments for Hawking
radiation being a "general" effect. F'rinstance, the way that it
appears in acoustics and "olde" emission theory and dragged-aether
theories.

But the effect isn't expected across gravitational horizons according
to Einstein's general theory. That's part of why GR1915's black holes
were supposed to be a whole new class of theoretical object .. it was
because they showed this novel behaviour (zero outward emissions
across a gravitaitonal horizon) that wouldn't have been expected under
previous models.

Perhaps Hawking radiation might be expected under //someone else's//
general theory, but I don't see how the effect can appear classically
in a model that's supposed to reduce to the SR equations of motion, as
Einstein's was.

I'm not averse to the idea of a "more general" general theory that
explicitly supports Hawking radiation (in fact, I'm rather keen on
it), but AFAIK, nobody's yet managed to get one through peer review.
I think that to get such a thing to work, one probably has to switch
to an acoustic metric, and have the general theory reduce to that
instead of a Minkowski metric ... but changing to an acoustic metric
seems to change the basic equations of motion away from special
relativity ... and according to the current GR textbooks, any
gravitational theory //has// to reduce perfectly to the physics of SR
over small regions of spacetime if it's to be classed as credible.

So our current methods for assessing curved-spacetime models seem to
rule out any solutions that might be able to support Hawking radiation
effects classically.

The "quantum gravity" guys are making some progress, but I think
that's partly because they aren't so explicitly bound by the same
textbook conventions as the GR guys.

The term "GR" can be problematic. It can refer to the general subject
of general relativity, or it can refer more specifically to Einstein's
general theory. If I'm referring to something that might be expected
from general relativistic principles, but which //doesn't// seem to be
supported by current GR, I usually try to qualify things by referring
to "Einstein's GR" as something like "GR1915".


But ...
What you were actually saying was more along
the lines of "If GR is right, and even if black holes
form ... then thanks to QM and Hawking radiation,
they ought to evaporate almost immediately
anyway, so they ain't dangerous."

I misunderstood the emphasis. Crossed wires.

(We now return you to your regular programming ... )

Hawking radiation combines Unruh radiation and the equivalence
principle, both classical observations. The attachment to QM is
more subtle than you imagine.

grin

Actually, I seem to have been trying to make that very point myself,
off and on, for much of the last ten years.

Not, it has to be said, to an overwhelmingly positive response from
the physics community.

If the idea of "classical" Hawking radiation is now beginning to catch
on, and is starting to become respectable, then that's a development
that I'm very happy about!


=Erk= (Eric Baird) www.relativitybook.com
: " Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can
: say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this
: land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design
: shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this
: period in history."
: - "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975)

Dear Eric Baird:

Eric Baird wrote in message
...
....
Perhaps Hawking radiation might be expected under
//someone else's// general theory, but I don't see
how the effect can appear classically in a model
that's supposed to reduce to the SR equations of
motion, as Einstein's was.

How fortuitous...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...c52e34b1d93586
.... just posted on sci.astro.

See the approximations that reduce GR to SR involve the patching
technique to connect little bits of spacetime for forming a
"solution space". GR allows curvature (the patches can be
slightly skew), and SR does not. Not entirely as mysterious as
you imagine...

David A. Smith