CERN does not object that all 4 pillars of its safety reports (Hawking evaporation, chargedness of black holes, neutron stars as guinea pigs, long duration of earth being eaten inside out) have been disproved scientifically.
Nevertheless it continues in full view of the eyes of the world. No one can understand this – and that it should have eluded all media.
Why are you posting here? Fix up your paper, and make a new post of what you have found. In the meanwhile, you should be doing thinking, not accusing.
“Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714 ) is a big step forward towards an experimental proof of Hawking evaporation.
Where are your experiments ?
Hawing Radiation: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hawking-radiation
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25805/
disprove the experiments, Rössler!
Dear eq: Thank you — you are right, if Hawking radiation exists, the experiment is safe. Unfortunately, it has never been observed (your second reference does not refer to Hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking). Unforrtunately, the gothic-R theorem of 2007, and the Telemach theorem of 2010 have disproved Hawking radiation. No physicist contradicts the theorem.
Your “theorem” was contradicted by Nicolai et al three years ago! You have not changed anything in your respective paper. The math is the same as before and the arguments given in Nicolai et al is still valid.
By the way, could you give us a detailed explanation of “hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking”?
Here the link to the paper:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v105/i20/e203901
Only to say that’s not “hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking” is a poor argument. To contradict the eperiments and their interpretations, you should be a little bit more scientific.…being a self-proclaimed expert there will be no problem for you!
Thank you, dear eq.:I successfully answered Professor Nicolai’s objections two years ago. This exchange was seminal for my finding the subsequent Telemach theorem, which he never contradicted — although I am still waiting for his answer whetherthe paper is accepted by his Institrute’s journal, Einstein-online.
P.S. Hawking radiation was never measured — only physical analog computers were presented in the papers you quoted. But I thank you for being the only one who tried to reply in the name of the profession, dear eq. 1.
You can surely summarize the findings of the paper and show the errors made by the authors in the experimental setup, the data processing and the theoretical treatment / explanations.
Up to now I have not see anything like a scientific answer to this paper from you.
You have not contrradict the objections made by Nicolai. The R-Theorem Paper is the same as before, nothing has changed in the equations etc. Additionally you have not given any exact derivation of your findings from the Einstein-equations. However, your Telemach Theorem is a bad joke, nothing more. It is based on fundamental misunterstanding of general relativity. This has been shown several times in the last year, e.g. on sites like achtphasen.net. In your last telemach-posting on this blog there were some serious questions about your “equations” you are still avoiding to answer. BTW: you are already completely disproved by the Ch-Claim of your so called “theorem”. There is no relationship between charge and mass (and your so called proof for is not even a bad joke of a crackpot).
BTW: You have not answer my question, Otto. Could you give us a detailed explanation of “hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking”? And a detailed explanation why the authors of the paper above are wrong in their theoretical treatment.
Thanks!
Dear Mr. Eq.:
I have given a theorem which as no one objects disproves Hawking radiation if correct. Please, be so kind to disprove my theorem if you can: this is more important than playing the examiner in a freak show. By the way: An anonymous calling another by his first name is a disgrace. Please, apologize.
Second: I never said the authors of the analog-type experiments were wrong. Only I repeat what they themselves say: that this is not Hawking radiation but an analog to Hawking radiation and hence does not prove anything about the real thing. Okay?
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler
Your co called R-theorem was clearly disproved years ago. You have changed nothing(!) in the respective paper and therefore the objections are still valid!
Second, of course you are saying the authors of the hawking paper are wrong. It seems to be that you have not understand the paper or the nature of hawkingreadiation at all! At this point I must repeat my question:
Could you give us a detailed explanation of “hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking”? And a detailed explanation why the authors of the paper above are wrong in their theoretical treatment. And: if it is not hawking radiation observed in this experiment, in agreement with the theoretical predictions, what else could it be?
these are questions you have to answer!
Recursive looptomyentry of — - — - — - — - — - — - -
Dear KeithCu:
Forgive the delay: Is this an allowed outcome after your kind advice?:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/dear-dr-hawking
Take care, Otto E. Rossler
Why, yes, that’s the sciency way to deal with a false equation and bogus reasoning in one’s paper: write an open letter to Stephen Hawking. You’re certainly making a lot of sense here.
Thank you from my heart.
Dear Otto:
I meant that you should fix up this paper:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern
Please give me more guidance.
Dr. Rossler is correct in observing that the interpretation of proposed analogues to Hawking radiation is not proof of the real thing. The phenomena depicted in the cited articles do not demonstrate the emanation of thermal radiation from black holes, such as Hawking proposed and no astronomer has ever detected. The suggested analogues do not involve quantum tunneling out of a black hole by virtual particle pairs, backwards-in-time travel, particles of negative mass, and other bizarre concepts intrinsic to Hawking’s theory.
In fact, a number of respected physicists have questioned the theory of Hawking radiation, including Belinski (2006), Helfer (2003), and Prof. Wm. Unruh (2004), who recently concluded, “the derivation by Hawking is nonsense.” According to a 2008 published report by CERN’s chief safety theorists, Giddings and Mangano: “elements of the original derivation [by Hawking] of black hole radiance rely on assumptions that are apparently not valid” (p. 3).
Dear colleague:
Thank you for telling the readers the state of the art concerning Hawking radiation — without the Telemach theoren yet. The L in the latter — that distance scales with travel time (which is known to be infinite) — prevents anything from entering the horizon or emerging from it in finite outer time. Which fact actually has always been known but got lost from consciousness in the Western, if not the Eastern, school.
So the nonexistence of Hawking radiation is a foregone fact for a long time. The real scandal with Telemach lies not in the L but the Ch part (that charge is suddenly no longer conserved). Without this result, mini black holes would be charged in a certain fraction, and therefore get stuck inside matter, so that cosmic-ray collisions would long have proven miniature black holes to be innocuous, as CERN justly claims — in the absence of TelemaCh.
I still cannot understand that CERN gets away with the scientific community of the planet with its open neglect of 3 years old results in the scientific literature. Conscious neglect is the gravest crime against the spirit of science. But this fact – that CERN has shed the status of a scientific institution — is, of course, not the gravest concern of the citizens of the planet threatened by CERN (cf. my yesterday’s text “Five Fateful Coincidences” on Lifeboat).
It would be great if at long last a defender of CERN’s would dare to come out. It is the survival of science on the planet that is at stake. If science risks the survival of all in plain sunlight, then the survival of science itself is — unfortunately since science is our baby and breathing air — put into even graver jeopardy. Please, my dear colleagues of the world, assemble behind me to rescue CERN in its substance. The inventor of the Internet ought to be given a chance — but hurry up!
prevents anything from entering the horizon
ah, so how do they eat matter? :D
“The suggested analogues do not involve quantum tunneling out of a black hole by virtual particle pairs, backwards-in-time travel, particles of negative mass, and other bizarre concepts intrinsic to Hawking’s theory.”
None of this is implicit in Hawking radiation either. You are mistaking science fiction for real science. (BTW Rössler is taken in by similar misconceptions about Hawking radiation, which is why he doesn’t know that his infinite distance argument would have been irrelevant to Hawking radiation, even if it had not been completely stupid.)
“In fact, a number of respected physicists have questioned the theory of Hawking radiation,”
That doesn’t change anything about the fact that Rössler’s arguments are pseudo-scientific gibberish. If you were really interested in what respected scientists have to say, it would seem a little odd to give that much attention to a self-proclaimed specialist, who after all is demonstrably, utterly confused about the most fundamental concepts of his field of work, and seeks refuge in denial. But you seem more interested in cherry-picking and quote-mining anyway. The quote from Unruh e.g. is taken from the abstract of a talk given at a conference on “Effective Models of Quantum Gravity” at the Perimeter Institute in 2007. Here is a little more context:
“The derivation by Hawking is nonsense, in that it uses features of the theory in regimes where we know the theory is wrong. Analog models of gravity have given us a clue that despite the shaky derivation, the effect is almost certainly right. “
(http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Events/Effective_Models_of_…Abstracts/)
So Unruh is in fact not expressing any strong doubts about the existence of Hawking radiation, as you would apparently like to make believe, but, to the contrary, deems it confirmed to almost certainty by exactly the kind of theorizing and experiments (found in the paper cited by “eq”, above) you dismissed from the outset as not being “the real thing”. So in order to accept Unruh as authority you would have to deal with his views on analog models of gravity, which is in conflict with yours and Rössler’s. I wonder why you didn’t bother to mention them.
BTW, this led us again to the questions about this paper Rössler is avoiding to answer:
Could you give us a detailed explanation of “hawking radiation in the sense of Hawking”? And a detailed explanation why the authors of the paper above are wrong in their theoretical treatment. And: if it is not hawking radiation observed in this experiment, in agreement with the theoretical predictions, what else could it be?
I did not say that Hawking is totally rejected by the scientific community. I should also acknowledge more explicitly that his thinking is ingenious. It as its essential mistake only overlooks the infinite travel time as I said. The latter unfortunately is not healed by its other ingenious features.
This infinite travel time — the infinite gravitational twins paradox — is virtually unknown in the (Western) scientific community. I thought I had found it in Frolov and Novikov, and it is there, but not very explicit. So it is fair to say (unless you correct me) that it is unknown.
The laughing question above is appreciated because it reflects the false assumption that black holes would eat matter only after having gulped it behind the horizon. This latter event indeed never happens in finite outside time. So if you wish, not a single balck hole exists in the universe (strictly speaking). Nevertheless it would be a big mistake to think that they would therefore not exist. They are merely unfinished. But FAPP — for all practical purposes — they do exist. This is because viewed from the outside, the matter in question has very soon reached what amounts to 99.999999… percent of the distance toward the horizon, measured in terms of the outside world’s meter sticks, that is, in percent of the remaining radius of the sphere surrounding the black hole in the outer world.
I am grateful that this question came up. It forces the scientific community to “think along” so that hiding behind wrong dogmas becomes impossible.
“The L in the latter – that distance scales with travel time (which is known to be infinite) – prevents anything from entering the horizon or emerging from it in finite outer time. Which fact actually has always been known but got lost from consciousness in the Western, if not the Eastern, school.
So the nonexistence of Hawking radiation is a foregone fact for a long time.”
Note that in effect this is saying that Hawking radiation cannot exist because classically nothing can escape the horizon. Rössler seems completely unaware that this is but the very *definition* of the black hole’s event horizon, and that its apparent contradiction with the principles of quantum mechanics was the major point to which Hawking radiation owes its fame. But Rössler’s “theorems” never even touch quantum mechanics at all, which means it misses the point completely.
It’s is a lot like arguing that the Schrödinger equation must be false, because from classical electrodynamics it follows that atoms can’t be stable, due to the electron’s radiation.
“This infinite travel time – the infinite gravitational twins paradox – is virtually unknown in the (Western) scientific community. ”
Please, could this get any more ludicrous? You seem to get increasingly disconnected from reality.
Thank you for announcing that ou have a good reference to the infinite gravitational twins paradox. Please, be so kind to share it.
Second, your claim that quantum tunneling covers infinite distances, which you implicitly make, is most important. I would like to quote you on that. Please, tell me where I can find the evidence.
“Thank you for announcing that ou have a good reference to the infinite gravitational twins paradox. Please, be so kind to share it. ”
Are you serious? Use google or consult Wikipedia about black holes.
Ok, here you are! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Event_horizon :
“To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole.[44] Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it.[45] ”
Unless you hold that wikipedia is largely unavailable in the western hemisphere your claim seems quite untenable to me.
“Second, your claim that quantum tunneling covers infinite distances, which you implicitly make, is most important. I would like to quote you on that. Please, tell me where I can find the evidence. ”
You can quote what I said, but not what you, based on your misconceptions, think I might have meant. Neither did I say anything about “quantum tunneling” nor about “infinite distances” (other than that your infinite distance argument is stupid, but you can quote me on that.)
For what may be wrong with the account of virtual particles tunneling an infinite distance see: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
(and continue with the references cited therein)
From the content:
“In fact this argument also does not correspond in any clear way to the actual computation. Or at least I’ve never seen how the standard computation can be transmuted into one involving virtual particles sneaking over the horizon, and in the last talk I was at on this it was emphasized that nobody has ever worked out a “local” description of Hawking radiation in terms of stuff like this happening at the horizon. […] Note: I wouldn’t be surprised if this heuristic picture turned out to be accurate, but I don’t see how you get that picture from the usual computation.”
Even if there was such a description in local terms it would be hard to see how it could be invalidated by an infinite distance to the horizon, because there are *equivalent* descriptions already known, that do not in any way depend on that distance or its being finite. (Although, the distance in fact *is* finite, because your argument is nonsense as shown previously.)
Thank you for going so deep into the discussion of the gravitational clock slow-down.
And forgive me if I find that the reference you kindly gave does not say anything about two clocks, one left on the outside, the other descending and then returning. In that case, it turns out that the returned twin clock finds the waiting twin clock grown infinitely old in the meantime.
For the same reason, then, no black hole is ever finished and no horizon ever reached. Astronauts may think they can reach and cross the horizon in finite time. But this is a fairy tale told to them before their mission. For before they reac the horizon, an infinite amount of time needs to have passed for the whole universe. In an infinitely long time, there is a good chance, however, that something will intervene.
For example, another black holemay have come close to the one in question. Any particle still on its way towards the former will then have to “decide” whether to continue approaching its own black hole or to change course toward the winning (bigger) black hole. This is a neat mathematical situation: a separatrix forms. Even though it is only an almost-asymptotic trajectory that we are talking about, the latter is very close to a genuine separatrix. That is, one can predict that before the smaller black hole is finished, any of its in-falling objects will be forced onto a separatrix-type trajectory — and therefore leave the gravitational field of both. This insight if correct allows for an eternal recycling of matter between 50 percent of the universe’s mass in the form of black-hole matter and cosmic ray particles that eventially condense into gas clouds etc. — an eternal perpetual motion machine.
You will say that the big bang guarantees finiteness at least in one time direction (the past). But there is a recent series of papers which proves that the universe is at least as likely to be nonexpanding and infinitely old. If you wish, I send you the corresponding review paper. But of course, cosmology is not our main topic. So please forgive me. It is just too rewarding to discuss normal science that is not beset by a hysterical tone owing to time’s running out.
“Thank you for going so deep into the discussion of the gravitational clock slow-down.”
You are welcome. Speaking of which, have you corrected your Eq. (1) in http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern already and reconsidered your conclusions accordingly?
“And forgive me if I find that the reference you kindly gave does not say anything about two clocks, one left on the outside, the other descending and then returning. In that case, it turns out that the returned twin clock finds the waiting twin clock grown infinitely old in the meantime.”
You are forgiven for not finding it there because it’s wrong. As long as the observer does not reach the horizon he may return in finite outside time. If he reaches the horizon he will never return. It is impossible for him to return *and* find his brother infinitely older.
“For the same reason, then, no black hole is ever finished and no horizon ever reached.”
Wrong too. Whether something can happen somewhere in spacetime is unrelated to the question of how long it would take for an outside observer to notice. If he has no way of knowing what is going on somewhere in finite time that’s exactly what makes “somewhere” a point on (or beyond) the horizon.
“Astronauts may think they can reach and cross the horizon in finite time. But this is a fairy tale told to them before their mission.
For before they reac the horizon, an infinite amount of time needs to have passed for the whole universe.”
No, only for the outside observer. There is no such thing as a “time for the whole universe.” Time is relative.
Dear Mr. TRMG:
Thank you for the concrete first question. I apologize for being unable to revise the equation which you point out because it is not mine but Einstein’s. It expresses his oldest and most important insight into the nature of gravity: the gravitational clock slowdown.
Neverthless I am very grateful for giving your own thought to this scandal which it still is (apart from its being right in my opinion).
Then you kindly out yourself as not believing in the gravitational twin paradox. This again is very meritful because you are the first physicist who does so openly. There may be another one — endowed with a Nobel medal perhaps — daring o come to your side now. For apparently the whole physics community is of the very same opinion as you expressed it.
Your third argument is equally deep and important again (all three only have an error of sign in them in my opinion — which in mathematics is not counted as a vice as you know). Again, the physics community is on your side: That different clock speeds are nothing ontological but can be “healed” by scale transformations. My dear friend David Finkelstein is co-responsible for the famous Eddington-Finkelstein scale transformation, for example. I am sure he forgives me if I here publicly declare that while I admire its mathematical beauty and rigor, it is not physical. He will come to your aid just as amiably as I here criticize him (I know he has more important work to do). Nevertheless I believe he could do our friendship and the world no greater service at the moment (I never dared approach him head-on on this so far).
Concretely: Your argument that there is no commmon time valid for the outside universe is numerically not false. Indeed only for infinitely far outside observers is there a common time. But for all practical purposes, the deviations between the times valid for different outside observers are negligible compared to the ratio of all those times to the horizon time. (I here for simplicity assiemed a stationary universe.)
Your argument nevertheless is very well taken. The exponents of the physics community for many decades lost awareness of this fact — that the infinite outside time in the Schwarzschild metric is not just something formal but the true ontological time in the cosmos (or at least in a simplified cosmos). You will be not alone if you contradict me here.
Please, accept my appreciation for your well-taken counterarguments. That I am of the opposite opinion in every single case I hope you can forgive me. I am waiting to learn more.
“Thank you for the concrete first question. I apologize for being unable to revise the equation which you point out because it is not mine but Einstein’s.”
No it’s not. The equation you have given is simply wrong, it’s not Einstein’s, it’s empirically false, it’s in contradiction with the Schwarzschild metric, and even with your own verbal description of the situation. All this was pointed out to you repeatedly, and I hence assume you are aware of the problem, so what are you trying to pull here?
“Then you kindly out yourself as not believing in the gravitational twin paradox. ”
Sorry, you are delusional. Correcting your views about something is not the same as not believing in it.
“But for all practical purposes, the deviations between the times valid for different outside observers are negligible compared to the ratio of all those times to the horizon time. (I here for simplicity assiemed a stationary universe.) ”
No they aren’t negligible as is evident from the infiniteness of the outside observer’s time compared to the finite proper time of an infalling observer, which was the subject you just brought up. Also I wonder what you mean by “all practical purposes”. These “practical purposes” obviously exclude cricumstances in which these differences have been actually measured, which would rather make you the one not believing in the gravitational twin paradox. Finally, there is no “horizon time” any more than there is a “light ray time.”
“The exponents of the physics community for many decades lost awareness of this fact – that the infinite outside time in the Schwarzschild metric is not just something formal but the true ontological time in the cosmos (or at least in a simplified cosmos).”
That is a false alternative. The outside time is the “true ontological” time of an outside observer at rest. That doesn’t make it “something formal”, but it doesn’t make it the “time of the cosmos” either. There are lots of observers in the cosmos each with their own time.
We got a problem. The race to discover the Black Hole is similar to an earlier race to reach Absolute Zero. There was lots of explosions and loss of eyesight until scientists figure out what they were doing.
The problem today is that the world is now one giant laboratory where a big enough mistake could end us all.
However sorry Otto, there are many colliders in the works and countries less safely conscious than Switzerland. Therefore earth life is finished if you are right, either something fast like you alone predict or in a few hundred years as less hysterical domesday prophets predict. or perhaps, if black holes are slower that cosmic rays, the sun winking out in a few thousand years or more.
Thus the only hope for humankind if you are somewhat right would be a dire warning at the last moment, I wonder what Otto or others can do to make such a warning more likely.
RichardKane
pa.blogspot.com
Dear Richard Kane, I thank you for your comment. “I’m at a loss” would be a good description. Maybe someone else can help us both out with the right advice?