Alpha Centauri :: Thema anzeigen - Dr. Rainer Plaga wird zu Unrecht als widerlegt dargestellt

Dr. Rainer Plaga wird zu Unrecht als widerlegt dargestellt
Gehe zu Seite 1, 2, 3 Weiter

Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.

Alpha Centauri Foren-Übersicht ->

achtphasens Welt

Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen

Autor

Nachricht

achtphasen

Anmeldedatum: 20.10.2008
Beiträge: 848

Verfasst am: 22.10.2009, 15:06 Titel: Dr. Rainer Plaga wird zu Unrecht als widerlegt dargestellt

CERN behauptet auf seiner Webseite "The safety of the LHC" ( http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html ) ganz unten gerade über der Download-Sektion:

Copyright CERN 2008 - Web Communications, DSU-CO hat Folgendes geschrieben:

A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga. The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano, where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.

Diese Angaben sind irreführend und rufschädigend. Dr. Plaga hat bereits letzten Sommer zügig den nichtgerechtfertigten Irrtumsvorwürfen widersprochen und am 9. August 2009 in der 3. Version seiner Arbeit "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-blackholes produced at particle colliders" nebst manch anderem sehr Interessierendem folgende explizite Antwort an G&M formuliert:

Dr. Rainer Plaga hat Folgendes geschrieben:

7 Appendix - Answer to the manuscript “Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes” by S.Giddings & M.Mangano
In a preprint[23] S.Giddings and M.Mangano (G & M) raise ﬁve objections
against the conclusions of the present manuscript. I answer them below and raise, as a sixth point, an omission in their report.
1. They “ﬁnd a negligible power output [from a black hole with the properties described in section 3 of the present manuscript] of the size 0.1 µW, differing by a factor of 10E23 from [my] claim.”
My reply:
G & M employ their eq.(1)[22] - i.e. they assume scenario 1 (see section1.2
of my paper) - to calculate the power output of a 5-dimensional microscopic
black hole with a radius of 10E-7 m within the canonical thermodynamic description of microscopic black holes. They correctly find it to be 23 orders of magnitude smaller than the power output calculated in section 3 of my paper for a black hole of the same size and conclude that my result is erroneous.
They claim that I mistakenly applied their eq.(1) “written in terms of the mass using the four-dimensional relationship between radius and mass”.
However it is the crucial point of my paper to introduce scenario 3 that does not employ their eq.(1) or my eq.(2) i.e. a thermodynamic, canonical description to calculate the power output of the black hole. Rather, following Casadio & Harms[10], it exclusively employs my eq.(1) (eq. (28) in [10]) which has a qualitatively different form.
Following Casadio & Harms [10] (sentence after their eq.(28)), my eq.(2) was only used to normalize the luminosity eq.(1) at the mass MN
This objection criticises something I did not do and did not intend to do.Therefore it does not apply to my paper. Implicitly G & M simply insist, here and in the third objection below, on a canonical treatment of mBHs, i.e. to employ their scenario 1, without stating any reason for implicitely ruling out scenario 3.

(Hervorhebung in bold von mir)

weiter schreibt Dr. Plaga zu G&M's nichtkorrekter Widerlegung:

Zitat:

2. They claim that “even ignoring the inconsistency” above, the bounds established in Giddings & Mangano[22] on Eddington limited accretion (like established in their eq.(B13)) still apply.
I reply:
As already pointed out in the 4th sentence after my eq.(6) all results on Eddington limited accretion of G&M were derived for their scenario 2 with “switched off ” Hawking radiation and therefore do not apply for the case “Hawking-radiation limited” accretion at the Eddington limit, considered in my section 3.
3. They feel that a “serious difference between the microcanonical picture and the usual Hawking calculation appears implausible in the large black hole region” I considered (following Casadio & Harms).
I reply:
G & M give reason for this evaluation - which, I note, is also in flat contradiction to the work of Casadio & Harms[10] - so I need to wait for their promised “further comments” to take a position.
In light of our poor understanding of black-hole evaporation in general (see quote below) I feel that in any case it will be difficult to rule out such a serious difference with reasonable certainty.

4. G & M rightly point out that in my quote: “...at each point where we encountered an uncertainty, we have replaced it by a conservative or “worst
case” assumption”. The bold “or” was missing. I corrected this oversight in the revised version.

5. G & M further propose that I quote from an abstract of a talk by W.Unruh[41], in addition to the references of my paper. I hereby accept their suggestion.
An excerpt from Unruh’s abstract reads:

Zitat:

“...Black Hole evaporation is one of the most puzzling features of gravity and quantum theory. 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. Where then are the particles in black hole evaporation really created?...”

From this quote I conclude: theories with extra dimensions robustly predict the existence of microscopic collider-producible black holes and Hawking radiation. But the detailed decay properties presently remain very uncertain. It then seems important to study the safety issue assuming plausible, literature-based alternatives to the standard thermodynamical treatment of Hawking radiation. This is the aim of my paper.

6. Finally G & M’s comment did not address section 4 of the present manuscript in which I argue that their exclusion of dangerous mBHs is not completely definite for a general, simple reason, completely independent of the above arguments.
I stand by my general conclusion that there is a residual catastrophic risk from metastable microscopic black holes produced at particle colliders.

Hier stellt sich die Frage, ob nicht auch andere User dieses Forums sich von CERN eine eingehendere Auseinandersetzung mit Herrn Plagas Arbeit wünschen würden, als der, nur als irreführend zu wertenden, Unterstellung Herr Plagas Warnung vor am Eddington-Limit stabilisierten mBHs wäre widerlegt, weil er sich wegen falscher Anwendung einer (nicht verwendeten Formel) um 23 Grössenordnungen geirrt habe ???

Auch der Rest von Herrn Plagas sehr interessanter und in der Risikodiskussion keineswegs ausreichend analysierter Arbeit ist absolut lesenswert. Man verstehe diese Eingabe ins Forum bitte auch als Literaturempfehlung!

Weiter fragt sich, ob nicht auch andere User dieses Forums der Ansicht sind, dass CERN mit der seit letzten Sommer nicht nachgeführten Safety-Site (Stand heute, 22. Oktober 09) wissentlich zu Unrecht als widerlegt ausgibt, was einer widerlegenden Diskussion durch CERN harrt und von doch einiger Brisanz ist? Zumal weder die Möglichkeit serieller Explosionen vom Kaliber Wasserstoffbombe noch über Jahrtausende permanent die Umgebungstemperatur erhöhende Strahlung als Bagatellschaden anzusehen sind.

RelativKritisch