Your paper linked:
STUDY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EVENTS
DURING HEAVY-ION COLLISIONS AT THE LHC:
REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP
Cosmic Rays 2.21
This is one of the sobering facts that we can contend with, when we realize not only are we dealing with things that are happening around us, but that we understand that dissipation is just a part of this process, as to find how we might see into these extra dimensions.
There is a summ total of the interactive processes taking place in nature around us and we are part of this scenario. We do control the energies demanded in experimental research, but this does not disavow the process from happening in nature with the inability for us to control those same energies.
“There’s no question that the Auger observatory will be sensitive to this signal, if it exists,” says Penn State’s Stéphane Coutu, a member of the international Auger Observatory team. “We’ll definitely look.”
So rest easy.
Think about what we see in the daylight, and if such dissipated valuation can be assigned these microstates, then what say that we see the nature of things in ways that we had not before?
While it is speculative on my part from what I have understood is that such emissions would have found harmonical values to the way we describe what we see in reality? Yet, there are dimensions to this world that we have not considered?
Where have we run into our limitations? Imagine that such processes can be mirrored in our environment, as we strive to control the experiments we see Pierre Auger has continued along and developed as well.
High Energy Physics
It was important to keep these two lines of investigation in perspective, as they diverged.
After doing some more research I am coming across statements that run contrary to what I might have proposed as not of sufficient consideration alongside fo LHC and Cosmic interactive feature in comparison. I find somet of thesse thngs a little troubling bt that is my own uncertainty about the effect.
Do Blackholes Radiate
This paper explains the nature of the difficulties, and reviews the proposals that have been put forward to deal with them. None of the proposals put forward can so far be considered to be really successful, and simple dimensional arguments show that quantum-gravitational effects might well alter the evaporation process outlined by Hawking. Thus a definitive theoretical treatment will require an understanding of quantum gravity in at least some regimes. Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.
The possibility that non-radiating “mini” black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of “mini” black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.
After following up and continuing this research, something very amazing made itself known that I had not considered although I seemed to be moving in that direction.
Consider indeed for a moment that the “superfluid” that had been created had indeed held the context of the blackhole and what is revealled in the aftermath, as a strange Quark(?). This had some interesting insights that are leading to other things that might have manifested had we see the relaton of the iron core and what could have gathered at it. You have to wonder and I will be moving in that direction.
Risk Evaluation Forum
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.
37.. La Recherche N° 382 Janvier 2005 l’antimatière questionne le Big Bang
38.. BBC New uk edition Thursday 17 March 2005 11 :30 GMT “Lab fireball may be black hole”
Dialogos of Eide 