Thank you, dear colleague, for this important hint at a source that is out of date with its references regarding the new features of black holes in light of c-global.

It would be great if anyone could contribute to the new planetary scientific duty to disprove c-global and thereby resurrect Hawking radiation.

Remarkably, the planet's fate appears to be connected with the fate of Hawking radiation.

Dear KIT Colleague Spinrath:

The papers you quote are pre-c-global and hence do not belong into our context.

I would maximally appreciate if you could find and publish the first counter-proof to c-global. Actually everyone will be maximally obliged to you.

Take care, Otto

Even though you don't behave like a colleague, dear Martin, by quoting honor-detracting untrue lay sources, I appreciate the kindness of your attempting to say something factual.

You say: "All the papers from 2008 which claimed that the LHC might be unsafe have been proven to be wrong. Not only from a theoretical point of view but as well from astrophysical data."

I apologize that I do not know any paper to this effect. Since you continue by saying "Therefore it would be your turn to put forth any argument against those papers," you will be able, I trust, to kindly list those papers.

The final statement of proud belief which you added is, unfortunately, unsupported before you - or anyone else - is strong enough to dethrone c-global. 

The world is watching at this point: No one will be more grateful than me if you succeed.

Sincerely yours,

Otto

What the heck is c-global? (Apparently not global variables in the C computer language.) Could it have fallen into the throne?

Otto> the LHC experiment is producing the hottest resident spot anywhere in the universe

As pointed out by the safety review, this is not true. But, if I remember correctly, it may become approximately true if accelerator collision energies are boosted by another order of magnitude. 

What will be our life if we are trapped in a black hole ?

We will disappear ?

Thank you for your question about the LHC. You certainly have some misunderstandings, so I will try to clear them up:

• I would not call the LHC "grandiose." It is a  reasonable approach for us to try to understand the basic building blocks of matter. Without research like this, future generations would not have the tools they need to survive. Economically, the world has already gotten out more than its investment, even ignoring the immeasurable contribution to knowledge.
• Sorry if I do not understand the logic behind your c-global sentence. Hawking radiation is a necessary result of conservation laws and has not been refuted.
• The energy of a proton-proton collision in the LHC is essentially equal to two hands clapping. You are confusing energy with energy density. Put a thumb tack on each of your hands and then clap; then you will see the difference.
• CERN never uses the phrase "Big Bang Experiment." Do not confuse us with the journalists and editors who like to make silly headlines. It is their job to attract readers. It is our job to measure nature.
• The energy density of an LHC proton-proton collision is similar to what existed shortly after the Big Bang and that is what allows us to produce particles we do not normally see.
• Such collisions, as well as those of much higher energy density, occur in our upper atmosphere all the time, due to cosmic rays. In fact, the LHC has already happened about 10,000 times in our upper atmosphere. We just reproduce that, so we can measure the output with large, precision detectors.

Thank you again for your question.

Dear Martin:

I very much appreciate your kind response. The same to you, Kare.

Is it okay if instead of saying something self-righteous in response I switch the discussion a bit in the direction of cooperation?

Would you be ready to cooperate on a joint paper titled "Volume-preserving Differential Geometry"?

I believe it is a new ballpark after more than a century. Maybe we could interest Gerhard Huisken to join-in on the task. The "3-pseudosphere" (which I once described in a TV interview several years ago) would be a special case as he knows. For "science is friendship" is still the best definition.

But maybe you can debug this idea in its very nascent state already - or at least its connection to physics which I try to uphold?

Thank you.

Correction: I meant "generic 3-pseudosphere" to accommodate the global-c Schwarzschild metric.

It isn't correct that a Schwarzschild black hole doesn't emit Hawking radiation-indeed, since it isn't extremal, it's the typical example for describing the emission of Hawking radiation-for black holes that are large enough, so  that the emission rate is slow enough. For astrophysical black holes, of course, its characteristic temperature is so low, that it can't be detected. (In curved spacetimes the constancy of the speed of light doesn't make sense, since Lorentz invariance isn't a global symmetry, it's a local symmetry. If the spacetime is asymptotically flat, then Lorentz invariance is a global symmetry at infinity.) What the constancy of the speed of light in general relativity means is that general coordinate invariance implies that, at any given point in spacetime, it's possible to eliminate curvature effects and describe spacetime as Minkowski; so any ``non-constancy of the speed of light'' in this sense would imply breakdown of general coordinate invariance in general relativity and Lorentz violating effects in special relativity-both of which are constrained by experiments and theory, since the effects would have been seen in other contexts.

However, these facts don't have anything to do with the LHC, because the consistency of the calculation of Hawking radiation implies that its effects are transplanckian, i.e. at energy scales beyond the Planck scale, 10^(19) GeV; however the LHC probes energies at 10 TeV=10^4 GeV. (And a 100 TeV collider leads to a factor of 10, that reduces the suppression factor by a factor of 10.) So any solution to Einstein's equations, at such energies has  RHS suppressed by a factor of 10^(-15); this means that spacetime at the LHC is, for all practical purposes, Minkowski-the backreaction is negligible.  In particular, it can't create a black hole, for which the calculation of Hawking radiation is applicable at all-for ``small'' black holes the calculation of Hawking radiation isn't valid-and their meaning, within general relativity, isn't clear, since general relativity receives corrections at such scales; so the statement that such solutions do describe anything physical at all is suspect, within the context of general relativity. 

Ales> On the other hand energies of proton-proton interactions in the LHC are orders of magnitude lower from what planets in our solar system experience from the Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays on a regular basis.

There seems to be a cutoff in cosmic ray energies around 1020 eV = 1011 GeV. I.e., one may assume that a lot of collisions with center-of-mass energies up to around 105 - 106 GeV = 100-1000 TeV have occurred in the nearby part of our universe, with no noticeable consequences.

But accelerator people boosting the energy by another factor of 10 may have to rely a little more on the theoretical estimates.

Arno> the effect of relativitistic forces at speeds near c. Mathematics of the continuum predict that they will be torn apart, whilst setting free positrons.

What do you mean exactly?  The relativistic fields from an electron moving at an extremely high speed is just the Coulomb field looked from another inertial frame. A relativistic invariant continuum cannot react to anything which is frame dependent.

Pair production does not tear apart anything. Nothing special happens, in this regard, at TeV scale energies, that hasn't been, already, observed before. The backgrounds become considerably more elaborate, that's all. That new particles, beyond those described by the Standard Model, are expected to be produced doesn't imply anything particular about safety, that's not, already, known-since the safety issues pertain to radiation effects that are described by the electromagnetic and weak interactions, that are well understood.

Ales> This is quite a predicament

In some cases one can to some extent observe the effects of physical "objects" (particles at least) for which there is insufficient energy for production, through virtual effects.

Effects from the Z-boson could be seen in electron-positron scattering experiments long before it was directly observed. In fact, in retrospect one may say that the whole field of radioactivity is a signature of physics occurring at energy scales 1000-10000 times higher than the energies actually involved in radioactive processes. 

Quantum mechanics allows us to see the invisible! But it requires proper understanding and interpretation of what is observed.

No-the proton is described as a bound state of quarks and gluons and how these behave is well known. At energies beyond couple of times the mass of the proton, 1GeV/c^2, ``fragmentation'' of the proton takes place and the quarks rearrange as jets, whose study is standard, https://gsalam.web.cern.ch/gsalam/talks/repo/2008-louvain-jets.pdf and, once more, doesn't affect spacetime, since these energies can't produce deviations from Minkowski. 

Arno> I assume that a proton exists of...

If I assume that the moon consists of well-aged Jarlsberg cheese, how much would you buy of it?

> do you bet your life...

There are areas of much greater concern, and more imminent dangers to the survival of life on Earth. The areas where the nuclear arsenal is stored. Maybe one should instigate an international court case against the production and storage of nuclear weapons everywhere in the universe?

I should make a confession. c-global is "too big" a result to be easily believed. It promises everyone who re-writes the Einstein equation in this new volume-preserving form a big prize. And it dethrones the Big Bang. So when finding such a thing (as a crumb under Einstein's table), you should shut up and wait thirty years before coming back to it in public.

Hence it is totally against my (also sometimes existing) common sense to make propaganda for c-global (even though it is not hard to check and can make the reader famous easily by giving her the motivation to re-write the field equations in their new, at last fully correct, volume-preserving form as mentioned). But it looks awful if you make propaganda for your own brain-child, especially so in China.

But what if you have a chance to thereby prevent Armageddon - at least on the next experimental try?

Some of you say this is unlikely a consequence if the world adopts c-global. So far, the chances appear to be in the ten-percent range still. But discussing numbers is moot as long as the possibility - however small - to prevent Armageddon is one of the consequences if you resist your natural tendency to play down on a brainchild of yours.  And many have seen c-global at least partially before, of course. And the connection to the LHC is also not my own invention. So my playing the naughty child is entirely unfreiwillig: Please, forgive me.

Arno> an inner structure of proton

How does the structure functions of your proton look like?

Dear Dr. Goldfarb:

I did not yet thank you for this contribution from CERN itself: Let me repeat it because it is so important, emphasizing two points by bold letters:

-------

"Thank you for your question about the LHC. You certainly have some misunderstandings, so I will try to clear them up:

I would not call the LHC "grandiose." It is a  reasonable approach for us to try to understand the basic building blocks of matter. Without research like this, future generations would not have the tools they need to survive. Economically, the world has already gotten out more than its investment, even ignoring the immeasurable contribution to knowledge.

Sorry if I do not understand the logic behind your c-global sentence. Hawking radiation is a necessary result of conservation laws and has not been refuted.

The energy of a proton-proton collision in the LHC is essentially equal to two hands clapping. You are confusing energy with energy density. Put a thumb tack on each of your hands and then clap; then you will see the difference.

CERN never uses the phrase "Big Bang Experiment." Do not confuse us with the journalists and editors who like to make silly headlines. It is their job to attract readers. It is our job to measure nature.

The energy density of an LHC proton-proton collision is similar to what existed shortly after the Big Bang and that is what allows us to produce particles we do not normally see.

Such collisions, as well as those of much higher energy density, occur in our upper atmosphere all the time, due to cosmic rays. In fact, the LHC has already happened about 10,000 times in our upper atmosphere. We just reproduce that, so we can measure the output with large, precision detectors.

Thank you again for your question."

------

The two highlighted sentences coming officially from CERN are maximally important:

1) Quote: "Hawking radiation is a necessary result of conservation laws and has not been refuted."

Fact: Hawking himself does not contradict, since 2008, the fact that his hypothesis has been refuted. And that c-global, which is on the web since 2008 and is part of the scientific literature since 2013, has refuted it. The simplest most recent counter-proof offered against it is the c-global paper in Progress in Physics of December 2015.

2) Quote: "The energy density of an LHC proton-proton collision is similar to what existed shortly after the Big Bang."

Is it not strange that an experiment which is presented to the world public with those words is allowed by the public to have a non-renewed official safety report LSAG since 2008?

It would be wonderful if CERN would officially answer this modest question posed to it here.

Thank you for your having honored ResearchGate with your reply.  And for the personal kindness thereby shown to me of which I am unworthy.

Take care, Otto E. Rossler

What do you mean?

The speed of light c is so important because it is the same around every person, no matter in what state of motion that person is. The Lorentz transformation describes this quantitatively. But what does this mean?

This "follow-up question" can only be understood in its full importance after the underlying miracle, c-global, has been understood in its full range which now includes gravity in the special case of the equivalence principle, and beyond it the Schwarzschild metric.

There is little doubt that the full c-global Einstein equation will be written down soon.