Back to the Moon with Nuclear Rockets

More documents

Recommendations

Info

collisions. The following 1 7 criteria arepresented as a guide for assessing balllightning models in general, and the LBHmodel in particular. LBHs meet these criteria,whereas other models generally donot.1. Constant size, brightness, and shapefor times
Saturn, and copious excess heat generationin planets like Jupiter and its moons.There could be profound implications toEarth and planetary science if it could beestablished that little black holes are presentin and on the Earth.For example, whereas the Earth'soverall density is 5.5 gm/cm 3 , theEarth's lithosphere (50 miles in from thesurface) has a measured density of ~2.7 gm/cm 3 . This difference in densityhas been generally assumed to be theresult of molten iron filling the Earth'score. LBHs in the core could help in partto account for both the increased density,as well as the total outward heatflow from the interior of the Earth, aswell as the other planets. Jupiter, for example,has a very large interior productionof heat. It is thought that some of itsmoons are heated by tidal friction in interactingwith Jupiter's gravitationalfield, but there are significant differencesin this effect for the various moons.Hawking was the first to propose radiationfrom non-rotating black holes, andamong the first to suggest that smallblack holes in stellar objects such as ourSun might help to explain the solar neutrinoproblem. In addition, others, suchas Trofimenko, have discussed the possibilitythat LBHs are involved in geophysicaland astrophysical phenomena, butdid not consider ball lightning, nor theramifications of LBH radiation and/or thetime for LBH to devour their hosts. It iseasy to see why LBH have not been consideredas the core power source of balllightning, because Hawking's LBH radiateisotropically at a devastatingly highrate.It has not been easy to conclude thatLBHs are present near the centers of astronomicalbodies such as our Earth andother planets. There are two extremeswith respect to this question, and theyboth have problems. One is the pre-Hawking radiation view, which wouldpermit the universe to be filled with alarge percentage of LBHs, but has theproblem that the LBHs would gobble upany hosts they inhabit. The other is thepost-Hawking radiation view, whichwould limit the universe to be filled withonly about one-millionth of its mass withLBHs because there would be muchmore Hawking radiation than otherwiseobserved. My model permits up to 95percent of the universe to be filled withLBHs because their radiation is relativelyquiescent, and yet lets them evaporateaway near the centers of astronomicalbodies before these bodies are devoured.If a slow-moving LBH falls in towardthe center of an astronomical body likethe Earth, it will tend to oscillate withsimple harmonic motion about the center-of-massof this body. The LBH willlose only a tiny amount of energy in itsgravitational interaction with the surroundingmass. Long before it slowsdown sufficiently to come to rest at thecenter of the body, its beamed radiationwill increase its amplitude of motion,eventually causing it to shoot out awayfrom the body before ingesting it.However, if a LBH were to come torest at the center of a body, it wouldlikely ingest the body over a period ofperhaps millions of years before it evaporatesaway or shoots away. This is because,as a LBH becomes surroundedby mass, its radiation rate will first increase;but, as the mass distribution becomesuniform around it, the radiationwill decrease until it eventually stops.One might be able to rekindle the radiationby producing an external asymmetry,and/or by an Aharonov/Bohm effect.My model of LBH radiation permitsmore realistic speculation of how LBHsmight be gathered. Harvesting LBHsmight be no more difficult than miningasteroids from the asteroid belt that haveLBHs in them. An entire asteroid couldbe towed in; or whittled down to a manageablesize to carry onboard the spacecraft;or, the LBH might be shaken out ofthe asteroid. Another possibility mightbe to charge up LBHs and carefully maneuverthem with an electric field.Flawed radiation? As startling as wasthe theoretical discovery of radiationfrom black holes in 1971 by Zel'dovich,and in 1974 by Hawking, perhaps aneven more startling theoretical discoverywas made independently in 1975 and1976 by Paul Davies and William Unrah.Using quantum mechanics and generalrelativity, they discovered what iscalled "acceleration radiation." The conclusionthey, and the general orthodoxphysics community, drew from this isthat the concept of a real particle is relative;that is, the existence of particles isnot absolute because it depends on one'sreference frame. Neither Zel'dovich-Hawking radiation, nor Unrah-Daviesradiation has been observed empirically.I have deep respect and admiration forHawking's pioneering work and his keeninsights. However, for science toprogress, it is crucial to critically examineall work and find imperfections whenpossible. Perhaps Hawking will revisehis model of black hole radiation. Hehas had the integrity to alter his positionon at least six major topics:1. His conclusion that a quantum cosmology/wavefunction of the universeproved that the arrow of time would reversewhen the universe contracts.2. Disputing Bekenstein's work on theentropy of black holes, which he laterembraced.3. After saying T = 0 for all blackholes, then assigning T > 0 as a functionof the mass of a black hole.4. With respect to inflation of the universe.5. With respect to the cosmologicalconstant. In keeping with his long-heldview, in 1998, he expressed doubtsabout a cosmological constant, callingthe results preliminary with respect tothe accelerated expansion of the universe.He said that the cosmological constantis unnecessary in light of his ownviews. However, in April 1999, he said:"I have now had more time to considerthe observations and they look quitegood. This led me to reconsider my theoreticalprejudices. I now think it is veryreasonable that there should be a cosmologicalconstant."6. The anthropic principle and multiversecosmology. More recently, he saidthat the anthropic principle is fairly obvious,and he affirmed his support for it.Some cosmologists have suggested thatthere have been an infinity of big bangsgoing off in a larger "multiverse," eachwith different values of the fundamentalconstants. The anthropic principle saysthat only in universes where these valuesare compatible with life, could they beobserved by beings such as ourselves.ConclusionIn view of the lack of experimental evidencefor Hawking radiation, it is meaningfuland proper to examine his theoryof black hole radiation with the possibilitythat it may be in error and/or that theformalism underlying it and acceleratedradiation may need modification. Belinski,a foremost theorist in the field,unequivocally concludes, "the effect[Hawking radiation] does not exist." 7My theory has been presented as an al-74 Summer 199921st CENTURYRESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Page 1 and 2:
CENTURYSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYSUMMER 1
Page 3 and 4:
EDITORIAL STAFFManaging EditorMarjo
Page 5 and 6:
VIEWPOINTCan Children of Cyberspace
Page 7 and 8:
NEWS BRIEFSNIF TARGET CHAMBER UNVEI
Page 9 and 10:
SPECIAL REPORTBORON NEUTRON CAPTURE
Page 11 and 12:
potential. For example, Figure 2 sh
Page 13 and 14:
features that provide intranuclear
Page 15 and 16:
immediately detectable healtheffect
Page 17 and 18:
BIOLOGY & MEDICINE'Medical' Marijua
Page 19 and 20:
The Scientific BasisOf theNew Biolo
Page 21 and 22:
play their full activity only after
Page 23 and 24: Ervin S. Bauer (1900-1937?) was bor
Page 25 and 26: general stock of energy available t
Page 27 and 28: Courtesy of Vladimir VoeikovThe aut
Page 29 and 30: matter, while those that receive it
Page 31 and 32: Gurwitsch's Famous'Onion Experiment
Page 33 and 34: Courtesy of Vladimir VoeikovAlexand
Page 35 and 36: A VIEW FROM SPACEThe Discovery ofNo
Page 37 and 38: Sea-surface expressions of solitons
Page 39 and 40: photograph matched Osborne's observ
Page 41 and 42: first oceanographer in space (see p
Page 43 and 44: Shearing suloy on the boundary of t
Page 45 and 46: First observation of an open ocean
Page 47 and 48: my eyes, but the photographs wereou
Page 49 and 50: Artist's illustration of NASA's Com
Page 51 and 52: process of supernova explosions,and
Page 53 and 54: one of NASA's Atlas-Centaur rockets
Page 55 and 56: Gamma-Ray BurstsNot Local,But Not T
Page 57 and 58: Back to theMoon withNuclearRocketsb
Page 59 and 60: higher. Dr. Stanley Borowski from N
Page 61 and 62: (a) Expendablechemical rocket(LOX/L
Page 63 and 64: The liquid-oxygen-augmentednuclear
Page 65 and 66: FUSION REPORTTable-Top, Ultrashort
Page 67 and 68: RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONSSpace Probe
Page 69 and 70: of 160.01 minutes is gravitational
Page 71 and 72: Entropy of the Universe andLittle B
Page 73: little black holes. Because little
Page 77 and 78: BOOKSCan a Dark Age Discover Edison
Page 79 and 80: patent. The Palmer associates did e
Page 81 and 82: Seeing America'sAncient Historyby A
Page 83 and 84: Old World Travel to Ancient America
Page 85 and 86: Transoceanic Contacts with AmericaB
Page 87 and 88: that the Chinese named their asteri
Page 89 and 90: THE NEAR-SURFACE OCEANFROM SPACESol
show all

Back to the Moon with Nuclear Rockets

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?