## LHC Dangerous?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

## Should it be fired?

No
29
8%
Yes
326
92%

Andle
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:17 pm UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

I've actually been following the LHC for about a year now, and I have to say, there doesn't seem to be any substantial danger. Yes, I will admit that there's probably that 1/1000000 chance that massive death will occur, but I think that CERN would at least back off and stop the project if any of the numbers crunched showed a chance of apocalypse above "nearly impossible". So sure, maybe a chance of an anomaly, but I still think that come July, we'll all still be fine.

That doesn't mean it's still not fun to make, "LHC GONNA KILL US ALL" jokes.

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: Re:

Vaniver wrote:
paralian wrote:I agree. I would say that it was worse back then, because nobody knew if someone would be stupid enough to actually blow up the world.
I think he's referring to the speculation that detonating an atomic bomb could ignite the entire atmosphere, killing everything- which was obviously wrong because nitrogen burning is endothermic.

I thought the ignition was going to be a nuclear ignition. Ie, it would cause the hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen to fuse, which would emit enough energy and pressure to cause nearby hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen to fuse, etc.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Andle wrote:I've actually been following the LHC for about a year now, and I have to say, there doesn't seem to be any substantial danger. Yes, I will admit that there's probably that 1/1000000 chance that massive death will occur, but I think that CERN would at least back off and stop the project if any of the numbers crunched showed a chance of apocalypse above "nearly impossible". So sure, maybe a chance of an anomaly, but I still think that come July, we'll all still be fine.

That doesn't mean it's still not fun to make, "LHC GONNA KILL US ALL" jokes.

1/1000000 is far too high. The numbers are more like 1/10^1000000

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

BlackSails wrote:
Andle wrote:I've actually been following the LHC for about a year now, and I have to say, there doesn't seem to be any substantial danger. Yes, I will admit that there's probably that 1/1000000 chance that massive death will occur, but I think that CERN would at least back off and stop the project if any of the numbers crunched showed a chance of apocalypse above "nearly impossible". So sure, maybe a chance of an anomaly, but I still think that come July, we'll all still be fine.

That doesn't mean it's still not fun to make, "LHC GONNA KILL US ALL" jokes.

1/1000000 is far too high. The numbers are more like 1/10^1000000

I suspect there is not actually any such number that wasn't just pulled out of someone's ass.

Andle
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:17 pm UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

I wasn't actually trying to give any realistic odds. I was just saying that it seems highly unlikely that something apocalyptic could come about from this. People have been scared other colliders are going to kill us all, but we're all still here, aren't we?

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Andle wrote:I wasn't actually trying to give any realistic odds. I was just saying that it seems highly unlikely that something apocalyptic could come about from this. People have been scared other colliders are going to kill us all, but we're all still here, aren't we?

Oh, I agree.

There just isn't any way to put a number on this.

BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

If we assume many-worlds theory, then its impossible

yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers diff wrote:CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.

However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory. Cwhile collider particles smash head on like acar collisions and can be captured by Earths gravity, andEinsteins highly successful relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay (but instead only grow, and Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories).Radiation is an unproven and disputed theory that contradicts relativity. There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success.

Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint.

any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, . . . , is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. . . . Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earths gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.

I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.
However science may still be a few years away from being able to prove safety or not.

Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravityhas given interviews and lectures in Europe warning of a very real danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider.

If this thingexperiment is so safe, why aren't CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?

Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).

Which would more wise, conduct a full and independent adversarial safety study first, or just turn it on now and see what happens?

JTankers

Diff from JTankers post rev 1 to JTankers post rev 2 provided as a public service.

Edit: As another public service, I removed the web citation from the diff.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

[Edit...]
My point is that creating a micro black hole may require very precise mechanics which might only be possible in a head-on collissions, where the energy is precisely focused into the center of the impact (same mass, velocity, precise alignment...), what you would see in a head-on particle collider. Not what is happening with cosmic rays.
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:37 pm UTC, edited 12 times in total.

yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:Why then would an almost c to 0 impact (cosmic ray to Earth) be as powerful as an almost c to almost -c head on collision in a head-on particle collider.

(The following may require prosilver theme and a non-lame browser):

Where:$p = \frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},$the energy E given by a particle is:
$E = \sqrt{p^2c^2+m_0^2c^4}$Note that as v approaches c, the p2c2 term tends to increase without bound (see top equation). When you're dealing with v's that are very nearly c, a tiny increase in v can result in a tremendous increase of E. That's how it's different. Basically, "almost c" is a terrible metric of the energies involved--the differences in energy between two particles of equal mass, traveling at "almost c", can be arbitrarily large.

This is part of "Einsteins highly successful relativity theory".
I am waiting for an answer... I will post here where received.
Please don't--we don't care. If we did, we would simply visit your blag located on your talk page on wikipedia. If you actually have science to share from such emails, that would be different (but we still don't care that you got the email).

JTankers, I have a single thing to ask you.

You say that Einstein's theory of relativity does not alone1 predict decay of MBH's. This is true. However, doesn't this beg the question? After all, if you consider only Einstein's theory of relativity, how the hell do the MBH's you're so worried about form in the first place?

1 "alone" because it is specifically considered by Hawking, along with quantum mechanics, in the formulation of the theories of black hole decay.

Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

### Re: Re:

Yakk wrote:I thought the ignition was going to be a nuclear ignition. Ie, it would cause the hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen to fuse, which would emit enough energy and pressure to cause nearby hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen to fuse, etc.
That could be; I don't pay too much attention to speculation that didn't pan out and so am likely to misrepresent it.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

wst
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Hmm. If 2 objects are approaching each other at a combined speed greater than c (ie. both at 0.6c), would an observer on object a perceive object b's motion to be c or less? (what with relativity and that). Would the impact therefore behave as a 'c' collision, or a 'slower than c' collision?
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

wst wrote:Hmm. If 2 objects are approaching each other at a combined speed greater than c (ie. both at 0.6c), would an observer on object a perceive object b's motion to be c or less? (what with relativity and that). Would the impact therefore behave as a 'c' collision, or a 'slower than c' collision?

there is some sliding scale or something that means they both perceive the other's relative velocity as less than the sum of the velocities relative to a stationary observer, so it is ALWAYS less than c... i never bothered learning the math of it though :/
ave_matthew wrote:in a perfect system a gallon of body fat is worth one third of the US GDP

phonon266737
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:41 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Time dialation. As you go faster, time starts to tick by slower for you compared to the "Rest universe" So speeds that, if your time was not slowed, would be measured above C, you measure as slower. They cover the "missing ground" nstead by contraction of lengths in the direction of motion.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

phonon266737 wrote:Time dialation. As you go faster, time starts to tick by slower for you compared to the "Rest universe" So speeds that, if your time was not slowed, would be measured above C, you measure as slower. They cover the "missing ground" nstead by contraction of lengths in the direction of motion.

I don't think you answered the question.

I'm a third party observer. I see two objects rushing towards each other, each moving at 0.6c from my perspective, in opposite directions. They then collide. What do I see in terms of energy output of the collision?

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

The sum of the energies of the two bodies, naturally, as Energy is conserved in your frame of reference.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Yakk wrote:The sum of the energies of the two bodies, naturally, as Energy is conserved in your frame of reference.

K, what I thought.

The anti-LHC people are still full of it then

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Looking at the magic formula, to inject some real numbers into the discussion... two particles colliding head-on at 0.5c each, is the same difference in velocities as a particle at 0.8c hitting a stationary object. Two particles at 0.9c head-on is about the same difference in velocities as a particle at ~0.99c hitting a stationary object.

When you get high speeds like that, it's less useful to refer to the speed (since you need to be very accurate to get any kind of useful information), but rather the energy of the particle... LHC has particles with 7MeVTeV... colliding with a total of 14MeVTeV. Unless I'm reading the graph on Wikipedia wrong (which is always a possibility), particles with energy on the order of 100GeV10PeV are hitting the Earth at a rate of around 1 per secondyear per square metre. This planet's been around for a while, and it's pretty big (compared to a metre, at least)... I'm sure there's been plenty of particles that energetic coming to Earth.

Granted, any exotic matter created by those collisions with cosmic rays would be moving absurdly fast away from the planet, but as trip11 said, that's not the point.

 I fail at reading... thanks Korandder
Last edited by phlip on Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:58 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Korandder
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:12 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

The proton energies are 7 TeV not MeV.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

If micro black holes are almost never created in nature, then there is no way to determine what they will do with any certainty without creating them on Earth an observing them.

At the time Hawking invented his theory, they knew of virtual particles but they thought they 'borrowed energy from nothing" as far as I understand their argument.
But vacuum energy is not nothing, and converting vacuum energy into matter is a basic math equation: e=mc^2.

If you accept Einsteins theory that gravity around massive objects is actually a curvature of space and time, then is easy to imagine the same type of curvature of space and time in the presence of vacuum energy of our universe that imparts mass on matter. We can then 'feel' the vacuum energy when we accelerate in the weightlessness of space, and when we resist the force of gravity we are experiencing both curvatures.
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:51 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote: Earths reference frame is at least approximately at rest in absolute 3d space.

Thats retarded. The Earth is a constantly accelerating reference frame.

phonon266737
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:41 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

mini black hole: It has as much gravity to attract things to it as a proton. it's also really tiny - much smaller than a proton. (Am I correct in these assumptions?)

The big question is: does it have a charge? What's to prevent some electrons from gettig into orbit around this thing: just feed it some positive charged matter, put some electrons in orbit, and It's no longer a threat to the universe.

Hmm..what would a black hole with X positive charge and X electrons oribiting it act like? Just another chunk of matter with atomic number X ? Maybe we could make new isotopes this way. Gold with 79 protons and 0 neutrons!

Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5214
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

BlackSails wrote:
JTankers wrote: Earths reference frame is at least approximately at rest in absolute 3d space.

Thats retarded. The Earth is a constantly accelerating reference frame.

You forget that we're really at the center of the universe. Everything else accelerates around us.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Xanthir wrote:You forget that we're really at the center of the universe. Everything else accelerates around us.

We feel the force of gravity from the sun accelerating us.

Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5214
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

BlackSails wrote:
Xanthir wrote:You forget that we're really at the center of the universe. Everything else accelerates around us.

We feel the force of gravity from the sun accelerating us.

I am astonished that you felt this was the point you had to correct from my statement.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

On LHCConcerns...
Torgo wrote:WORST case scenario described here (no hawking radiation, entire energy goes into a black hole with lower than escape velocity [which, i have discovered, is essentially a nearly impossible circumstance] ) with a huge number of unrealisticly pessimistic assumptions on the part of my friend and I, the chances of even a single proton being consumed by ANY black hole that happens to be produced are on the order of 1 in 10^-70 or less.

Close, but the WORST case scenario is that black holes accretes mass from quantum effects around its event horizon, turning vacuum energy into mass, and at the same incredible rate that Hawking Radiation predicts for decay. So the worst case would be astronomically fast accretion in the first fraction of a second then quantum effects possibly slowing down as the black hole grows and starts to accrete real matter.

Tell me, how did the giant black holes at the center of gallaxies get so big? Are they growing? If so, how? The gallaxies generally are in orbit, just like objects around the Sun. The Sun does not accrete much matter. Why is universe accelleration detected only since about half the life of the universe. Is that about when black holes started to form? Did they begin accreting vacuum energy then?

That is my speculation, and I think black holes will only be created from very precise direct head-on hits of identical mass and speed (similar to the precision of compression needed for nuclear explosions). Which would make cosmic rays exceedingly unlikely to create micro black holes, while head-on same speed, same mass, exactly opposite direction, precision particle colliders are almost designed for it.

This all leaves me thinking that the probability of real and present danger may be closer to 100% than 0%.
Last edited by JTankers on Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:23 am UTC, edited 5 times in total.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

BlackSails wrote:
JTankers wrote: Earths reference frame is at least approximately at rest in absolute 3d space.

Thats retarded. The Earth is a constantly accelerating reference frame.

Evidence of the absolute or preferred reference frame of this field has been detected in re-interpretation of Michelson Morley experiments, indicated as a definitely non-zero result, but one magnitude too small for full acceptance and final confirmation.

2006: springerlink dot com / content / 77255576453177tu "regarding the repetition of the Michelson-Morley experiment"
2002: ieeexplore dot ieee dot org / xpl / freeabs_all dot jsp ? arnumber = 985414 "interference fringes in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. ... hence is too small to observe within the present accuracy"
1993: www dot iop dot org / EJ / article / 0295-5075 / 56 / 2 / 170 / node3.html "This reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude."
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:41 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Just to throw out there:

Remember in Cat's Cradle, Ice-9? The idea is a different form of water freezes at room temp, and when it touches other water, it changes the crystal structure and makes it into more ice-9. It's the stuff of fiction to be sure. But what if altering space in such a way as possible in LHC, theres some sort of larger reaction that perturbs... well... everything around us?

People were paranoid when they detonated the first Atomic Bomb (CAPITILIZED!) because they thought it would ignite the atmosphere. It was foolish, but we can only say that now. With more complexity comes more complex problems. I'm not saying scrap LHC, thats stupid, and paranoid, but I do hope they have precautions in place to prevent... I dunno... runaway somethings or another.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:On LHCConcerns...
Torgo wrote:WORST case scenario described here (no hawking radiation, entire energy goes into a black hole with lower than escape velocity [which, i have discovered, is essentially a nearly impossible circumstance] ) with a huge number of unrealisticly pessimistic assumptions on the part of my friend and I, the chances of even a single proton being consumed by ANY black hole that happens to be produced are on the order of 1 in 10^-70 or less.

Close, but the WORST case scenario is that black holes accretes mass from quantum effects around its event horizon, turning vacuum energy into mass, and at the same incredible rate that Hawking Radiation predicts for decay. So the worst case would be astronomically fast accretion in the first fraction of a second then quantum effects possibly slowing down as the black hole grows and starts to accrete real matter.

To be clear: then there would be huge numbers of black holes all over the place, and they would run into enough mass to slow down, and we'd see them eating stars left right and center.

Tell me, how did the giant black holes at the center of gallaxies get so big? Are they growing? If so, how? The gallaxies generally are in orbit, just like objects around the Sun. The Sun does not accrete much matter. Why is universe accelleration detected only since about half the life of the universe. Is that about when black holes started to form? Did they begin accreting vacuum energy then?

There are huge accretion discs around the black holes at the center of galaxies.

That is my speculation, and I think black holes will only be created from very precise direct head-on hits of identical mass and speed (similar to the precision of compression needed for nuclear explosions). Which would make cosmic rays exceedingly unlikely to create micro black holes, while head-on same speed, same mass, exactly opposite direction, precision particle colliders are almost designed for it.

This all leaves me thinking that the probability of real and present danger may be closer to 100% than 0%.

I can speculate that the invisible pink unicorn will eat the planet earth unless you give me all of your money with about as much credibility as your speculations about physics at this point. . .

So pay up. The IPU is waiting.

For what you describe to make any sense, we'd have to have a super magical frame of reference that just happened to change how physics works in very strange ways that have little to no indication of being strange when you use particles that are fractionally lower energy than the super-magic case, at which "poof" we all die.

So at this point, not only are you throwing relativity out of the window (so your "head on at the same speed" isn't balderdash), you are also throwing quantum mechanics out the window (it will eat empty space!). Why not throw conservation of energy while you are at it?

Uh, ya. There just happens to be a bunch of anomalies in the laws of physics that are custom-tailored to the specs. of the LHC, in such a way that no anomalies appear in experiments at lower energy, but when you cross a certain magic line (and ONLY when you do it with a certain set of particles colliding head on), a world-destroying particle appears.

Have you heard of this guy Occam? He's telling me that you are wrong, and that I need a shave.

The concept of rotational preferred reference frame was said to have had a profound influence on Albert Einstein when presented with the spinning buckets of water in space thought experiment by Ernst Mach. And Special Relativity does in-fact not proclaim that all is relative, and speaks of the physical reality of space as a field.

Duh. There is this thing called General Relativity that makes coordinate transforms relative. Special Relativity solved a few interesting corner problems -- but General Relativity is the titan of accuracy which has bestrode physics for nearly a century now.

You are linking a bunch of papers that found effects that where below their ability to distinguish from random noise. Hence the lack of experimental verification... That is what you'd expect to happen if general relativity was accurate.

It is good that they published it -- publishing negative data is good for science.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Yakk wrote:To be clear: then there would be huge numbers of black holes all over the place, and they would run into enough mass to slow down, and we'd see them eating stars left right and center.

How often would cosmic rays of exact same mass, same speed, and perfect alignment collide precisely head-on to perfectly focus all energy to a single point. Not going to happen very often.

[more...]

from wikipedia article on Sagittarius A*
In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of the first well-confirmed intermediate-mass black hole in our Galaxy, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is within a cluster of seven stars, possibly the remnant of a massive star cluster that has been stripped down by the Galactic Centre.[5][6] This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.

I am trying to be objective, but I find it curious that a black hole of 1,300 solar masses has only 7 stars orbiting it. How would a field containing only 7 stars feed a 1,300 solar mass black hole if the black hole was evaporating from Hawking Radiation. Further, the surrounding space should be filled with a massive amount of radiation as the 1,300 solar mass black hole decays. I find this observation interesting.
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:08 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

If I accept your made up physics, will you accept my IPU physics?

If so, please send me all of your money, to save the world from the IPU.

Otherwise, could you demonstrate the model that behaves identically to a system with no absolute frame, except in a single case that just happens to line up with this new experiment, at which is instantly goes from business as usual to "Oh me yarm, the world is destroyed"?

You appear to be doing the Luddite Power Trip thing: If you can destroy it, you are powerful, so destroy it.

I await your cash donations to the IPU fund.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:
Yakk wrote:To be clear: then there would be huge numbers of black holes all over the place, and they would run into enough mass to slow down, and we'd see them eating stars left right and center.

How often would cosmic rays of exact same mass, same speed, and perfect alignment collide precisely head-on to perfectly focus all energy to a single point. Not going to happen very often.

Well, "same speed" is meaningless for this. Same mass happens all the time, as there aren't that many different masses showing up with things at the atomic or lower level. And because of the same reason that "same speed" is meaningless "perfect alignment" happens all the time as well. Plus none of these actually matter for black hole creation under any model.

BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Xanthir wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Xanthir wrote:You forget that we're really at the center of the universe. Everything else accelerates around us.

We feel the force of gravity from the sun accelerating us.

I am astonished that you felt this was the point you had to correct from my statement.

That was the most simple way to prove your statement false.

JTankers - Yes, Einstein says very clearly that there are no preferred reference frames. The laws of physics (and the speed of light) are the same in all intertial frames.

wst
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

BlackSails wrote:
Xanthir wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Xanthir wrote:You forget that we're really at the center of the universe. Everything else accelerates around us.

We feel the force of gravity from the sun accelerating us.

I am astonished that you felt this was the point you had to correct from my statement.

That was the most simple way to prove your statement false.

I thought the debated statement was sarcasm anyway, lamenting the inaccuracy of JTankers beliefs of world-destruction from the LHC.

I can't wait for an Super-LHC. That'll be the beast.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

If LHC can not be proved safe yet, then we must wait until it can be proved safe or not. If you can prove safety, good do it. If you can not yet, then do the right thing and accept that we do not know enough yet with enough certainty to responsibly conduct this experiment at this time. I have reason to believe that micro black holes will accrete vacuum energy into matter. I detailed my argument at BigCrash.org based on enough cosmological observation that I'm not sure it should be disregarded as not plausible. Tell me why my suspicions are wrong. If I am right and you create micro black holes, then we all lose.

Yakk wrote:To be clear: then there would be huge numbers of black holes all over the place, and they would run into enough mass to slow down, and we'd see them eating stars left right and center.

How often would cosmic rays of exact same mass, same speed, and perfect alignment collide precisely head-on to perfectly focus all energy to a single point. Not going to happen very often.

zenten wrote:Well, "same speed" is meaningless for this. Same mass happens all the time, as there aren't that many different masses showing up with things at the atomic or lower level. And because of the same reason that "same speed" is meaningless "perfect alignment" happens all the time as well. Plus none of these actually matter for black hole creation under any model.

Really...
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:36 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:
zenten wrote:Well, "same speed" is meaningless for this. Same mass happens all the time, as there aren't that many different masses showing up with things at the atomic or lower level. And because of the same reason that "same speed" is meaningless "perfect alignment" happens all the time as well. Plus none of these actually matter for black hole creation under any model.

Really...

Yes.

Maybe I can find a colouring book to explain it to you or something.

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:If LHC can not be proved safe yet, then we must wait until it can be proved safe or not. If you can prove safety, good do it. If you can not yet, then do the right thing and accept that we do not know enough yet with enough certainty to responsibly conduct this experiment at this time. I have reason to believe that micro black holes will accrete vacuum energy into matter. I detailed my argument at BigCrash.org based on enough cosmological observation that I'm not sure it should be disregarded as not plausible. Tell me why my belief is wrong. If I am right and you create micro black holes, then we all lose.

You cannot prove that if you fail to give me all of your money, that the world will be safe from the IPU.

If I am right, and the IPU will eat the planet unless you give me all of your money, then we all lose.

So pony up. I'm waiting.

...

The point of that? Your claim is about as ridiculous as the IPU claim. Your arguments in this thread have been thin on any amount of actual mathematics or theory. Lacking that (an actual model to look at), I have no reason to think you aren't a crackpot.

On the other hand, I've seen models (or, at the least, explanations of them, with every confidence that I can read deeper into them) explaining the other side. Relativity, that there is no special frame of reference among the inertial frames, is ridiculously ridiculously reliable. Your claim is that we will run into a violation of relativity for the very first time in this particular case is, quite simply, silly.

So yes, you are that unreliable that your claim has such a low level of not being a bit of crackpot insanity that we should go forward with the LHC. That is how unreliable your physics seems to be. Not only that, you are far over that margin.

But I'll extend you some consideration. I'll look at your page. Maybe it actually contains something of interest.

[Insert me looking at page]

So I looked at your page. I don't see a mathematical model that would explain the lack of any detected exceptions to relativity in many many experiments that attempted to check it, yet allows for world-destroying black holes. What I do see is hand-wavey prose, and links to dozens of articles. Not publications -- news articles.

In essence, what you are doing on that page isn't physics. It isn't science. It is crack-pottery.

If you want to place an argument about physics, do it with the language of physics -- mathematics. Build a model that mirrors the astonishingly accurate General Relativity in every situation it has been tested (there are LOTS of them), yet generates different predictions about an absolute frame of reference. Use this model to generate distinct predictions about how particles behave. Predict a divergence from General Relativity, or be able to predict things outside of the current domain of General Relativity. Then determine if you are right using the simplest possible experiment to generate divergence with GR, and publish your finding.

If that is to much, at least demonstrate that you understand what it is you are arguing about. Learn enough physics that you can understand the models being used, do some original research, and become a physicist. At that point your opinion of the matter will be as credible as the average grad student. Produce streams of original research about physics over the next 3 to 5 years, sufficient that you measure among the top 25% of your competition, and use this to convince your peers that you are a match for their knowledge. Now you have reached the expected competence of the average, entry-level university professor of physics.

If at that point you muse about this destroying the world, at least you have some credibility. And you will actually have the tools to understand what you are talking about.

Meanwhile, we have people who are as far beyond the entry-level professor in their knowledge of physics as that near-amateur is beyond you who have models, have looked at the situation, have looked at the combinatorial situations involving "what if the theories we have are off, within known experimental error", and ... have concluded that the LHC is ridiculously the wrong scale of energy to do anything anywhere near what you claim.

And that, sir, is why your opinion doesn't matter to any estimation of the safety of the LHC. Not only are you not an authority on this, not only are you not an expert on this, not only are you not an amateur, you make me look like an expert, and I'm not even an amateur on the subject of physics.

In short:
Your physics are absent. There are no physics to argue against. That leaves your personal credibility.

Your credibility on physics is absent. There is every evidence that you do not know what you are talking about, and are making shit up on the fly.

As such, your claims should be weighed as zero against the LHC safety proofs. Imagine someone, born in 1995, who could not read or write, who heard that "Shakespear is a famous poet", and responded with "no he isn't -- I wrote his poems, he stole from me". That is the level of credibility you have displayed.

Yours sincerely,
Summer Glau

PS: No, I'm not Summer Glau.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

Yakk wrote:
JTankers wrote:Your credibility on physics is absent. There is every evidence that you do not know what you are talking about, and are making shit up on the fly.

(I will not quote your more derisive comment, as I do not want to hold you to a comment you might wish to retract...)

Thank you for your opinion. I had no desire to share my ideas before I was ready nor without more qualified co-authors, I do so only because we may have only a few months before the argument has no value. And the model at BigCrash.org was critically reviewed as "“…you may have stumbled onto some new explanations that would explain observed physics.”, I have requested permission to cite the reference. I notice that you said you read the model but you did not question any of the concepts presented by the model, you just focused on the credibility of the author.

It may be stumbled on, and a 'perfect score on a high school physics relativity test' 25 years ago may not sound very impressive to a physics grad student, nor an occasional perfect score on a general IQ test. But I am able to read and comprehend cosmological observation, it was just my hobby, now it is a focus.

What do you think of the safety arguments made by Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler and theorist Dr. Raj Baldev. It only took one Einstein alone to turn physics on its head after being rejected by physics academia. And Einstein is still considered the master of physics and I agree. Even his deterministic take on quantum mechanics in the form of Bohmian mechanics is now considered to be an equally valid predictor of physical reality with standard non-deterministic QM. (see Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist 22 March 2008).

Which makes more sense to you, the complex non-understood concept of entangled particles instantly communicating with each other from across the universe, or the simple intuitive concept of exactly cloned photons? If standard QM is correct, then physics truly is weird. If Einstein was correct, then it is comprehensible. Theoretical physics would progress much more quickly if Bohmian QM was the standard in my humble opinion. Standard QM leads to grad students publishing articles suggesting that the universe may become real because he viewed it from his telescope. Give me a break, I hope he was only trying to show how non-logical that concept is.

We have not solved all mysteries of physics yet. If we have to scramble to prove safety with possibly only weeks for the rest of the world to review the results, in my mind this is reckless.
Last edited by JTankers on Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

JTankers wrote:We have not solved all mysteries of physics yet. If we have to scramble to prove safety with possibly many years for the rest of the world to review the results, in my mind this is reckless.

Fixed. Just because this didn't turn into a media circus now doesn't mean that there wasn't plenty of safety checks and chances for physicists to look at this and contribute to what the possible dangers may be at every step of the planning process.

Also, we still have awhile before the energy levels of the LHC go beyond was has already be done before in particle accelerators.

JTankers
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Middleton, WI
Contact:

### Re: LHC Dangerous?

zenten wrote:
JTankers wrote:Also, we still have awhile before the energy levels of the LHC go beyond was has already be done before in particle accelerators.

If awhile means a few years, then that would probably be a compromise we all could live with.