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%
 
Total votes: 355

dic_penderyn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC
Location: Merthyr Tydfil, Wales

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby dic_penderyn » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:58 pm UTC

Jeez! It has taken me nearly 40 minutes to get through this thread!
These anti LHC people are no danger in themselves but they pose a threat when they have the power to sway public opinion.
To the Layman, lhc concerns looks legit, there are even "scientists" on that forum .....I stopped reading after one claimed that the rhic enigma in 2005 was responsible for the freakish 2005 hurricane season! (because of temporal votices permeating from rhic to the quantum underworld ) :roll:
These people are never challenged, the "theories" they have have gaping holes, but when no one stands up to them they continue to win hearts and minds. I almost feel obliged morally to challenge all this nonsense!
excuse my typos ill edit later, have to run..

Oh and Hi ! :D

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5081
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Xanthir » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:14 am UTC

miles01110 wrote:
JTankers wrote:False analogy. Natural fission has been going on in the Solar System for Eons, without ever causing nuclear explosions(exponentially growing reactions). By changing the GEOMETRY of the experiment, TRINITY, the first atom bomb test, succeeded first try.


Actually, fission doesn't happen naturally (that we know of) anywhere in the solar system. Fusion, however, is a different story.

I'm not sure how you came to think this. Fission is the splitting of an atom. That happens naturally with every single element heavier than lead, and quite a few isotopes of elements lighter than lead.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

miles01110
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:39 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby miles01110 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:22 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:I'm not sure how you came to think this. Fission is the splitting of an atom. That happens naturally with every single element heavier than lead, and quite a few isotopes of elements lighter than lead.


Ok. I was talking about fission on the scale of nuclear reactions seen in the sun. Spontaneous fission does occur, but it's rare (and actually, you need elements heavier than thorium or else the time scales in volved are too long).

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:34 am UTC

miles01110 wrote:
Xanthir wrote:I'm not sure how you came to think this. Fission is the splitting of an atom. That happens naturally with every single element heavier than lead, and quite a few isotopes of elements lighter than lead.


Ok. I was talking about fission on the scale of nuclear reactions seen in the sun. Spontaneous fission does occur, but it's rare (and actually, you need elements heavier than thorium or else the time scales in volved are too long).


You mean fusion, right?
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

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

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby JTankers » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:06 pm UTC

This thread has gone rather silent... Is this argument really about WHO discovers new science first? Are scientists really so focussed on winning Nobel prizes that they will accept substantial risk to discover new science as quickly as humanly possible rather than spend a few more years to determine with some reasonable probability if the experiment is safe or not?

Recently when asked if the Large Hadron Collider was safe, Professor Hawking said "Particles from collisions far greater than those in the LHC occur all the time in cosmic rays, but nothing terrible happens.". What?
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking12apr12,1,3191870.story

Even CERN's own LHC Safety Assessment Group has conceded the that cosmic ray impacts with Earth could not endanger Earth, because unlike particles created by head-on collider collisions, cosmic ray created particles travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity and are all safely expelled into space. Has professor Hawking given up on his own theory of safety due to 'thermal radiation'?

Hawking Radiation theory is disputed by at least 3 credible peer reviewed studies and by Professor Albert Einstein's theories.

* 2008 ... this prediction is not without its problems... no very good responses to these concerns... completely alters the picture drawn by Hawking...
** http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503052v1.pdf

* 2008 ... Max-Plank-Institut fur Astrophysik: The results indicate that on average, "low mass" black holes of less than a hundred million solar masses are still growing at a significant rate.
** http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2004-7/hl2004-7-en.html,
** (JT: reason for growth is speculative, my personal speculation is that black holes act like a slow drain that accretes the very dense vacuum energy, up to 20 times density of matter energy, believed to fill the universe and create very powerful gravity pulling on matter in all directions, causing resistance to changes in motion, causing us to feel inertial. Even the 1999 RHIC safety reports spoke of vacuum energy as a very structured medium that could be though of as similar to a medium like water, http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/docs/rhicreport.pdf)

* 2004 ... it may be a long time before we have sufficient knowledge of quantum gravity to be able to calculate the correct answers for the logarithmic terms in the entropy.
** http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2004-7/hl2004-7-en.html

* 2004 ... 9.9% average doubt, ranging from 0% to 50% doubt by 15 physicists polled even before much of the peer reviewed credible rejection of Hawking Radiation was published
** http://www.lhcconcerns.com/#James_Blodgett

* 2003 ... Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions... no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes:
** http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042

* 1900s ... Albert Einstein's theories require that black holes only grow, they never shrink, not even light can exit a black hole

And scientists have recently conceded that Albert Einstein was at least equally correct in one of his theories that science had long resisted... Professor Einstein proposed a non-deterministic (now Bohmian) model of quantum physics that does not suffer from the paradox and physics law violations of standard (Heisenberg) quantum theory, and now efforts to prove superiority of Bohmian theory have been proposed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-randomness-may-not-be-random.html "Bohmian theory, critics point out, doesn't make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum mechanics" (One of the things this means is that for those trying to comprehend entangled particles, you may think of entangled particles as exact copies, clones that do not communicate with each other. The predictions are the same so far, but Bohmian may actually predict in some circumstances actually a slightly more correct result, but this is still waiting proof...)

User avatar
hyperion
"I'll show ye...."
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Perth

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby hyperion » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:09 pm UTC

Arancaytar wrote:
miles01110 wrote:
Xanthir wrote:I'm not sure how you came to think this. Fission is the splitting of an atom. That happens naturally with every single element heavier than lead, and quite a few isotopes of elements lighter than lead.


Ok. I was talking about fission on the scale of nuclear reactions seen in the sun. Spontaneous fission does occur, but it's rare (and actually, you need elements heavier than thorium or else the time scales in volved are too long).


You mean fusion, right?

No:
miles01110 wrote:
JTankers wrote:False analogy. Natural fission has been going on in the Solar System for Eons, without ever causing nuclear explosions(exponentially growing reactions). By changing the GEOMETRY of the experiment, TRINITY, the first atom bomb test, succeeded first try.

Actually, fission doesn't happen naturally (that we know of) anywhere in the solar system. Fusion, however, is a different story.





JTankers, this thread has gone silent because nobody wants to argue about this with you. Every one of your points has been countered and now you're just spouting the same old crackpot arguments that you've been posting all through the thread.
Peshmerga wrote:A blow job would probably get you a LOT of cheeseburgers.
But I digress.

dic_penderyn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC
Location: Merthyr Tydfil, Wales

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby dic_penderyn » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:44 pm UTC

I agree.
I have been looking at that forum link from a previous post by jtankers, I think he is admin there..... lhcconcerns. There are many "scientists" there. Many of them can PROVE hawking radiation cannot exist. Maybe they should write a paper. :shock:

Seriously though, I feel it is part of my duty to combat this bad science and put an end to these nutters. I will be signing up there at lhc concerns very soon and be warned Jtankers...I have my CASIO out!
If anyone else wishes to follow me and try to enlighten these luddites please do so...you have a duty to fight ignorance and stupidity! :)

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

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby JTankers » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:53 pm UTC

dic_penderyn, do you or anyone on your team expect to possibly win Nobel prizes based on LHC experiments?

Is the new safety argument that black holes may not even be real? That is new science...

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/04/21/will_new_collider_create_black_holes_that_destroy_us_all/
A second reason: Black holes, strictly speaking, are theoretical constructs. Nobody has ever seen a black hole. Things that are black hole candidates are objects which are known to be small and to have very high masses, but if one is very honest, there are a lot of problems with the black hole concept, and we don't yet know for sure that they really exist


Wow, that is grasping at straws... Please come up with stronger arguments...

User avatar
hyperion
"I'll show ye...."
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Perth

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby hyperion » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:06 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:dic_penderyn, do you or anyone on your team expect to possibly win Nobel prizes based on LHC experiments?

Is the new safety argument that black holes may not even be real? That is new science...

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/04/21/will_new_collider_create_black_holes_that_destroy_us_all/
A second reason: Black holes, strictly speaking, are theoretical constructs. Nobody has ever seen a black hole. Things that are black hole candidates are objects which are known to be small and to have very high masses, but if one is very honest, there are a lot of problems with the black hole concept, and we don't yet know for sure that they really exist


Wow, that is grasping at straws... Please come up with stronger arguments...

How foolish of them to think they know better than all the other scientists in the world...
Peshmerga wrote:A blow job would probably get you a LOT of cheeseburgers.
But I digress.

r1kx
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:46 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous? (yes)

Postby r1kx » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:17 pm UTC

ahhhh, I see y'all are having the same problems with Jtankers he was giving people at lhcconcerns.com...He selectively reads what he wants and only answers questions that make him (the person) look good (all glory be unto jtankers!)...I'm inclined to believe he's some sort of weird purveyor of all things neo-nazi-fascist net clown porn f4g thought police gustapo indoctrinator or something (not sure)


The anti-lhc websites that I have frequented, lhcconcern.com in particalar, has a charter that states: "a rational voice to a rational argument"...my argument with them now is; cerns-LHC safety assessments/arguments are not nor have they ever been.."rational" thier (CERN) arguments have been and continue to be based in grandiose delsuional sci fi cult string theory exotic mathematical mapping fantasies...lhcconcerns.com employs the same neo fascist (censoring) net nazi tactics that cern employs and not to far removed from the same slight of hand magic tricks (pulling rabits out of hats) and illusion trickery (illusions with words..mBH are safe.,etc) I formulated a 'coat hanger analogy' that states; had people like peter higgs and stephen hawkings mothers used a coat hanger to abort them while they were in utero (pregnancy) they would never been born and we would'nt be facing the current predicament we are in (LHC prepping to destruct earth)..thus, the world would have been saved with a simple apparatus called a "coat hanger"

jtankers and others called this analogy lacking of decorum and rationality and my argument is; its pretty damb lacking in decorum and rationality to destruct an entire planet and all the life forms on it, is it not? In addition, I likened them to hitler and his fascism which proves what fascism and censorship can and will accompish...CERN claims to have the majority concensus when in fact it is the minority concensus due to the fact that all 6.9+ billion passengers on this planet are not even cognizant nor have they ever even heard of a particle accelerator or even know what it is...CERN, fermilab, dept. of energy, SLAC, RHIC and all [hep-e] worldwide to name a few.

a friend of mine asked this hypothetical question at lhcconcerns.com and was banned for it...

"Should people stockpile high power assault weapons and explosives and go attack and kill every single CERN-LHC admin and engineer they can find since they do not listen to or respond to reason (rational) at great risk to our entire planet and also destroy the LHC while they are at it?"


They, lhcconcerns,com, immediatly said that this viewpoint is too violent to be considered 'rational' or not 'paranoid'...fascism is alive and well and well at lhcconcerns.com and CERN! (and the dept of energy, fermilab, SLAC, RHIC.,etc)

We (the genuinely concerned) are not paranoid as we have 'genuine' fear that LHC is going to in fact destroy the earth...CERN is 'paranoid' that thier little con-artist game will be un-veiled to the entire world and they are not going to halt the build to risk thier careers or nobel prizes... I fear LHC is another jonestown guyana mass suicide in the making where 900 people committed suicie in 1978...why would anyone be surpised that LHC engineers (3000) would destruct the entire planet in persuit of thier grandiose delusional sci fi cult string theory exotic mathematical mapping fantasy ideations? (i wouldnt be) its pretty damb violent to destroy an enitre planet and all the life on it, is it not? And, how convenient of the media to omit data pertaining to the 2005 RHIC fireball-explosion and the subsequent 10,000 inexplicable disappearing missing atoms and incalculable rest msses incident while stating repeatedly that RHIC hs been operating without incident snce 2000...some say no one knows for 100% certain what will happen when LHC goes online. I CAN say for 100 percent certain what the outcome will be. Evidence: 2005 RHIC fireball-explosion 10k inexplicable disappearing atoms, incalculable rest masses and the mBH analogue...the RHIC 2005 icident is also concrete prima facie evdence of what will occur at LHC; inexplicable phenemona..accurate models for accrual rates of mBH: non-existant

glad i stopped by here; may have to edit out this jcass analysis from my gao pages...

[edit] jtankers: yo nig wat up G...still using hotmail.com? you are truely AOL L33T! can i be AOL LEET just liek you? Should I install AOL quick launch so I can be just like you? will you have my baby? /coathangers4lief

It is my opinion that hildegard is not a real person but rather a dishonest attempt to discredit our site and our cause. Sincerely, JTankers, jim_tank@hotmail.com (To Ebenonce: hildegard may have re-registered as Gunther)


http://shrapnelbomb.googlepages.com/
http://explosivedevice.googlepages.com/updates
http://explosivedevice.googlepages.com/ ... nyourhouse

edit: This is a figment of your imagination, you are not actually reading this, ergo; I am not real.
Last edited by r1kx on Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:49 pm UTC, edited 7 times in total.

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

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby JTankers » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:38 pm UTC

User r1kx has been banned from LHCConcerns under the user names hildegarde and Gunther. In my opinion this is not a real person but only a dishonest attempt to discredit the safety movement. Very clever. Very dishonest.

Daxon
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:07 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Daxon » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:User r1kx has been banned from LHCConcerns under the user names hildegarde and Gunther. In my opinion this is not a real person but only a dishonest attempt to discredit the safety movement. Very clever. Very dishonest.


Oh really now? Then I've got a list of questions for you:

a) How do you know they're the same person?
b) How could r1kx not be a real person?
c) How does an unperson instead exist as a "dishonest attempt"?
d) Why exactly do you keep posting here when everyone disagrees with you?
e) When will you start making sense?

Answers for all please.

Protip: Nobody cares about your safety movement. The poll above says 95% of the voters want the LHC to be used.

Edit: Sorry for feeding the troll :(

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:02 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:User r1kx has been banned from LHCConcerns under the user names hildegarde and Gunther. In my opinion this is not a real person but only a dishonest attempt to discredit the safety movement. Very clever. Very dishonest.


You're doing a pretty good job of discrediting it yourself, what with all the paranoia, questionable sources and sparkly colors. :P

Kudos to r1kx though.

employs the same neo fascist (censoring) net nazi tactics


BLAT. You lost. Please go back to your political "debates" and leave the scientists alone.
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11017
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:54 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:This thread has gone rather silent... Is this argument really about WHO discovers new science first? Are scientists really so focussed on winning Nobel prizes that they will accept substantial risk to discover new science as quickly as humanly possible rather than spend a few more years to determine with some reasonable probability if the experiment is safe or not?


No. It is about spending billions on a massive research project.

Doing due safety diligence over the 10+ years it is constructed. And having Attention-Luddites step in at the last second screaming "the sky is falling".

At 10 billion$ US, the delaying the completion for 1 year has an opportunity cost of 500 million$+. A dead-weight loss if, as most pro-LHC people think, that the anti-LHC don't have a leg to stand on.

You can throw around Pascal's wager as much as you want, but when every model you bring forward turns out to be utter junk, I won't believe in your IPU, and so shouldn't the person who throws the switch on the LHC.

What you don't seem to understand is how easy invisible pink unicorn theories are to spawn off. You cannot pay attention to mathematically bankrupt and experimentally empty "opinions" when you want to figure out what a physical system does, because those are garbage.

Produce a mathematically sound or experimentally tested result, and your opinion will matter. Fail to produce such a result, and your vote does not matter.
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.

Ebenonce
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:49 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Ebenonce » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:56 pm UTC

I Think I can explain a little better what Jtankers was saying In Regards to Hildegarde or whatever his name is now on here (there have been a total of three, all deactivated at my site).

First off the reason why his account was deactivated (temporarily I might add) was primarily due to conduct, name calling and finger pointing are not conducive to rational argument, comparing people to Hitler and saying they should have been aborted isn't exactly something that sounds very sane, LHC Concerns was about having a rational debate about arguably one of the most important facilities and maybe even events in human history and several of his posts achieved simply the opposite, this is the very same user that linked the RHIC Fireball to the hurricane season, and his overly speculative highly offensive grammar does not reflect our site's overall demeanor, and it should be pointed out that we also have several pro-LHC members there as well in the interests of having balanced debate.

In Regards to Jtankers saying he's not a real person, I believe he means that he is a pro-LHC person who feels like he should disrupt the opposition by being very loud and spouting extremists ideas (such as bombing the LHC), sure if I was 100% sure the LHC will indeed destroy everything, I would be openly saying these things as well, but it doesn't sound like what a real, rational person would be saying.

By the way, I'm an XKCD fan, if the LHC only gave airplanes cancer, I think I could live with that :D

User avatar
GBog
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:57 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby GBog » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:12 pm UTC

I was wondering, exactly how dead on will the particle collisions at LHC be?

I did some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and found out that even if there exists mBH at the relevant energies (and they are created), and even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist, mBH's can't be captured by the earth's gravity field unless the collisions are less than 0.01 arcseconds away from dead center or so.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25212
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:41 pm UTC

This is not a discussion of the website LHCConcerns.com, nor is it a discussion of policy decisions or who banned whom or anything else that goes on there. Further posts about that will be deleted, as will further ad hominem attacks like calling people fascist simply because they have silly pseudoscientific ideas or calling someone not a real person because they disagree with your crackpot ideas.

And with too much more pseudoscientific trolling, I'll just lock the thread entirely and be done with it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2601
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby wst » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

So, summed up.
1) The LHC is at least as dangerous as the previous 'super supercollider'.
2) We do not know how much more dangerous, until we have some actual numbers from the LHC, instead of mathematical theories which, tbh, could be wrong. But could be right.
3) The only way to find out is to turn that mamma jamma on.
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?

Postby JTankers » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:05 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'll just lock the thread entirely and be done with it.


You clearly concede the scientific argument.
I understand, you have an impossible situation.
How can you prove something that is not correct?

wst wrote:So, summed up.
1) The LHC is at least as dangerous as the previous 'super supercollider'.
2) We do not know how much more dangerous, until we have some actual numbers from the LHC, instead of mathematical theories which, tbh, could be wrong. But could be right.
3) The only way to find out is to turn that mamma jamma on.


Let us hope that the first microblackholes created by the Large Hadron Collider are not captured by the Earth's gravity. Let us hope that any microblackholes not captured by Earth's gravity do not begin to orbit our Sun. Let us hope that any microblackholes that might orbit the Sun will not become large black holes orbiting our Sun. Let us hope...

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2601
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby wst » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:Let us hope that the first microblackholes created by the Large Hadron Collider are not captured by the Earth's gravity. Let us hope that any microblackholes do not begin to orbit our Sun. Let us hope that in time the microblackholes do not become larger black holes orbiting our Sun. Let us hope...

As soon as absolutely anything goes weird (the calculations don't hold up), I'd imagine the scientists working at CERN could be trusted to stop before anything major happens. They may be trying to advance our understanding of everything, but they aren't silly enough to do so 'at all costs'.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25212
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:11 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I'll just lock the thread entirely and be done with it.

You clearly concede the scientific argument.

What scientific argument? You haven't actually presented any real, solid science since showing up in this thread. All you have are tired old doomsday rants "backed up" by a bit of crackpot "science" and a healthy dose of paranoia.

Give us some evidence, *any* evidence, that the probability of worldwide disaster if the LHC is run is high enough to be concerned about, and you'll maybe get a scientific argument. But so far, you've just continued repeating what other people say, even after those people are exposed as quacks with no legitimate claim to be authorities on the topic currently at hand.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

miles01110
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:39 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby miles01110 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:35 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:Let us hope that the first microblackholes created by the Large Hadron Collider are not captured by the Earth's gravity. Let us hope that any microblackholes not captured by Earth's gravity do not begin to orbit our Sun. Let us hope that any microblackholes that might orbit the Sun will not become large black holes orbiting our Sun. Let us hope...


...that you're not as dumb as we all think?

User avatar
niteice
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 4:17 am UTC
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby niteice » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Forgive me if this has already been answered (I only have a high-school-level understanding of physics), but how definite are we, anyway, that an mBH will even be created? It seems one would need an incredible amount of energy, but since the exact value is unknown, we may not even have an mBH generator on our hands, right?
GENERATION 4294967292: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum, negate the generation, and convert it to a 32-bit unsigned integer. Social experiment.

User avatar
Master Gunner
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Master Gunner » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:51 am UTC

The vast majority of people, here at least, seem to be of the opinion that the LHC is in no way, shape, or form, capable of producing a mBH, and even if one were produced, it would not actually effect us for several thousand years (assuming by some magic it didn't evaporate).

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

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby JTankers » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:48 am UTC

Master Gunner wrote:The vast majority of people, here at least, seem to be of the opinion that the LHC is in no way, shape, or form, capable of producing a mBH, and even if one were produced, it would not actually effect us for several thousand years (assuming by some magic it didn't evaporate).


Strange, CERN's own safety site in the past posted predictions of creating 1 microblackhole per second... And if you destroy the Earth in several thousand years, how many people not yet born would you estimate maximum that you might prevent from having life? (Lets see... 4.6 billion years max possible habitability of Earth, lets say we make it only half that long or say 2 billion years divided by average life span of say 100 years * current population of about 7 billion, lets round down to 5 billion, would not want to over estimate). That is a potential holocaust of say 100,000,000,000,000,000, a hundred quadrillion people. But as long as it is not in our life time... or is it...

Alpha wrote:To jtankers:
- Dr. Otto E. Rössler: This is a special case, because he appears to be a a more prestigious scientist. But ... He is eminent, but... There's still NO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS talking about a real risk


Two of Prof. Rössler’s papers have been posted (one after the other in the same PDF) at: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf
The first suggests a mechanism for non-linearity in mini black hole accretion. This disputes the idea that it will take a very long time for a mini black hole to accrete the earth.
Some of Professor Rössler’s calculations about the growth of black holes in the earth will soon be published in the journal "Chaos, Solutions and Fractals".
Last edited by JTankers on Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:48 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2601
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby wst » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:38 am UTC

JTankers wrote:Strange, CERN's own safety site in the past posted predictions of creating 1 microblackhole per second...

Hehe, 1Mb/s.
Joking aside- is this a mini-black hole or a mini-black hole electron, as discussed earlier this thread?
I don't see many electrons accreting the earth.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
ian
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:55 pm UTC
Location: Sealand

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby ian » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:05 am UTC

JTankers wrote:
Master Gunner wrote:The vast majority of people, here at least, seem to be of the opinion that the LHC is in no way, shape, or form, capable of producing a mBH, and even if one were produced, it would not actually effect us for several thousand years (assuming by some magic it didn't evaporate).


Strange, CERN's own safety site in the past posted predictions of creating 1 microblackhole per second... And if you destroy the Earth in several thousand years, how many people not yet born would you estimate maximum that you might prevent from having life? (Lets see... 4.6 billion years max possible habitability of Earth, lets say we make it only half that long or say 2 billion years divided by average life span of say 100 years * current population of about 7 billion, lets round down to 5 billion, would not want to over estimate). That is a potential holocaust of say 100,000,000,000,000,000, a hundred quadrillion people. But as long as it is not in our life time... or is it...


Ha, what? You can't have a holocaust of people that don't exist. It's not like they are lining up waiting to be born and going 'aww shucks, the Earth got destroyed, straight to heaven for our poor souls!'
The only people that the end of the earth effects are those living on it at the time. Not that this is going to happen anyway.

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby notzeb » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:07 am UTC

I'd rather give people living a two hundred years down the line an incentive to get off the freaking Earth than waste the LHC's potential for science.

Besides, MBHs could have all sorts of neat uses that we don't know about yet :D

JTankers, you really ought to calm down. If the Earth is destroyed, it's no biggy - there are plenty more where it came from (besides, it's gonna be destroyed eventually). And no one on Earth could ask for a better way to go than to be gobbled up by strangelets. If it really worries you, you should probably check on this every so often to put your mind at ease.

[offtopic]Another thing that's been bugging me is your irrational love for Bohmian mechanics over good old fashioned quantum mechanics, which is nothing more than linear algebra dressed up in fancy physics notation (you remember linear algebra? From highschool? Yep, it's really that simple.) Of course, if Bohmian mechanics is really just a method of bending over backwards to get the same results as standard quantum mechanics does anyways, then bringing it up doesn't help you prove your argument that everyone everywhere is wrong about everything...[/offtopic]
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11017
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:10 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I'll just lock the thread entirely and be done with it.


You clearly concede the scientific argument.
I understand, you have an impossible situation.
How can you prove something that is not correct?


Do you mean "how can you prove a negative", or are you simply asserting that you are correct, and hence nobody could possibly prove you wrong?

And if you destroy the Earth in several thousand years, how many people not yet born would you estimate maximum that you might prevent from having life? (Lets see... 4.6 billion years max possible habitability of Earth, lets say we make it only half that long or say 2 billion years divided by average life span of say 100 years * current population of about 7 billion, lets round down to 5 billion, would not want to over estimate). That is a potential holocaust of say 100,000,000,000,000,000, a hundred quadrillion people. But as long as it is not in our life time... or is it...


First: everyone on Earth is doomed to die. Without scientific progress, we will be wiped out by an asteroid, a nearby nova or supernova, a change in the dust density of local interstellar space, the expansion of the sun into the Earth -- there are dozens of real, expected things that will cause a massive holocaust.

This means that scientific progress has a chance to save those lives. And your position is to stop progress in particle physics experiments.

Second: way to count people who don't die when counting deaths.

..

The paper:
It implies that there is an infinitely long funnel. It doesn't mention that the funnel is very narrow. Narrow space-time should result in a different fall off of E-M, shouldn't it?

Firstly, point (i) – failure to be produced – becomes indistinuguishable from the other case that already formed miniholes remain undetected. Hence there is a certain risk now that the experiment will be unnecessarily cranked up to unwittingly produce heavier miniholes than intended


Wouldn't the energy budget of the experiment be showing HUGE leaks?

This is the “early self-organization hypothesis“ of black hole growth. Although nothing but
a possibility-in-principle,...


No physics. Just "possibility-in-principle".

near the snow-mountain which according to the children’s song harbors the spring of
eternal youth.


...

do go hand in hand with a third “scaling problem“ if you so wish – of the time needed to evaluate the other two. This is because the new physical scaling implicit in general relativity‘s Eq.(2) comes from a group almost devoid of credentials in the field. Hence it could take years until the idea is given the benefit of the doubt.


"We don't know physics, so would you please halt the experiment for an indefinite period of time while we learn and convince ourselves if your experiment is safe?"

In short: shortly before the experiment goes online, despite decades of planning, over 10 years of construction, a bunch of people who admit that they don't know physics claim that the sky is going to fall. They claim their own lack of knowledge as a reason to delay the experiment.

I say: such a spontaneous creation of attention-luddites is going to happen every single damn time you try to spin anything of this kind up. And if you respond to unqualified luddites with appeasement, it will block the next experiment, and the next one, and the next one. Billions of dollars will be wasted, or redirected away from particle research under the assumption that it will be wasted.

The fact is that creating "local" theories that are consistent with a small part of physics and generate arbitrary effects far away is easy.

...

Looking at the second paper by Otto, that looks special-relativity-esque? It seems to lack the tensors I'd expect from general relativity. :) (But I'm not even an amateur physicist).

...

Lastly, the "MBH produced by cosmic-ray collisions in Neutron stars" issue isn't covered. Above was linked a paper that demonstrated that, for all values of decay and accretion rate, either Neuton stars rapidly decay into black holes, or they spawn off slow-enough black holes that the Earth and every other planet should have been eaten by them long ago.

This statement amounts to an anomalous situation having been reached. Hence the
anomalous “infinite proper infalling time“ merits an independent proof in terms of the
standard picture since the physics is bound to be invariant under a change of semantics. If
such a proof were to be found, the accepted ways of deriving the contrary – dating back to
Oppenheimer and Snyder’s famous paper of 1939, cf. [14] – would lose credit. The at first
sight more natural thing to do – to re-work the old equations themselves – would be
counterproductive, given that the pertinent mathematical paths have all stood the test of time.
Only a round-about way – like the cat‘s around the hot mush – has any chance to succeed in
case there really is something out of kilter. Such an alternative proof can tentatively be based
on the paradigm of a standing light wave (generated by two mutually opposite laser sources of
perfectly matching frequency and phase, cf. [15]).


So using the same mathematics, it is found that your interpretation of them results in a different result than the existing one. You cannot find an error in the existing mathematics.

In special relativity, an infinite number of equi-spaced wave crests cannot be passed by in finite proper time – neither at constant speed nor at constant acceleration nor (as here) under an increasing but flattening-out acceleration;
compare Eq.(5.24) of French [16] with the pertinent classical exercise (20.2) of Greiner‘s book ([6], p. 168). This result carries over via the equivalence principle. Hence the total proper infalling time is infinite. (Q.e.d.)


... infinite in special relativity, which holds in a non-accelerating frame of reference. In this case, we are in a very much accelerating frame of reference...

From the nonexistence of a finished horizon it then follows that Hawking’s beautiful evaporation result [18], which relies on a finished horizon, gets infinitely delayed, too, and hence ceases to be physically effective. This rule remains valid for mini-black holes (despite their greater tunneling capabilities) by virtue of Kuypers‘s quantum-scaling result.


Thus claiming that Hawking's equations don't hold and produce almost-BH-like evaporation when there is an almost-horizon. I'd be shocked if that was the case, yet Otto doesn't even consider it...

...

And despite talking about no charged black holes, he doesn't cover it in the paper...

Anyone else have comments on:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documen ... CKHOLE.pdf
?
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?

Postby JTankers » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:17 pm UTC

Swiss Government sues to stop operation of the Large Hadron Collider http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1260

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11017
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:53 pm UTC

JTankers wrote:Swiss Government sues to stop operation of the Large Hadron Collider http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1260


No reliable source is cited by that blog.

Google news shows nothing when I search for "swiss government sues LHC" and a couple of variant statements.

Have a better link?
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.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Arancaytar » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:28 pm UTC

Yeah. It's pretty much BS. The blogger in question was firstly writing humorous commentary ("Geek Trivia") focusing on the data that the LHC would be generating, and naming the lawsuit only in a side sentence. Given that the lawsuit doesn't exist in actual news, the obvious conclusion seems to be that he did only superficial research on the lawsuit, or fudged up geography, and concluded that Hawaii is located in Switzerland.

In other news, bloggers have determined that the word "gullible" is not actually part of the English language, and also that linking to something doesn't make it true.

Oh, and let me remind you (this link's real) that the lawsuit from the guy in Hawaii is not exactly scientifically rigorous. :P
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25212
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:30 pm UTC

Yeah, okay. So no scientific argument was forthcoming from JTankers, and the rest of us are content that the LHC is safe enough.

Since there hasn't actually been any *new* information posted here in weeks, apart from doomsday paranoid fear-mongering and refutations of same, I think this thread has run its course.

Locked.

If someone has a *very* good reason why I should re-open it, PM me. Do not start new threads complaining of moderator action, as that's pretty ineffective.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Hammer » Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:06 pm UTC

Reopened by request. Please try to keep the stuff that originally got the thread locked to a minimum. Thanks.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Chfan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:26 pm UTC
Location: American East Coast

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Chfan » Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:56 pm UTC

What I don't know is who said that the LHC was dangerous in the first place? Do they have any scientists on their side or is it all people who haven't been fully educated in this type of situation?
Just FYI, the guy isn't avatar isn't me. But he seems pretty cool.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7523
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby phlip » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:06 am UTC

Well, (I think) it is true that they'll be trying to make short-lived micro-blackholes in the LHC... Inasmuch as anything is sure in science, scientists are sure that the LHC will either make very short-lived black holes, or none at all... but they're not sure which. Some models predict it will, some that it won't, so by running the experiment, they can narrow down the set of potential models to the ones that match the result. (Caveat: Everything in this paragraph is IIRC, this isn't exactly my field of expertise.)

This probably got oversimplified in a press release or something similar, and some members of the public saw "trying to make a black hole", thought of Hollywood-type black holes that consume everything in their path, and thought that a black hole created in the LHC would destroy the world.

So, probably more a communication problem than anyone being actively malicious... at least, to start with.

Don't ask me about the ice-nine-type strangelets, though... I don't know enough about the topic to know what the gem of truth is in that mess.

Code: Select all

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

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:46 am UTC

I think philp has it here. Existing Models predicted stuff, and science tests all those models, so it's inevitable that the scientists at the LHC would know about the whole mBH thin.

So... That + Science Journalism = LHC-mBH-scare.

Then a bit of "If it can make black holes what else could it make?" --> everything-and-anything-that-could-destroy-the-universe-obviously.
この世に生まれてくれてありがとう。

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby YoungStudent » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:40 am UTC

Wait...

They say that even if bHole should be created in LHC it would be destroyed due to Hawkin's radiation...and they have no proof that one even exist's (radiation). Well...to that they say that these collisions are happening every day in our atmosphere...riight...but LHC is in completely different conditions...it would be same to say: You can breath above the water...why couldn't you breath below?
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:13 pm UTC

YoungStudent wrote:Wait...

They say that even if bHole should be created in LHC it would be destroyed due to Hawkin's radiation...and they have no proof that one even exist's (radiation). Well...to that they say that these collisions are happening every day in our atmosphere...riight...but LHC is in completely different conditions...it would be same to say: You can breath above the water...why couldn't you breath below?

Is there a debatable position in there somewhere? Or are you just randomly spewing massively refuted arguments for fun in the hopes that the appallingly bad grammar will obscure the fact that you haven't presented anything new? :?
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby YoungStudent » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:26 pm UTC

Im sorry.
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests