Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Well, Phil at one point in the program said he didn't have a clue if string theory is true or not.
|
Uhhh... Does anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
So shall we just call it an even chance? But we'll go with Giddings and Mangano's idea that only a few of the dimensions are dangerous. So we'll go with 5th and 6th-D, and throw in 7-D just to be conservative. So out of extra possible dimensions, 8, 9, 10, and 11-D are safe, whereas 5, 6, and 7-D are "potentially problematic". Thus, 3/7 * 0.5 = 21.4%
|
Ok... So we're supposed to take these figures
that you just made up seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
A pole of 15 physicists
|
They stood on eachothers heads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
listed their personal subjective probabilities that Hawking radiation will fail. The average was 9%.
|
9% of 15 is 1.35.
So was that one physicist and Hawking himself?
Ok so anyway- Very few people disagree with Hawkings theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Moreover, Hawking radiation itself can be a danger. Under some scenarios, an Eddington limited black hole could form within the Earth would still result in catastrophe, even though it wouldn't gobble the entire Earth, as Plaga has argued.
|
How? Tell us HOW it can result in Catastrophe Warren Platts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
(And G&M have yet to respond to Plaga's rejoinder, so his theory is still "live").
|
I haven't called back that telemarketer- so my interest in their Pink Vacuum cleaner with a Margarita maker and light bulb changer must still be "live."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Perhaps 10-20 physicists have weighed in on this one. If we assume they all disagree with Plaga, though they have yet to directly address Plaga's concerns, so let's call the probability that Hawking radiation could be a danger at roughly 5%. So we combine the probabilities (91% x 5%) + 9% = 13.5%
|
Ok- Here you are Inventing (making up) figures again.
Do you understand Statistics AT ALL?!
If 1.35 <chuckle> physicists out of 15 disagreed with hawkings theory (You REALLY need to explain how that average 9% of 15 came along...
) that doesn't mean you can add that supposed 9% to that 5% you just invented off the top of your head and think you have created an actual statistic probability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Well, Giddings and Mangano in fact calculated 5 and 6-D mBH's would be potentially problematic at comparatively short time scales. So let's leave out the 7-D, and call it 66.7%.
|
Let's leave out 21D and throw in a toaster and call it 69%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Sorry, you're not entirely correct here. Granted, most metastable LHC produced mBH's would shoot off into space. However, under the circumstances outlined above, the LHC would be a "black hole factory", as Steve Giddings likes to say. Such mBH's would be produced at the rate of up to one per minute to one per second.
|
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Therefore, millions of mBH's would be produced. The hardest ones to trap would be the 5-D mBH's, but Giddings and Mangano estimated that perhaps ~100 or so would be trapped over the course of the LHC's projected lifetime. In other words, if the LHC will produce metastable mBH's, then it's pretty much a certainty that at least a few will get trapped by the Earth's gravity well. So let's call it 99%
|
I'm assuming that you're still assuming they won't evaporate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
In short... the overall probability of potential problematicity is:
0.214 x 0.135 x 0.667 x 0.99 = 1.9%
|
Which is mostly invented by using figures you made up and using statistics that don't exist in statistical mathematics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Only if you consider an expectation of death of ~ 100,000,000 people to be nonproblematic (6 x 10 9 people x 1.9%). . . .  |
Yep- Time to jump back on the Doomssayer soapbox...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
If you disagree with the probabilities that I assigned under your scenario that's supposed to guarantee the safety of the LHC, feel free to substitute your own subjective probabilities. I would appreciate at least a little justification for each probability you assign though.
|
A little?
Or more than YOUR Justifications?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
You would be helping us out, since CERN absolutely refuses to publish their own estimate for pcatastrophe.
|
Yes and the Apollo astronauts refuse to address concerns about
phoaxed!.