I'm stepping out of Mod Mode now... and may regret getting dragged into this, but...
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. (1)So shall we just call it an even chance? (2)But we'll go with Giddings and Mangano's idea that only a few of the dimensions are dangerous. (3)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%
|
(1) Why 50/50? This assumption on your part immediately gives your calculation a larger value than it may deserve. What are the true odds that string theory may be right? And what are the true odds that it may be right in just the way you need it to be?
You repeatedly claim that theories are wrong
a lot. What did you say? That 1 in 1,000 make it to publication? Wouldn't that be a better value to use for string theory?
(2) And now you simply accept G&M as right, even thiough you argue against them earlier. Wouldn't 1 in 1,000 be a better value here, too?
(3) And you assume that 2 dimensions are unsafe, so you "conservatively" use 3. Why not 1? Or 6? Also, you use 3/7 when it should be 3/11.
So, your calculation should be 0.001 x 0.001 x 0.273 = 0.000000273 +/- 0.000000091.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
(1)A pole of 15 physicists listed their personal subjective probabilities that Hawking radiation will fail. The average was 9%. Moreover, Hawking radiation itself can be a danger. (2)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. (And G&M have yet to respond to Plaga's rejoinder, so his theory is still "live"). (3)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%
|
(1) 15 out of how many? How were they selected? Are any of them unethical geeks?
(2) How many scenarios? Out of how many possible scenarios?
(3) Ditto #1.
With nothing to validate these data, all this becomes anecdotal and should not be used
at all.
But, let's use it anyway.
Take the mean, not the average, and use 2%.
I don't see a 5% chance that Hawking radiation could be a danger, but we'll use it.
I'd put the likelihood of a mini-blackhole camping out at the center of the earth at 1 in a million; let's use 0.0001.
These should be multiplicative, not additive, so
0.02 x 0.05 x 0.001 = 0.0000001
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%.
|
Previously considered. We should not double-dip. But, if you must, it should be 66.7% of 3/11 = 0.182
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. 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%
|
Previously considered. I disagree with your number, but we'll just drop it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
In short... the overall probability of potential problematicity is:
0.214 x 0.135 x 0.182 x 0.99 = 1.9%
|
I get 0.001 x 0.001 x 0.273 x 0.0000001 x 0.182 = 0.00000000000000496 +/- 0.00000000000000331.
This is the likelihood that "something bad" will happen. It ignores the possibility that a mini-blackhole (the size of perhaps two protons) will be
capable of doing any damage at all within the lifetime of the earth.
I would put that as highly unlikely - blackholes don't seek out other masses, the distance between particles is (on their scale) immense, this blackhole is extremely small and would grow extremely slowly if at all - say 1 in 1 billion, to be conservative. So we're now down to (heck, let's go scientific) 5E
-24.
You want to include the severity. That might hold true in a real risk-benefit calculation, but this isn't one. All it does here is allow you to inflate the number.