Where? In what context?

That is sidestepping my question. I asked you to support your statement:

(emphasis added) Please provide references to show that the LHC was designed to produce black holes.

I also asked you to support this:

in which you seem to be indicating there is no question that black holes would be produced. Please correct, retract or support this statement.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Welcome to BAUT, James.

Got any references?

From the CERN Courier article I cited:

Yeah, and if they don't demonstrate reluctance to eat matter, we are all dead.

The internet and computers in general don't depend on particle physics research. No one claims the LHC will result in new inventions that will be of widespread practical benefit.

See my post and read the linked paper:

Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER??

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Van Rijn seems to have covered that adequately...


Yes...that's pretty much in line with what I said. If the Planck scale energy density is low enough, and the collision conditions are right, black holes could be made. Production of black holes would then indicate the Planck scale ED is in fact within that range. It is not stated that this is expected to be the case, however, in contradiction to what you said:




We're not dead, so they evaporate, can't be produced so easily, or don't eat. Those are the only three options that are at all plausible. And the only plausible conclusion is that the LHC is no threat whatsoever to the planet.


A shoddy attempt at a straw man argument...I did not claim those things were the result of particle research, I claimed they were the result of research that was similarly of uncertain use. Though it's also outright incorrect...particle accelerators are used to probe crystal structures (neutron diffraction), among other things, information which is of great use to semiconductor manufacturers. Electron microscopes are another application of particle accelerators with a wide range of uses, invaluable to modern technology and to the biological and materials sciences. CRT displays were a widespread application of particle accelerator technology for a while, and ion beam epitaxy is a common tool for manufacturing integrated circuits. Electron beams are even used to sinter titanium grains in a 3D printing process that produces implants with structural properties that allow them to integrate with bodily tissues. High power microwave transmitters, used in line of sight links to and from satellites, are also typically specialized particle accelerators...magnetrons, klystrons, etc.

You people are completely misunderstanding my argument. I don't know for sure what's going to happen. But then again, neither does anyone else. CERN itself has said that under certain theories, black holes could be produced as fast as 1 per second. CERN itself has said that under certain conditions, these black holes could get trapped by the Earth's gravity. But we are told that even if such an eventuality happened, we need not worry because Hawking radiation will not fail.

So one can construct a probability equation to come up with a total probability:

[ Total risk ] = [ Risk that black holes would be created ] x [ Risk that Hawking radiation would fail ] x [ Risk that accretion would be rapid ] x [ Any other risk factor]

But that risk has to be weighed against the potential loss. Shall we score the value of life on Earth infinite? If not, shall we try to put a dollar value on all of our lives, and all lives to come? We could try, I guess, even though the idea is nauseating. But let's say the present world GDP is worth about $100 trillion USD (this would include the ecosystem services nature provides that we ordinarily take for granted.) How long into the future shall we take project this economic value? Well, we, as civilized humans have lived about 10 thousand years, so if we multiply that by $10¹⁴ then we are risking $10¹⁸.

But what is the benefit? Frankly, the vast majority of people on Earth don't care much about Higg's boson, so let's call the benefit about $10 billion USD (which is mostly concentrated on a tiny minority of humanity). But leaving aside the equity issue (whereby the benefits are concentrated, but the risks are born by all), we can divide the reward by the risk: $10¹⁰/$10¹⁸ = 10^-8. Thus, in other words, if the probability that that the experiment will go bad isn't significantly less than 1 out of 100 million (using my numbers for the amount of risk), then not only is the experiment unethical for forcing risk on others with their consent, from an economic standpoint, the expectation is negative. (And why extend our concern only 10,000 years into the future when the Earth has over a billion good years left?)

But, and this is my main point, to say that there's only a 1 in a 100 million chance that things will go wrong creates a mistaken impression because it conflates statistical probabilities with subjective probabilities. It's not like it's the case that if 100 million LHC's were built, that only one of them would blow up. Either they all will blow up, or none of them will blow up. That is, the probability of a blow-up is either 1 or 0. So what happens, in practice, is that people make guesses on the likelihood that a particular scenario will happen. But these guesses are only useful for bookies--nature already knows the outcome.

For example, here's a poll of PhD physicists that asked to estimate the probability that Hawking radiation would fail (paragraph 8):

Thus the median probability is 2% (and note the wide variation, stdev 0.16). But this doesn't mean that there's a 2% risk that Hawking radiation will fail. Either it will fail or it will not. The 2% median estimate merely means that if you were a bookie, you would take both sides of a bet with 1:50 odds. The poll shows that there is wide variation in the expected prior probabilities even among PhD physicists. For every paper published by CERN that says there is no risk, there is another paper by a physicist who will say the risk is not insignificant.

So when the risk is an existential threat to the Earth itself--we are risking everything not only now, but for all time--it's not the sort of problem that should be determined by physicists who are using a risk analysis more appropriate to bookies.

I do in fact lose sleep over this issue. I hope that my fears will turn out to be unfounded. But what is only slightly less disturbing is the culture of arrogance that surrounds CERN and some areas of science. If everything turns out all right, it won't be because CERN performed an ethical and honest risk analysis. It will be the result of our good, dumb luck that a Faustian, unwise gamble turned out as expected. A gamble that will unfortunately set a bad precedent for future big decisions.

True.

So instead, you are Fear Mongering.

Warren Platts: There Is No Danger of BLACK HOLES gobbling up Earth.

Now that I have made my statement...

You have a CHOICE.

You can either believe what I said and trust me.

Or...

You can stop shouting doomsday broohaha and actually
Hit The Books!!

If you don't want to take my word for it- that's ok. Really. i'm NOT offended.
In fact- I PREFER that you distrust me.
Seriously.
I'm dumb. Truly. I am.
When I took my I.Q. test, the test adminstrator approached me afterward and asked me how I managed to get a Negative Number Score.
He said that was statistically impossible.
I tried to answer him but I got the answer wrong.

PLEASE hit the books!
I beg of you...

Learn about what you're talking about before making claims.

Stuart van Onselen,
Glad to see you taking some down time

We don't want to see anything bad to ya, so stay cool guy

Here's one for you:

Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk
Black holes may be "expected" at CERN, but they are certainly eagerly anticipated. Therefore, it is not certain that black holes will not be produced.
Your chain of reasoning requires a long list of assumptions only one of which need be false. There are also unknown unknowns that nobody's even thought of yet.

Have you heard of the precautionary principle when it comes to risk analysis? All doomsday scenarios have not yet been ruled out to everyone's satisfaction. The entire planet too much to risk. We're not talking mere global warming here.

I have been hitting the books--that's why I'm worried.

Moreover, I haven't made any solid claims regarding particle physics.

My main claim is that humanity and the entire Earth are of an incommensurable value that categorically cannot be risked for the limited benefit of a few.

That is not a claim that will be found in any physics book.

What's the hurry? What harm will be done if the courts grant an injunction so that these issues can be thrashed out properly? It's not fair that these people are making a fait accompli out of the LHC. Indeed, it would be downright evil if these people actually understood what they are doing. This is yet again another example of how competency in physics does not imply competency in other areas of human intellectual endeavor--like risk analysis and ethics.

This is not quite accurate.
1.) you are GREATLY overestimating your fears.
Example: There is a non zero chance that you will be whisked out of this universe through a wormhole and deposited intact in another Universe.
These odds are extremely remote compared to--- There is a non zero chance that you will be whisked out of this universe through a wormhole and deposited NOT intact in another Universe.
Just because you understand that the is a non-zero risk dos not mean you truly understand what that means.
I think if you actually hit the BOOKS instead of Huffy Websites, you might realize this.
2.) What makes you think the benefits are so few? Can you name any of the potential outcomes?

There isn't a hurry really. It's On Schedule- if not already late in coming!
Listen Very Carefully:

They HAVE been hashed out properly.

This issue has been taken to court by those same suspicious fearful minds that bring us Nibiru claims and TU24 claims. Do you not see that?
The fact of the matter is- this issue does NOT need to be wasting The Courts time.
It is utter ignorance that these issues should even BE in court in the first place. It is because fearful people, and people that Thrive on fear, do not understand what's going on that they are making wild speculations that are NoWhere NEAR reality- speculations that you seem to have fallen for hook line and sinker.
You saw the post above about Hanlans article. Surely, Platts, you are well aware of how much garbage THAT thing was.
They DO understand!
It is YOU that does NOT understand.
And it's fed your fears beyond rational and critical judgment.
The "risk" is about the same as you spontaneously transporting to an alternate dimension.

Nobody knows exactly what the results will be, otherwise there'd be little point in doing the experiments. However, if you actually take the time to learn and analyze the situation, it is clearer than anyone can reasonably expect anything to be that it will not destroy the world.

And that's not the argument you made. You claimed outright that you knew it would make black holes, that it was made to make black holes, and that it is a danger.


No. If the prediction of Hawking radiation is a complete failure, then the black holes will fall into the Earth and orbit within it for an indefinite amount of time. That's if they are created in the first place. If they do something else, something utterly unpredicted, the only thing known is that it won't involve swallowing up the Earth. This is the one thing we *do* know, because we're still here.


Potentially enormous. This argument's already been thoroughly shattered. Most people don't know or care about lattice constants, but that in no way means they don't benefit from semiconductor devices, the design and manufacture of which requires such knowledge.

But...to go after this track: the world economy is worth about $65 trillion, and is almost entirely made possible by high technology. So that makes a good low estimate. More realistic benefits would be in ranges beyond trillions of dollars and the continued survival of the human race through some challenge which this knowledge allows us to overcome. Worst possible outcome assuming we go forward: we spend a few billion dollars on something that proves to give poor data. Absolute worst case scenario: we stop here out of fear of going forward, stew in our wastes for a while, and then go extinct.

Your inability to see the benefit is simply due to your own short-sightedness, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.


That is flat out absurd. Physicists are the appropriate people to determine the risk, having the knowledge and skills required to do it.

It is far more likely that you will become ill with the flu and give rise to a mutant strain that devastates the globe. In fact, the difference in magnitudes is such that death-by-MBHs is practically zero even in comparison to death-by-Platts' Flu. The chance of *someone* in the 6+ billion people coming down with such an illness is actually something worth being concerned about. On the other hand, there are very, very few things that are more certain than that the LHC will not destroy the world. To recap: these collisions and bigger ones happen in quantities beyond my ability to describe, and the skies are full of objects that would trap any black holes produced by them. The odds of them surviving through sheer luck are technically non-zero, but not worth considering except for pure amusement.


And that's just more evidence for such collisions not producing black holes in the first place. If they were be a risk to Earth, they would be eating white dwarfs and neutron stars left and right.


No it doesn't. It's simple, short, and sure, and even handles the unknown unknowns. Maybe black holes below a certain size will disappear into a different universe. Maybe they turn into cotton balls. They won't eat the Earth.

You see cjameshuff...

You are making very good arguments.

But there's only one problem. You're honest.

You know what? Folks need to just LIE.
Really.

These folks don't care. They don't want to hear the explanation...
They will hear only what they want to hear.

So if you say, "There's a non zero chance"
and "We're still here"
They hear, "Blah blah blah there's a chance...blah blah Risk blah blah the Earth blah blah Black Hole."
and
"Blah blah blah we're lucky so far with nature but manmade contraptions shall surely be the death of us all blah blah blah"

We need to just LIE.
We can claim, "Hey folks, we just went over all the math all over again and realized we forgot to carry the two. It turns out that there's no such thing as Black Holes. There are only white holes which in the Non Zero Chance one is created- will transport Earth to Heaven."

We can always claim later that "we did carry the two After-All and -oops!!- sorry about that- But in the Good News- look at these fine results from the LHC!
Oh.. By the way, black holes exist."

what I want to know is, is there a non-zero chance that Hitler will be resurrected in the LHC; 'cause if he is, that will have severe implication for the Godwin Law.

Every time the poor guy tried to take over the world, people would say "ahhhhh, but you said 'I', GODWIN LAW! you loose",

But then there would be a non-zero chance that Hitler would be resurrected as a Jazz Guitarist, who had no real need to take over the world; or at least that would be the impression he would try to create.........

__________________

The problem is what is counts as "reasonable." A nuclear plant is a reasonable risk because, as Chernobyl shows, the planet can survive a meltdown. That someone might have a virus mutation is a reasonable risk, because humans have survived every epidemic that has come their way, and we don't see other species going extinct from viruses as a matter of course.

Black holes, on the other hand, are thought to have a capacity to destroy entire worlds. However, the arguments put forward by CERN--that the black holes that are likely to be produced at the LHC will not destroy the world--are ingenious, well-reasoned, and convincing.

Yet they are utterly inadequate. That is because a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not nearly good enough. The risk is not that we will hang an innocent man; the risk is the entire planet. Therefore, the standard must be absolute certainty that the risk is absolutely zero. I don't see that.

That is what you all don't get. I think it's probably the case that nothing much will happen at the LHC beyond a handful of (boring) papers with 200 authors each getting written. If I were a betting man I would bet a small sum of money on that outcome. I would vote to convict a man for capital murder on less evidence. But it is irresponsible for me--or anyone else--to bet the entire Earth so that a few physicists can earn a paycheck.

Science is by its very nature provisional. Science has been radically wrong in the past. Most recently it was found that the universe is not in fact decelerating. The white dwarf/neutron star argument is compelling--but it depends on a lot of assumptions. E.g., that our estimates of the age of the universe are not radically wrong. E.g., that we truly know what the insides of stars are really like. We can't take a chance that our science is radically wrong--not when the Earth is at stake.

This is an existential risk that is easily avoidable. There is no hurry. We can build another LHC a century from now. Science will continue to invent better ipods and evermore sophisticated medical imaging gadgets in the meantime.

And we don't see worlds or low mass stars collapsing into black holes, even though high energy events that match or exceed those at the LHC happen constantly.

Black holes are likely to be produced at the LHC? According to whom? By the way, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous questions.

We can't be absolutely sure that my next sneeze won't blow up the world. Expecting absolutes is ludicrous.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Does anyone know if a demo will take place on the day outside the entrance to CERN

And no, I am not going, I have other things to do, like washing my hair.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

My understanding is that black holes created by collisions between cosmic rays and objects would be moving at relativistic speed relative to the object, so they would escape it almost instantly unless the object were really really dense and heavy. A neutron star may be the only thing that could retain such a MBH.

Yeah, I do get way too worked up (blood pressure, stroke risk) about the silliest of things. I don't fear the LHC one bit, and what difference could it possibly make to me that some guy, somewhere, disagrees with me on that? After all, there a billions of women who disagree with my opinion on the subject of my sex-appeal.

I have to ask myself why I let myself start frothing at the mouth about stuff that doesn't matter. It's not like I don't have real worries in my life!

P.S. Warren: I apologise, unreservedly, for the personal attacks I made. I judge your arguments to be fallacious, but that gives me no right at all to judge you in any way. Nevertheless, in the heat of debate, I did exactly that, for which I am sorry.

There are unexplained phenomena in the cosmos like cosmic ray bursts. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that such bursts are not in fact caused by neutron star collapses?

I already provided the reference to the CERN Courier article. As for the often quoted 1 in 50,000,000 figure, apparently that was the result of a calculation by the cosmologist Lord Martin Rees with respect to the probability that a world-destroying even could happen at the Brookhaven RHIC; Rees was named president of the Royal Society in 2005.

Any references to back up that claim?

You clearly don't understand my argument. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean absolute certainty, as any judge will instruct any jury. In any other context, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a good enough standard. But what would be an unreasonable doubt in practically any other context becomes quite reasonable indeed when the consequence of being wrong is the destruction of the world. When the Earth itself is on the line, absolute certainty is an absolute requirement.

Hey, you don't have to apologize, I'm cool. I get the same way sometimes. For the record, I'm pretty sure that nothing superbad will happen at the LHC. I find the neutron star and white dwarf argument to be compelling. But that argument depends on a long chain of reasoning and mathematics. Moreover it's also a recent argument. Someone may yet find a fatal flaw somewhere in the chain. I agree that the doubts about the LHC would probably be unreasonable in any other context. The LHC and CERN must be held to a higher standard of proof than any other human situation that is practically conceivable. The Earth is for our purposes of infinite value. This value is incommensurable and trumps all other considerations. The Earth must not be put at risk.

Yes, we do. The Ebola virus is currently threatening to wipe out Western Gorillas. And a fungal infection, chytridiomycosis, is thought to have wiped out several amphibian species.


I did not say "beyond a reasonable doubt". I said "clearer than anyone can reasonably expect anything to be". We can be more sure about it than about almost anything else, except maybe the existence of gravity. It goes beyond measurements that we're absolutely convinced of and into territory where, if we're wrong, the only rational conclusion is that there is a god, and that he makes incredibly tasteless jokes. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is as good as flipping a coin in comparison.


We know white dwarfs and neutron stars are massive and compact, further knowledge about the nature of their cores is not needed. No matter what the age of the universe is, the fact that these objects exist is sufficient to show that they do not get eaten by black holes at any significant rate. Or did you once again ignore the point I made about the number of particles whose paths intersected a small Earth-based detector?
The chain of reasoning is short, simple, and robust to even severe misconceptions about reality.

Once again, maybe our science is wrong. But it can not be wrong in a way that allows the LHC to destroy the world.


There is no absolute certainty that turning on your microwave won't spawn a black hole. It's not known how it might do so, but it's not meaningfully less likely than the LHC destroying the world. Your criteria simply can not be satisfied. By anything. You can't even get out of it by suiciding, because your death may end the world in some unpredictable way. The only way you can live is by accepting that you can not know anything with absolute certainty.

You are a far greater threat to the future of the human race than the LHC is. You are billions upon trillions of times more likely to cause extinction, just by existing. If you and people like you succeed in blocking endeavors like the LHC, then your odds of causing human extinction skyrocket, because one of the few things even more certain than the safety of the LHC is that stagnation will kill us. Just by arguing the position you've taken, you are directly endangering the survival of the human race.

Fortunately for humanity, your camp is unlikely to be listened to. First attempt at beam circulation in four days!

If western gorillas (which are not a distinct species, BTW) are in trouble, that has more to do with habitat destruction and poaching than Ebola. Similarly for frogs. And even if a new virus caused the extinction of the human species, the rest of biosphere would continue to exist. I'm not prepared to say that the biosphere and the Earth without humans do not have morally considerable value. A virus would destroy Homo sapiens, the LHC could possibly destroy Earth. If we, through our arrogance, destroy ourselves, I guess a case could be made that we deserved it. But there's no way a case can be made that we have a right to destroy the rest of the biosphere.

Moreover disease is an unavoidable risk that comes from living on this planet. We can take steps to mitigate such risks, but they can't be eliminated entirely. Evolution happens. The LHC, on the other hand, is entirely avoidable.

Right, I said "beyond a reasonable doubt" because that's something everyone has heard about. I'm not sure what a "reasonable expectation" would be like unless it is contrasted with "reasonable doubt". In other words, [doubt] = 1 - [expectation], is it not?

This paragraph is totally unclear. I'll merely point out that we know less about gravity than any other force, or even if gravity is properly termed a force. Gravity cannot at present be unified with the other forces. Stars do not orbit centers of galaxies in the way that gravity would predict. We used to think that gravity would slow down the expansion of the universe; but now that idea is apparently incorrect. So if it's the case that our confidence in our theories with respect to the LHC, miniblack holes, and possible existential threats to the planet is less than our confidence in our theories of gravitation, then that level of certainty may be enough to risk hanging an innocent man, but it is not nearly enough to risk the entire Earth.

What about my point that we don't know what causes certain gamma ray bursts and cosmic ray bursts? How can you assure me that miniblack holes play no role in such phenomena?

Also, the neutron star argument is perhaps the most compelling that we have nothing to fear from the LHC. But it is also a recent argument. Are you prepared to say that before the neutron star argument was made, that the uncertainty was too great to allow the LHC to proceed, but now that the neutron star argument has been made, we can be sure that everything will be OK?

Yeah, 80 pages of complex formulas backed up by little to none experimental evidence and discussions about what would happen depending on how many dimensions the universe is made out of. If our science is so good, how come they can't even agree on the number of dimensions?

And your credentials to make that statement are . . . ?

This argument is a non sequitur. The energy levels in a microwave are not enough to create black holes. We can reasonably be absolutely certain that turning on a microwave will not create a black hole. What will happen when the LHC is turned on does not nearly rise to that level of certainty.

References please.

And why should I believe any of this? Homo sapiens existed for 100,000 years on stone-age technology. Besides that, there are plenty of things to do on this planet besides fooling with superpowerful forces we really don't know much about. And besides that, little harm will be done if the LHC is delayed for a century other than that 2,000 physicists and their technicians might become underemployed.

And now if you'll allow me to make an ad hominem argument of my own: most of the papers that defend the LHC are from CERN or people associated with CERN. They have a vested interest in seeing their project through. And when CERN employees are told not to say that the potential for big trouble is greater than zero, that doesn't enhance their credibility in my eyes. I would like to see a truly independent review first.

We'll see what the courts have to say.

I can tell you why I do it

Fear.

Same reason as Warren Platts, strangely.

Because there is strength in numbers.

Fear mongers, like those at the former TU24.org et al., tend to halt scientific progress.
It's not just the fear mongers either.
It's the ignorant too.

It bothers me and can work me up because One of those folks is like seeing thousands of them.
And you know in the back of your mind that if there are enough of them, they can really do some damage.

Fear and ignorance are two of the most destructive facets of the human mind.
And when you come across it in a mass of people, it's extremely disturbing.

Greed and arrogance are also two of the most destructive facets of the human mind.

Can you actually demonstrate that those two factors are large enough for Thousands upon thousands of scientist to...
"Destroy the world?"

The claim is beyond absurdity.

I suggest you march to the nearest facility that contains a nuclear warhead and protest American ownership and continued production of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are a clear and present danger to the continuation of the human race. One that since their invention has been steadily increasing the likelihood for species exticntion as more powerful bombs are built every year and even a limited nuclear exchange could cause a nuclear winter.

Perhaps trying to stop a danger that really exists will help you use some of this misguided enthusiasm of yours concerning the LHC.

I too was a bit intrigued by the idea of the LHC possibly creating stranglets / exotic matter / black holes that could destroy the Earth or possibly just the area around the LHC.

But logically and also according to the evidence the chance of something dangerous happening is practically speaking ZERO and mathematically speaking near-zero.

The arguments that have been made here are clear if you are not biased. That the Earth would have been swallowed by a black hole long ago if MBHs formed from cosmic collisons (of much higher energy potential than CERN) were capable of doing so.

That we see no evidence of planets or stars winking out of existence for no reason.

That Hawking Radiation slays the monster that people previously thought unslayable - black holes do not exist forever. And one of such an exceptionally same size as that can be produced in a cosmic ray or CERN type collision would under this theory evaporate in a Planck length of a second. Hardly enough time to wreak apocalypse on the Earth.

And also, consider - GRAVITY!!!!

There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.
Are we moving toward that black hole? NO. Because gravity is relatively weak. If it were a strong force, the whole Milky Way would be consumed by that black hole.

Now if the LHC is somehow able to create a microminiature black hole, and Hawking radiation doesn't get it, it will not have the gravitational potential to suck in a loose piece of rubber from one of the physicists' shoes, much less the entire Earth.

It will just sink into Earth's gravity well, there to bounce around in the center and occasionally nibble on some tiny core atoms that happen to wander too close.

You could argue that in some billions of years it might destabilize the core - but the sun will be a red giant long before that anyway.

And according to your own worries about the issue, BLACK HOLES ARE ALREADY EATING THE CORE!

So we're adding one more microminiature atom eater to what are undoubtedly thousands of them - assuming that collisions produce them at all, assuming that Hawking radiation doesn't consume them, and assuming that LHC which is an artificial imitation will be capable of producing them at all.

That's a lot of assumptions. But even presupposing all of those conditions, the practical chance of LHC being a danger is not almost-zero - it is zero.

By comparison, gamma ray bursts are a real possibility.

Imagine a gamma ray burst aimed directly at the Earth from a nearby supernova hitting the planet killing all life including bacteria at exactly 19:32:02.01 UTC this evening.

Could it happen? Sure. Aren't you worried? Why not?

__________________

The Western Gorilla is Gorilla gorilla, the most numerous species of gorilla. There is one other accepted speceis, the Eastern Gorrila, or Gorilla beringei. There are numerous subspecies of each, but the Western Gorilla *is* a distinct species. I didn't say they were currently extinct, but there is a very real and current risk that Ebola will make them so, regardless of improvements in habitat and prevention of poaching.

Frogs are only similar in that several species have already been wiped out by disease.


We are the only hope of anything of the biosphere surviving beyond another billion years or so.


Are you a non-native speaker?
"clearer than anyone can reasonably expect anything to be"
In other words, it is unreasonable to expect anything to be as clear as the fact that the LHC is not a danger.


No. That is simply not even remotely close to what I said. "existence of gravity" (my text), not "our theories of gravitation" (yours). And I was clearly talking about the safety of the LHC. The safety of these experiments isn't a theory, it is an observation.

Stop trying to twist my words around. If you've got a real counter argument, make it.


I don't. I consider it an interesting possibility myself. If they occasionally occur due to neutron stars and white dwarfs catching black holes, the rarity of such events among the huge population of stars still means Earth is in no danger. Perhaps it indicates even higher energy particles that we haven't yet detected, capable of forming black holes large enough to feed.


It's not a new argument. That paper is only a recent publication that applies it specifically to the safety of the LHC. Look at the references.


Again, if you have a counter argument, make it. As has repeatedly been stated, issues like the number of dimensions are irrelevant to the safety of the LHC. If extra dimensions make black holes possible, those black holes are safe due to evaporation or inability to absorb matter (or possibly some completely unanticipated mechanism), or we wouldn't be here.

That's an interesting figure. How did you come up with precisely those figures? Martin Rees came up with 0.000002% for RHIC as his subjective probability that there is a weak link in the chain of theory. And the median subjective probability that Hawking radiation will fail in a poll of PhD physicists was 2%. In particular, how did you assign the following subjective prior probabilities that the theory referred to is not false:

• A. the probability that black holes will be created;
• B. the probability that some created black holes will be captured by Earth's gravity;
• C. the probability that Hawking radiation will fail in such black holes;
• D. the probability that such a miniblack hole will grow fast enough to destroy the
  Earth within 10⁹ years.

Here are my subjective probabilities:

• A. 33% CERN folks seem pretty eager to find some miniblack holes;
• B. 95% the CERN paper said that if black holes are produced fast enough, a few will have low enough velocities to be captured by the Earth;
• C. 2% I'll go with the median of the poll, though at least a few of the physicists assigned much higher probabilities (up to 50%);
• D. 0.1% I find the neutron star argument pretty convincing, but then there's Roesler's paper, and no one has addressed yet the question of whether black holes at the LHC will be produced fast enough in a small enough volume that they might fuse together, thus rapidly growing their mass to much larger initial sizes than the CERN theory predicts.

So that makes: 0.33 x 0.95 x 0.02 x 0.001 = 0.00063%

And so if we now permit ourselves the liberty of making the mistake of conflating subjective prior probabilities with statistical, actuarial probabilities then clearly the expectation that the LHC will produce more than it destroys is extemely negative. I'm sure my probability seems high to you, but it's only about 2.5 orders of magnitude higher than Reese's RHIC estimate (which after all was for a much lower energy collider that theoretically did not have enough energy to make black holes, so his prior probability for A. was much lower than mine, presumably).

Not if Roesller's theory is correct.

Actually that doesn't follow. Cosmic rays travel at relativistic velocities, so miniblack holes created by such creatures would not get sucked into the Earth. That's why the latest theory is that only neutron stars and white dwarves are dense enough to stop cosmic ray induced miniblack holes.

It is *not* "the latest theory", and the bit about them being the only objects dense enough is your own fabrication. They, the densest objects in the universe short of black holes, are simply certain to be capable of doing so by a wide margin. It is not known that other stars are incapable of doing so, it is just a more complicated analysis to perform and unnecessary, white dwarfs and neutron stars being sufficient to answer the question. If such cosmic rays produce black holes, Sol probably has quite a collection of them in its core, but any given white dwarf absolutely does.