I didn't know the two groups were incapable of interbreeding. Hm. Interesting.

That's a sci-fi fantasy. If I were you, I'd be more worried about surviving the next decade.
Now that's ironic. . . .

That may be "clear" to you, but it is certainly not obvious to many other people. I don't need 80 pages of differential equations to know that a microwave oven will not destroy the world. It is indeed entirely reasonable to expect that that a microwave oven will not destroy the world is more clear than that the multi-Tev collider will not destroy the world.

You're not assuaging my fears--you're making them worse!

You drew the comparison between the LHC and gravity. I merely pointed that gravity is a very problematic enigma within contemporary physics. And the safety of the experiment is indeed theoretical because the experiment has not been performed yet; therefore, there are no observations.

Yeah, maybe so. It also might be the case that the reason blowups are rare is that "superfluidity" occurs within neutron stars, so that miniblack holes can pass through without friction or that it takes 14,000 collisions within a white dwarf to slow down a 14 TeV miniblack hole enough to capture it, whereas many of the 14 TeV symmetrically produced miniblack holes at LHC will be born with a velocity less than the escape velocity of the Earth.

I think I might have to revise my probability "D." upwards.
Since you are intellectually honest, I take it that you would oppose plans to produce 1,000 TeV collisions at least!
Perhaps some of the references used in the argument predate RHIC, but the argument itself certainly had not been raised during the RHIC controversy. We'll see if it can stand the test of time!
Actually, the CERN article cited by Van Rijn says that universes with 5 dimensions are more dangerous than universes with more dimensions.

It's also possible that there has been a mistake in the calculations or that certain assumptions are unwarranted (and it's possible that a completely unanticipated mechanism will destroy the Earth). Like I said above, the neutron star calculations don't take into account the possibility that much of a neutron star might be superfluid allowing black holes to pass through without friction, or that the assumption that a miniblack hole will have at least 14,000 collisions while passing through a white dwarf might be wrong. Thus, it is possible to have lots of neutron stars and white dwarves and exponential growth of miniblack holes within planets.

I think your probablility is far far to high here.

A mini black hole with the mass of atoms, which is about what the mass CERN is dealing wtih, doesn't have any more or less gravity then it's mass.

Atoms, with out the addition of outside energy, don't commonly react with other atoms, they tend isntead to form molucular bonds.

A mini black hole formed in cern, would likely have a charge the same as the original matter that formed it. The first thing it would due, would be to captue a few rogue electrons into orbit. Once that happens, it will then, eventualy form a molucular bond with some other matter.

There really is no difference from blackholes at subatomic masses, to a atomic nulceous at sub attomic masses.

It wounldn't even snack on other atoms, unless it happens to be in the core of a sun where heat and pressure allow for that, and even then it's the same probablility rate that two normal atoms would fuse.

It otherwards, the probablility of a miniblack hole growing to consume the earths core, are so close to zero, that it doesn't even need to be a concern.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Have you heard of the possibility of superfluidity within neutron stars, and are you absolutely certain that a miniblack hole moving at a near luminal speed will sustain at least 14,000 collisions while passing through a white dwarf?

And if it is indeed the case that miniblack holes don't grow linearly maybe there are earth or larger sized black holes within white dwarves, but centrifugal forces caused by circulation of matter within white dwarves prevent the blackhole from eating the entire white dwarf. Such a mechanism within a white dwarf would provide a power source for white dwarves and would explain the apparent pattern that there are more hot, white dwarves than initial theories suggested. In other words, it might be the case that mini black holes can grow to Earth-massed sizes on time scales less than 10⁹ years, despite the fact that there are lots of hot, long-lived white dwarves.

I'm sure the above scenarios sound wildly outlandish to your ears, but the precautionary principle puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of LHC boosters to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such alternative theories are false.

Thanks for the thoughtful post dgavin. I had not heard before that black holes could form a type of helium atom! And helium atoms aren't very reactive, to be sure. But since the "nucleus" would not be an ordinary nucleus, maybe the electron shell structure would be different as well. How do you know that such quasi-helium might not be superreactive?

Warren,
You continue to ignore direct questions I've asked you.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Hi Swift,

Sorry about overlooking your questions:

1. The magnets depend on particle physics theory and relativity, etc. in order to work properly. If the magnets didn't work properly then that is either the result of some portion of the theory being false, or else an engineer somewhere did not properly apply the theory (or both). As for another example of particle theory gone wrong, I think there was a Soviet atomic bomb that had more than twice the yield predicted. Talk about a big surprise!

2. My take on the postscript to the CERN Courier article is that it was added as an afterthought, and that it's assertions are not supported by the article itself. It mentions the cosmic ray argument, but doesn't address the fact that cosmic ray produced miniblack holes would probably exceed the Earth's escape velocity and not be captured. (It doesn't mention the neutron star/white dwarf counterargument).

3. The theory that black holes may form may indeed be highly speculative. Be that as it may, the 14 TeV is an unprecedented energy level. And the authors of the CERN article I cited do think that black hole production is a distinct possibility. It was not a science fiction article, nor was it written by a BAUT forum ATMer. Therefore, it has the effect of raising the prior subjective probability (A) in my Bayesian analysis in post #748 above.

OK, I've addressed three of your questions. Now I get to ask you three questions:

1. You're obviously interested in astronomy, and you are old enough to have learned the state of astrophysical theory back in the early 1980's. If someone would have asked back then what you thought the probability that the theory that the expansion of the universe was decelerating due to gravity would turn out to be false, what would you have said. Be honest! I know that I would have said that that would be practically impossible. Who could have guessed!

2. Could you take the Bayesian analysis test (and provide reasons for your particular weighting for each), please? I'm just curious as to what number you would come up with.

Well, two's good enough for now.

Please read the article I linked here:


Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER??

Even if micro black holes were stable, and uncharged, and moving at relativistic velocity, they would still be captured by dense objects like white dwarfs and neutron stars - yet we observe a large number of white dwarfs and neutron stars. However, it is likely that, if they existed at all, they would be charged, and some would be created at lower velocity or would be slowed down, in which case, they would be captured by planets and stars.

We don't see that either.

__________________
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

Yes, and he keeps sidestepping my questions. Yeesh.

__________________
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

It's simply the truth. It's taken this long for humanity to appear on the scene, and the odds are not good of a successor appearing if we die off before carrying parts of this world's life away from the solar system. If you're going to bring the survival of the ecosystem into the equation, it is outright doomed without us.


Just poor reading comprehension or deliberate twisting of words, then.


You can't be absolutely sure. It's only theory that tells you it won't spawn a black hole, or do something utterly unpredicted and destroy the world. There are far fewer microwaves than there are cosmic ray/WD-NS collisions, so the observational evidence of their safety is much weaker. And given the evidence of the skies and our own continued existence, the probabilities are closer in magnitude to each other than to any real threat humanity faces.

This is not hyperbole. This is simply using the exact same reasoning you insist on.


At this point, I think it's clear that your fears will not be assuaged by any argument. You have no actual, reasoned argument.


This is a web forum, what I said is right out there for everyone to read. I did not compare the LHC to gravity. Once again, I compared our certainty of the LHC's safety to our certainty of the existence of gravity. Unless you're seriously claiming there's some doubt that gravity exists, you're simply misinterpreting what I said. (and at this point, it appears deliberate, considering that I've corrected you on it)


I'd expect a few times more than 14000 collisions to be required (14921 absorbed protons or neutrons would only double the mass of a 14 TeV black hole), actually, but I'd also expect far, far more to occur. The MBH will have to plow through 200000-466000 times more matter in the case of white dwarfs, and the higher density (about 80000 times that of Earth's inner core) will result in more momentum lost to near misses. And superfluidity is not going to save the star, if anything, it would increase the rate at which it can be fed.


The OMG particle was 100000000 TeV (it massed 178 femtograms!), and higher energy particles have been observed since. So no, I would not be particularly concerned about 1000 TeV experiments. In addition, as the energies go up, the it becomes less and less likely that such a perfect collision will occur that a hypothetical black hole forms with velocity less than Earth surface escape velocity. Even a slight asymmetry will result in a it escaping Earth's gravity well.


Whether MBHs form or not and at what energies they do so is only of academic interest, and makes no difference as to the safety of the LHC. The existence of a constant spray of far higher energy particles, stellar bodies dense enough to catch MBHs, our continued existence, and thus the safety of the LHC is a constant. If we live in a universe where MBHs are produced by collisions such as these, it can only mean they are not of any danger.


White dwarfs are not superfluid, and superfluidity would not impede the absorption of mass by the black hole. My expectation would be that superfluidity would have absolutely no effect until the speed of the MBH dropped below the speed of sound in the superfluid. At which point superfluidity means, within the limits of the superfluid behavior of the neutron star, no obstacle to the inflow of matter into the MBH, not even local heating.


Are you serious? The magnet supports broke. The cross section has to be kept as low as possible to minimize heat conduction. It's not particle physics or relativity, it's cryogenic materials science and plain old, very Newtonian mechanical engineering.

It might be, but it would be reactive like free atomic hydrogen. It would want to form bonds with other types of matter, not snack on them.

For a atomic mass black hole to actualy snack on other atoms, it would have to remain charge nuetral without electrons in orbit, and over come the other atoms strong force with it's weaker gravity force. I just dont see that happening.

If anything, it would join the nuclous, but again that would take the pressures and densitys for normal fussion, most likely.

However this might be a way to manufacture some very exotic matter, by fusing atomic black holes into existing atoms.

For atomic black holes with charge that do capture electrons, they will never get close to another atoms nucleaous, for the same resons regular matter doesn't. Electrons prevent that.

I'm not saying that this is what will happen, however you have to look at this logically.

If you from a black hole by impacting two protons in a collider, it has the same mass as molcular hydron, with the positive charge of helium +2.

So likely it will capute two Electons almsot immediately. Even if this stabalizes the black hole from evaporating, instead of chewing up other matter, it would bond with it into molecules. As it has two electrons instead of 1, you might wind up with a H>BH<H molecule chain, or something similar.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Ok first I'll say I'm all for the LHC, but want to weigh in on the supposed safety.

CERN's biggest argument on the safety is based on cosmic rays, but they are smashing/mashing Protons and Lead Ions together at a much slower speed. That's not even apples and oranges now is it? "It's like 2 mosquitos running into each other." However they will be rapidly firing multiple particles to guarantee a collision will take place, creating the possibilty of multiple near simultaneous collisions. They are hoping for a "headon" collision, not very likely to happen however: 2 cars with equal mass and velocity in a head on collision do not spin off and "pass harmlessly through the planet", they come to a dead stop in a fiery mess in the middle of the street. On a busy street at high speeds more cars then crash into the first 2 and don't improve the situation.
Again they are using protons and lead ions, that is not an insignificant amount of atomic mass, in an attempt to create an extremely dense hypothetical particle. Should a stable miniature black hole actually result in a headon collision it could have mass and little momentum (the escape velocity of earth is low, but significantly higher than zero).

I have a degree in Mathematics, not physics, so I am in no way even remotely close to being an expert on these matters. Some of the possibilities I mentioned might very well be wrong, so there's no need to rip me apart if I said anything stupid. My comment/complaint centers on the arguments CERN is using verifying the safety of their experiments.
I'm all for these experiments, I want the advancement of knowledge and I believe in taking risks to achieve that knowledge, but I would expect the experts to come up with better answers ascertaining to that safety than CERN has given.

On a funny note never forget: The use of the infinite improbability drive guarantees that the more improbable an event is the higher the likelihood of it occurring.

To use your own analogy, let's say we are engineers for an Automotive Company.

I come to you and say, "Listen... You know how we are concerned about safety in the event of an accident. I was thinking- Why don't we simulate accidents by colliding actual cars in a controlled situation with dummies in them. We can then study how the vehicles respond and what happens."
You think a moment and then say, "But what if the fuel ignites in a fiery explosion that causes the entire factory to go in one big humongous explosion?"

Let's hope that it is not doomed because of us!
Your style could use some improvement.

References please. And if you could assign a probability for such a quantum event taking place that would be great, as it would provide a level of confidence that we should require the LHC to also possess.

Wow, so you are saying that the hypothetical danger to the planet or lack thereof from microwave ovens is actually more uncertain than for the LHC. That is quite some claim. I have never heard anyone make that argument before. Very interesting, but it could use some more development, I think.

Well then, what you're telling me is that we need a finer taxonomy of standards of evidence:

1. There's the "preponderance of the evidence" used in civil courts where the risk is merely wrongly depriving someone of property.

2. Then there's the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials where the risk is wrongly depriving someone of their liberty or even their life. This represents a much higher standard, but judges are careful to instruct juries that absolute, 100% certainty is not a requirement for conviction. There is no set "probability" that is specified. Playing such Bayesian games is dangerous because of the uncertainties in the uncertainties. Thus, OJ was acquitted because the gloves didn't fit. Did he do it? Probably. But did the jury render the correct verdict? I think so. The gloves along with several other problems--including credibility problems resulting from overzealous arrogance on the part of the police and prosecution--resulted in enough uncertainty so that the jury could not in good conscience risk depriving a man of his freedom for life.

3. But when the planet itself is at stake, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is no longer a reasonable standard of evidence. I called for a standard of "absolute certainty". After all, the value of humanity is infinite, is it not? You yourself claim to be concerned for the future of humanity 1 billion years into the future. Clearly you are hoping and striving for the immortality of humanity. Therefore, if the future of humanity is potentially infinite, then the value of humanity must be infinite. Therefore, we must be absolutely certain that the risk of the LHC is zero. (Although we're still doomed in the end: 0 * infinity = 1--but that's another thread--I wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking this one! ).

But of course the risk that the LHC will destroy the world is not zero. You know this to be true, so you deploy the philosopher's scifi argument from quantum mechanics that says that no conceivable event can be ruled out because of quantum mechanics in order to perform a reductio ad absurdum on the argument that the LHC should not be turned at this time. That is, you argue that we can't assign a zero probability that a microwave oven will not destroy the planet. Therefore, in order for me to be consistent, I would have to argue for outlawing microwave ovens, and that would be clearly absurd. Therefore, there is no problem with running the LHC.

So, I guess we need at least 4 levels of certainty or standards of evidence:

4. So we'll keep "absolute certainty" for the mathematicians in order to keep them happy--although there are some philosophers who might quibble. But since math is abstract, it has no physical effect on us.

3. Then there's the type of certainty that we have that our microwave ovens will not destroy the planet. We need a name: shall we call it "reasonable certainty" to contrast it with "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "absolute certainty"? Thus, it would be unreasonable of me to insist that the LHC be held to a higher standard of evidence than microwave ovens--that much I will grant.

But--and this will still make most of you unhappy--I think we should insist that the LHC be shown to be no more dangerous than a microwave oven before it is allowed to run at full power. And that has not shown to be the case so far. The danger of a microwave oven is only of the philosophical, scifi, quantum mechanical kind. And it has not been shown that the danger of the LHC is of the philosophical, scifi, quantum mechanical kind.

I still harbor doubts about the neutron star/white dwarf argument. There are alternative explanations that would allow for the existence of these objects and miniblack holes that would be dangerous for Earth, and these alternative explanations have not been ruled out to my, and many others' satisfaction.

Of course, you will say that my doubts about the neutron star/white dwarf (NSWD) argument are "unreasonable" doubts. And in practically any other circumstance, I would agree. But when the Earth itself, rather than the life of a mere individual human is at stake, such unreasonable doubts warrant a veto until such doubts can be fully eliminated. This might require moving the LHC to Pluto.

When my opponent is forced goes personal, then I know that my argument is winning the debate.

Expecting and knowing for sure are two different things. That's what I've been saying all along. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

You need to get to the "beyond unreasonable doubt" level where the only doubts are philosophical, scifi, quantum mechanical doubts. We can call such doubts "crazy doubts" in order to distinguish them from the more ordinary "unreasonable doubts" that would not be allowed in a court room, but must be taken into account when the Earth is on the line. That is, seriously entertaining "crazy doubts" are diagnostic of schizophrenia--like people seriously worried about microwave ovens destroying the planet. The opponents of the LHC are not schizophrenics.

There are alternative explanations my friend--e.g., Rossler's concerning superfluidity in neutron stars and the fact that white dwarfs tend to be warmer than theories that say they have no power source would suggest. Then there are those pesky cosmic ray bursts that people have no idea how they are caused. Is it possible that an extraterrestrial civilization could cause such CRB's? And what about the Great Silence? You want humanity to live for 1 billion years. Well, if civilizations routinely survive for 1 billion years, then where are they? Certainly one explanation that is considered plausible is that they destroy themselves once they reach a certain level of technology. All these concerns must be addressed and they have not been. Are my doubts unreasonable? Yes--in any other context--but not when the Earth itself is on the line.

I said that neutron stars might be superfluid. Moreover, superfluidity will not cause momentum to go away. The vacuum of space is superfluid, yet planets are not sucked into stars. Like I said before, you are not making me more comfortable with the idea of lighting off the LHC.

It just goes to show that mistakes can be made. Or is it the case that particle physicists are a special breed of geniuses that are incommensurable smarter than materials scientists or mechanical engineers, such that particle physicists are incapable of making mistakes?

Yes thats well and good, but you don't tell the public that smashing 2 cars together is the same as 2 mosquitos bumping heads. Had they given an example of 2(or more) lead ions smashing together in other areas of the solar system with no negative results it would be accurate. The comparison they made in their safety press release may as well have been. "look that monkey is smashing those 2 rocks together and nothing has exploded(or imploded) see it's perfectly safe!" That factory in your example happens to be my planet, and that test dummy is me. I'm still willing to get into that car and rev the engine, but I expect an honest answer on what the worse case scenario will be and the likelihood of it occurring. The alarmists are putting out a lot of misinformation on these experiments and the best CERN can come up with is "nah that probably won't happen."

I really think it is more of CERN figuring it's a waste of time and effort to silence the alarmists. The LHC is going online anyway. LHC 1 Alarmists 0.

You're right on that Lepton, and what they did say was probably meant to appease the general public(and probably did). I am excited and anxiously looking forward to see/hear what they find in their experiments. I just expected to hear a more reassuring answer, something along the lines of: "no worries, we have a containment field/vessel ready and an ESA rocket on the launch pad to shoot that sucker into deep space." Their answer of: " A blackhole probably won't form and if it did, probably wouldn't last long, and if it did would probably take 50 million years to devour the earth," just didn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. Again I got my degree in Math, so hearing a lot of "probably" and "if" isn't what I wanted. I am a big fan of "If (something bad) Then (we have it covered)". ie. If the car crashes Then the airbag will deploy

Has anyone claimed that about the LHC?

See my post to cjameshuff about honesty.

It's very hard to explain something very complicated to the general public.

Try looking at "nah that probably won't happen." as "there is an infinitesimally small chance."
Well, this ties into the whole honesty bit. They don't wanna lie.

What are those odds though?

About the same as the you suffering spontaneously combustion while eating a Big Mac in St Petersburg at exactly 9 pm Next week?
Hey, don't deny- that COULD happen!!

Hi Pippin, and welcome to BAUT. Don't mind Neverfly. He's mostly harmless.

This is a good point: cosmic rays are isolated stray bullets whereas the LHC amounts to two machine guns precisely sighted at each other. Maybe black holes much more massive than two quarks could be formed within the LHC itself. CERN has not addressed this potential problem to my knowledge. Is this an "unreasonable doubt". Perhaps it would count as such in a court of law where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. But you clearly are not schizophrenic. Yours is not a "crazy doubt". Good point.

I'm all for risking the lives of a few astronauts or particle physicists in order to gain knowledge. But risking the entire planet is not worth a few papers with 200 authors each. This "knowledge" can always be recovered at some point in the future. There is no crisis at present that the LHC will resolve. I say build the thing on Pluto. So what if that takes 350 years? Compared to an eternity in Oblivion, the wait would be as nothing and well worth it.

This is interesting. Could you explain a little more how that works if it's not too intricate? Just curious.

.... And there is a fire extinguisher at the McD's so don't sweat it is all I wanted to hear, but I want to keep this thread serious so I'll hold off on future replies unless I have something new/important to discuss. Just keep in mind I have a math degree so the words "odds and probabilities" scare me a little, I'm all about the contingency plans that they no doubt have and I wish they had mentioned in the highly unlikely event that something nasty does come up.

Unless another motor mount breaks. . . .

That easy?!
Ok, Don't even sweat it

One thing that occurred to me the 'ther day was; if the Earth does get eaten by a black hole, the space station should be fairly unaffected; so they could just sit up there and watch.
Now that would be a strange thing to watch.

__________________

They would be affected. Just a wee bit later than everyone else

Did a motor mount succeed in keeping the LHC offline forever?

I read this saftey report on the production of blackholes, and although it seems to debunk the idea of a blackhole gobbling up the galaxy, it also says that if a blackhole were to become stable and start growing, it would take a longer time to consume the Earth than the lifespan of our solar system. Isnt that kind of nerving and basically saying that it could eat our planet, but only a couple of millimeters every couple of years?

Doesn't really give me that "warm fuzzy safe feeling" I've been looking for in this whole matter.

And also, please take mercy on me if I misunderstood this, I'm only a lowly pre-med student at college :P

Is that not now for the courts to decide since there is a court case due under human rights legislation.

(That part of the submission was not thrown out last I heard)

Unless someone has an update on the court cases here.

__________________
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 ►

a system;
Why not?
Are you planning on outliving the Solar System to check the very very remote possibility that a micro Black Hole actually managed to stick around and gobble tidbits?

I can just see them scribbling that into the human rights law books;"rule 67891: has right not to be consumed by a black hole."

__________________

LHC is going live in 3 days.