Prove it. How can you be so certain of this? If you can demand an impossible to achieve level of certitude before operating the LHC, we can demand that you satisfy us with a similar level of certitude that no mini-black hole has ever been trapped by the Earth during its 4.5 billion year history. Go ahead, get crackin'.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Whaddaya mean? I'm merely going off the same paper (Giddings and Mangano, 2008) that you all quote as saying that the LHC is absolutely safe. And if the LHC is safe, it will be because of the reasons that Giddings and Mangano give--and not the reasons that have been mostly given in this thread. E.g., the lame idea that millions of cosmic ray produced black holes have been trapped by the Earth in the past, and that therefore they must be harmless. Giddings and Mangano would like to be able to say that that has been the case. But to their credit, they are honest enough to admit that their calculations demonstrate emphatically that that cannot be the case.

And besides that, it's not up to me to prove that the LHC is dangerous. Perhaps you've heard of the "Precautionary Principle"? If so, you clearly need a refresher:

"The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

That means you bub. Get crackin'. Why am I the only one here who actually discusses the science involved. I'm not even a physicist. . . .

So why do you try to be?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Because no one else is trying.

That's because many of them are Being.

But of course- your strange and Nibiru like FEAR that a Micro Black Hole which is tinier than a proton is going to devour the planet is quite an inspiration huh?

Do you go in for 2012 theories too Warren Platts?

All I know is what I read on the ArXiv.

No.

You have been twisting what's said, making bold claims, treating the LHC as a fact proven threat and exaggerating what you don't even understand.


As well as assigning a monetary value to the Earth.

No.

I am merely pointing out the pervasive uncertainties within black hole theory that everyone else is intent on papering over.

If you'll read Giddings and Mangano, you will notice that they do not in fact replace every uncertainty in Giddings' theory of black hole factories with worst-case assumptions. Rather, they use "conservative" assumptions in order to demonstrate that there is "no risk" to lighting off the LHC. The Precautionay Principle says that using "conservative" assumptions in the risk analysis is a morally wrong strategy in this case. When the worst-case scenario is more than a few levies breaking (i.e., destruction of the Home Planet!), worst case assumptions must be incorporated into the risk analysis. Of course, if worst case assumptions are used in the risk analysis, the safety of the LHC cannot be guaranteed.

Also, I've been accused by both swift and Celestial Mechanic of "demanding an impossible to achieve level of certitude" or "absolute proof" with regard to the safety of the LHC. This is not true, as I made clear about 20 pages ago, but apparently bears reiteration here.

I do not demand absolute certainty. We all agree that there is a nonzero probability that practically anything can happen.

On the other hand, we need a standard of proof that is more stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because the risk is not merely hanging an innocent man. So I proposed a new standard of proof that might be called "reasonable certainty". We can be reasonably certain that a microwave oven or yours truly will not destroy the planet. All I want to see is an argument that makes a clear case that we can be reasonably certain that the LHC is as dangerous as a microwave oven. I do not see that yet. I don't think that case can be made without trying out the experiment and seeing what happens.

The consequences of being wrong are unacceptable.

There are alternatives. Like building a single beam collider. Yes, I know that it is harder to achieve high energies in a single beam collider. But there is nothing in the laws of physics or engineering that says that 14 TeV energies cannot be obtained in a single beam collider. It's merely a matter of money! These people want to risk the Earth so that they can do their science on the cheap! That ain't right.

Yeah, they're out to destroy the world to make some money.

That makes a lot of sense.

Now- Im not sure but

All of the sudden and for no reason at all...

I have this feeling that that plan might just backfire...

why would a single beam be any different? the particals would be stopped by the target. two beams colliding is the same as one beam hitting a stationary target.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Why are you intentionally ignoring the RHIC and the black holes string theory predicted that never came to be and why do you insist that the LHC will produce them?

Lepton, I thought I was on your ignore list!

The reason RHIC never produced mBH's is because RHIC is only capable of 200 MeV. Whereas Steven Giddings predicted that mBH's will only show up at the TeV level (cf. his "High Energy Colliders as Black Hole Factories: The End of Short Distance Physics" [also published in Physical Review Letters]

"If the fundamental Planck scale is of order a TeV, as [is] the case in some extradimensions scenarios, future hadron colliders such as the Large Hadron Collider will be black hole factories." (from the abstract, my emphasis)

That was published in 2002. RHIC began operation in 2000. Note that Giddings said "future hadron colliders" implying that RHIC does not have the requisite energy levels.

So there you have it from the horse's mouth. You don't have to take my word for it.

Hi captain,

The reason a single beam collider would be different is because any mBH's produced by a single beam collider would themselves have relativistic velocities, whereas in double beam designs, the equal and opposite beam velocities cancel each other out.

Think of a car smashing into a stationary car at 200 mph. The two cars will fuse together and go skittering off at 100 mph, at least initially. Now imagine two cars both traveling at 100 mph each that get involved in a head on collision. The resultant velocity in this latter case will be zero.

I hope that answers your question.

So string theory never predicted black holes would be produced at the RHIC? Then you are either outright lying or you have no idea what your talking about. one physicist, Lenoard Susskind, even goes so far to say that they are being produced at the RHIC it is just that we need to understand what string theory means by black hole. So what is it, are you lying or speaking of things you have no idea about?

Hey Lepton:


When you're done with that, why don't you bother to provide a reference to a peer reviewed paper like I did.

So you claim that string theory didn't predict black holes would be made at RHIC? I just mentioned the name of a physicist. You can go look up the paper yourself if you want. All I want to know is why did you and the rest of the doom and gloom cult not say anything when the RHIC opened it's doors. Is it fundamentalist doctrine that fuels you?

Really?!?

Why are you so headstrong that the RHIC can't or wasn't predicted to create black holes yet this paper is on ArXiv?

The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

Lepton, you are intellectually dishonest. If some string theorist somewhere predicted mBH's at RHIC, then show me. Put up or shut up.

ETA: Thanks for the link. However, the RHIC "fireball" probably was not a true mBH: as Namaste himself says, "Most likely there will be no singularity for this black hole." That is, the "fireball" was a "pion analog of" an mBH--a precursor at best.

1. look up.
2. read about Susskind and other string theorists.
3. don't expect anyone here to hold your hand.
4. now you go on ignore for lying and making things up.

1. Look up.
2. The ball is back in your court buddy.

I took their "conservative or worst case..." to mean "conservative, i.e. worst case, ..."

At the bottom of page 50 they say, "In both approaches, we used conservative assumptions, leading to the largest accretion rates and to fastest evolution", which is consistent with my take and inconsistent with yours. When are you going to drop this ridiculous word twisting? Surely it just distracts from the case you want to make.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Why are you arguing with him? He made it clear that his erroneous belief about the LHC can't be falsified therefore it belongs firmly in the metaphysical camp and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Hey Lepton,

Here's the official RHIC response to the alledged black hole at RHIC:

Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. [i.e., it is not was not a true singularity.] In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole. (my emphasis)

Do you have anything better to offer to back up your assertion that RHIC is a black hole factory?

well, how are the micro black holes that you seem to think the LHC will spew out like bubbles from my beer any different?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Anybody besides me see the extreme irony in his last few posts?

The worst case can not always be defined with certainty...in such cases, a conservative estimate that is likely to be at least as bad as the actual worst case should be used, and this is what I took their words to mean. For example: accurately determining the exact accretion rate is not possible with current theory, so use a clear overestimate.

Twisting words around so something meant as "worse than worst case" is interpreted as "optimistic estimate" is typical of Warren, he's been doing similar things through the entire argument, often far more blatantly. He's not interested in making a reasoned argument.

Lepton: You are most certainly not alone...

That's what I thought as well, until I saw that Giddings and Mangano took Plaga to task for dropping that "or". Therefore, we can only conclude that Giddings and Mangano do not in fact take "conservative" as meaning the same as "worst case".

I agree that they took the worst case scenario when they looked at accretion rates. And guess what: they concluded that 5- and 6-D mBH's might just indeed be "problematic". Talk about understatement of the century! But we know what they mean there: "problematic" means the same as "world disrupting on short time scales".

Where they did not use worst case assumptions is in the predicted stopping length of relativistic mBH's within white dwarfs. If they had, they would have concluded that cosmic ray induced mBH's might just pass harmlessly through white dwarfs just as they apparently do through the Earth. And that would only leave neutron stars as the only natural laboratories for CR produced mBH's. But the problem with that is that there is in fact some evidence that neutron stars are in fact getting eaten up by black holes (cf. Dereshev et al. 1999). (This paper was cited by Giddings and Mangano.)

Check out the Giddings 2002 paper above. He says that mBH's require at least TeV energy levels to form.

Here's another by Giddings: Black Holes in the Lab?

"If TeV-scale gravity describes nature, the consequences are astounding. We will begin to explore quantum gravity, and possibly string theory, at accelerators in the relatively near future. Indeed, model independent bounds based on present experiments merely indicate MP > 800 GeV; TeV-scale gravity could be the physics of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The most generic and spectacular result of such a scenario would be the production of black holes in [TeV] particle accelerators." (p. 3)

I am just about the only one here who is making reasoned arguments. All you have personally offered beyond ad hominems and blatant insults are assertions that you have not backed up by citing peer reviewed literature. I am the only one who has bothered to delve into the primary literature (except for worzel, apparently. I can't recall anyone else recently who has cited chapter and verse.) I do have an open mind. Unfortunately, what I find in the primary literature is uncertainty that does not jibe with assurances found in CERN press releases. I am not reassured.

Warren Platts, my patience has reached its exhaustion point. Your statement above pushes it very close to collapse.

You are the victim of ad homs? What about these from you:

"And I must say that I am a little perturbed that the most cocksure scientists who yell the loudest like Giddings and Cox are fairly young--younger than I am anyway. They are running a risk, and they know it. They think it's a long shot. They think that everything will probably turn out OK. But they have never experienced what it is like to have a core theory totally upended. You know how young people are--it's always the other guy who's going to get it."

"Sorry guys: all CR produced mBH's are relativistic. They won't get trapped by the Earth. It is your lame handwaving that is BS, Drunk Vegan. "

You have become increasingly uncivil in this thread. You have consistently twisted what others say, offering cherry-picked, partial quotes and claiming them as fact, then attacking them.

This is the only warning you will get. Calm the rhetoric or I will close the thread (may do so anyway as it seems to have run its useful course) and discipline you.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov