I think thomheg is being a bit facetious. . . .

I think a number of posters are frequently facetious.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Well, since you guys keep bumping this thread, it might be a good idea to steer it back to it's original topic. I thought you all might be interested in Phil Plait's comments on the danger of the Long Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, that he made in his recent appearance with George Noory on Coast to Coast radio:

George: OK, to the phones we go with Philip Plait, the Bad Astronomer! Let's go to Vermont! Hey Warren, you're on with Philip, go ahead!

Warren: Hello. I've got a question about the LHC at CERN. You said it can't produce black holes but the safety report was based on a paper by Giddings and Mangano, and Steven Giddings himself coined the term "black hole factory" to describe the LHC. These guys are string theorists, and if string theory is correct, then they could create miniblack holes.

George: Mini mini mini black holes I guess, Philip, but the question is will these miniblack holes grow enough to gobble us up?

Phil: Well, there are a lot of different ways of looking at it. One is that according to the theory, if there are eleven dimensions, and things work out just right--and and and--you might create these tiny, little black holes. And by tiny I mean far smaller than even a subatomic particle. This was the original idea. There was some traction to it, and so a lot of physicists kept looking into this. I mean this was a serious thing. I think they were more interested into looking it not because it was dangerous, but because they were just really curious about the math and the science of it. What they found later, these reports went back and they found that "No it doesn't look like we can create these black holes." I don't have the actual, the complete details of this, but I've seen some of these papers.

Even if you could create a black hole--and I'm not going to concede that point--according to all the laws of physics that we understand right now, these things are so tiny that they would literally evaporate in a fraction of a second. They wouldn't be able to hold themselves together because of this phenomenon called "Hawking radiation", which is this idea that Stephen Hawking came up with which is phenomenally complicated, but seems to smarter people than me who understand it--I actually describe it in my book--I don't understand the details of it to be able to work with it as a professional researcher, but I understand it well enought to describe it in the book at least, and these things would just basically evaporate instantly.

Even if they don't evaporate--now remember every time I say "even if", we're taking another step into probabilities here--but even if they don't evaporate, they're so tiny that they could fall right through the Earth and sit in the center of the Earth and never encounter a subatomic particle close enough to be able to swallow it. So they would actually never grow. To them, even the densest part of the core of the Earth would be like a hard vacuum is to us.

And so when you go through all these things, and also the fact that even if you did create a black hole, because of the way particle streams are smashing into each other in the collider, basically the velocity that would be given to this black hole would be enough for it to basically leave the Earth. And so it wouldn't even be able to fall to the center of the Earth. It's not like two cars heading into a collision headon, with exactly the same speed and stopping. If one car is moving slightly faster than the other, they're going to keep moving in some direction. But in this case, you're talking about several miles per second, which is enough to blast this thing right through the Earth--and gone!

So, no matter what level you look at this, I don't think that any of this black hole stuff is a danger even if you could them. So I'm not too concerned about this.

George: Sure . . .

Thank's Warren Platts.

I had not listened to the Call In portion.

So I learned something new.

I, too, had thought that a black hole, if created, would fall (eventually) to the center of the Earth.
I was not aware that is not necessarily the case, but that they would have initial velocity.
So in other words, The probability is against them even Remaining here at all.

I'm not a big fan of String theory so I won't comment on that much. I had my fun reading Kaku (Whom I still admire and respect) but in the end, just didn't find myself agreeing with it very much.

Why are you smiling, Warren? The quotes you just posted PROVED YOU ARE WRONG!

I find it truly astounding that you could post them with a straight face as though they were evidence that CERN could be dangerous...

When in fact, they prove that CERN is 100% harmless.

(bold mine in all quotes)

Quote:

Warren: 1. if string theory is correct, then they could create miniblack holes.

Quote:

Phil: Well, there are a lot of different ways of looking at it. One is that according to the theory, 2. if there are eleven dimensions, and things work out just right--and and and--you might create these tiny, little black holes. And by tiny I mean far smaller than even a subatomic particle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Plait They wouldn't be able to hold themselves together because of this phenomenon called "Hawking radiation" ...and these things would just basically evaporate instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Plait 3. if they don't evaporate--now remember every time I say "even if", we're taking another step into probabilities here--but even if they don't evaporate, they're so tiny that they could fall right through the Earth and sit in the center of the Earth and 4. never encounter a subatomic particle close enough to be able to swallow it. So they would actually never grow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Plait And so when you go through all these things, and also the fact that even 5. if you did create a black hole, because of the way particle streams are smashing into each other in the collider, basically the velocity that would be given to this black hole would be enough for it to basically leave the Earth. And so it wouldn't even be able to fall to the center of the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize:

CERN cannot create a Dangerous Planet Eating Black Hole because:

1. Chances are CERN won't be capable of making a black hole of any kind due to hardware limitations..

2. BUT may be able to create a particle-sized black hole IF string theory is correct.

3. The infinitesimally small black hole will probably evaporate through Hawking Radiation, in the unlikely event it is created.

4. The size of the hole makes it comparable to a single star compared to an entire galaxy (a single particle compared to the hundreds of billions of particles that make up an object). A star cannot draw the rest of the galaxy in with its gravity because the distances between stars are simply too staggeringly high. By the same token, a single particle can not destroy a macro-object with hundreds of billions of particles.

Thus, the mini black hole never gets any larger.

5. It's highly probable that most or all black holes that could be created by a particle collider would be moving so quickly upon creation that they'll be flung off the Earth entirely.

In short...

Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER??

Not at all.

You're full of it, Warren.

__________________

Hey, I just thought all you Bad Astronomer groupies out there would find interesting what Phil had to say--as I did. That doesn't mean I agree with him. I don't, but haven't really had time yet to dissect his answer to my question yet.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can say that again!!!! Good one!

Well, Phil at one point in the program said he didn't have a clue if string theory is true or not. 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%

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. 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"). 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%

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%.

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%


In short... the overall probability of potential problematicity is:

0.214 x 0.135 x 0.667 x 0.99 = 1.9%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunk Vegan Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER?? Not at all.

Only if you consider an expectation of death of ~ 100,000,000 people to be nonproblematic (6 x 10⁹ people x 1.9%). . . .

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. You would be helping us out, since CERN absolutely refuses to publish their own estimate for p_catastrophe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunk Vegan You're full of it, Warren.

Full of what exactly?

Sorry, but pulling numbers out of your, um, rear, is not a way of getting an accurate expectation of death. As there is no valid scientific justification for your claimed probability figures, everything based on them is a load of bunk.

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

Uhhh... Does anyone?
Ok... So we're supposed to take these figures that you just made up seriously?
They stood on eachothers heads?
9% of 15 is 1.35.
So was that one physicist and Hawking himself?
Ok so anyway- Very few people disagree with Hawkings theory.
How? Tell us HOW it can result in Catastrophe Warren Platts.
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."
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.
Let's leave out 21D and throw in a toaster and call it 69%.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?
I'm assuming that you're still assuming they won't evaporate.
Which is mostly invented by using figures you made up and using statistics that don't exist in statistical mathematics.
Yep- Time to jump back on the Doomssayer soapbox...

A little?
Or more than YOUR Justifications?
Yes and the Apollo astronauts refuse to address concerns about p_hoaxed!.

Neverfly, feel free to try and figure out your own subjective probabilities. Let me know what you come up with!

ok. Sure, no problem.

Yeah, just as I thought. . . .

Go ahead and pull your own numbers out of wherever. At least I provided a justification for each number I offered.

I'm afraid that you're afraid to go into "probability mode" as John Ellis put it. Because once you try to quantify the risk--you lose. . . .

ETA: that goes for you too, Neverfly.

No. What You Do Not understand is that the factors involved to calculate a probability are gignormous. Either way, the p_catastrophe is still vanishingly small.

The last time I tried doing that, I left none of my justifications and it came out to like 1¹⁸. That was before I learned that most black holes (If Made At All) will shoot into space.
Plus, it's ironic, that you tried factoring in a supposed 9% of 15 physicists that disagreed with Hawking, but you did NOT factor in a number for how many physicists disagree with string.

You're pulling numbers out of a skunks rectum and trying to spray Elizabeth Taylor on them and pass them off on us.

No, Warren Platts, I am not going to play your little game. Neither you, nor I, are qualified to 'calculate' out the odds. Least of all you. Considering your extreme bias while you PRETEND to be fair.

Your p_catastrophe is nonsense. Now you are daring others to play with nonsense too.
Get over it.

That apparently depends on one's biases, right?

Check out Giddings & Mangano's Figure 12. (page 83) It clearly shows that depending on the choice of parameters up to 10's of thousands mBH's could be trapped by the Earth.

No, no, no! The poll asked each physicist to assign a subjective probability that the Hawking radiation theory will prove to be false (don't forget that it's never been observed in nature). Their responses ranged from 0% to 50%; the 9% was obtained by adding all of the probabilities together, and then dividing by 15.

No I'm just trying to get you to wake up and smell the coffee.

I'd happily farm out the task of calculating p_catastrophe. Unfortunately, the CERN people won't do it themselves. Why do you suppose that is???

I'll tell you why. It's because the value of Mother Earth is, for our practical purposes, infinite. They know there's no way they can come up with a defensible estimate of p_catastrophe that would be less than 10^-21.

Not when practically every scientific theory that was written in the past later turned out to be false.

Not when articles are retracted from scientific journals at rates ranging from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100.

Not when the physicists themselves are bickering over little things like string theory and Hawking radiation.

In other words, the CERN people are smart enough to know that the LHC cannot pass muster when the tools of classical risk analysis are applied to the LHC.

So that's why a proper risk analysis--a.k.a. cost-benefit analysis--was never done.

That's why the CERN people limit the discussion to esoteric physics.

That's why the CERN never bothered to estimate the value of Mother Earth.

I've seen John Ellis on TV openly criticize the technique of calculating expectation (that's simply multiplying p_catastrophe by the Total Value of Mother Earth). It's no wonder he hates doing that--it would mean his precious collider would be SHUT DOWN. But what does he know? He's just a physicist. A geek in other words, with a narrow education. As Celestial Mechanic has admitted, physicists are not required to take any ethics classes. Hell, even lawyers are required to take at least one ethics class. Just ask Geonuc.

So that's why the CERN people are so deathly afraid that their actual arguments might get tested in court. That's why their lawyers have used every procedural trick in the book to to ensure that the actual science is not entered into the court record where it might actually get judged. They know that if the LHC fell into the hands of a smart judge like the Honorable Richard Posner, the LHC might just get SHUT DOWN.

That's why they were in such a hurry to get the darned thing up and running. (Too much of a hurry it turns out! ) They wanted to make it a fait accompli before some court somewhere says the LHC MUST BE SHUT DOWN!

You can only say that if you believe the techniques of modern risk analysis are bunk. I guess you're in good company. But is an actual argument why that is the case too much to ask?

Great! Everyone can have their own as a trinket. It'll help fund the NEXT particle collider!

For only $10,000, own your own microblackhole in a box!

Heck, we could sell them to the New Agers, claiming that having a micro black hole around will homeopathically cure your headaches. Or something.

It's about the only thing I can think of to be done with these black holes, since they can't actually do anything themselves.

__________________

isn't that just a bit 'Ad Hom'

__________________
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 ►

Actually yes. I question his credentials for questioning modern risk analysis theory. Expertise in physics gives one no special expertise in any other area of human intellectual endeavor. And there's nothing wrong with being a geek, in itself. Heck, it's downright fashionable these days to be a geek. That wasn't intended as an insult. If I wanted to insult Dr. Ellis, I would have called him a "nerd" instead. Nevertheless, geekness carries with it a certain not-the-most-worldly connotation that I did intend to convey. There is a lot more than mere physics to this whole LHC story.

Yours?
Because you have presented an extremely biased case here...

Depending on the choice of parameters...
You seem to have taken "Choice of parameters" to a whole new level.

Thank you for explaining that.
I also notice that you clipped off and did not address my question as to why you did not factor in how many physicists disagree with String Theory.

Anyway- this is more bunk than before.

Ok so 15 physicists (WHO?!) were polled. They had the option of giving a percentage based answer on how likely Hawking Radiation is.
So if a particular physicist wasn't sure on the issue and gave it a 50/50- That was added up to equal 9%?!
Do you realize how ludicrous it is that you factored that into your statistics as a Real Figure?
Even More so since you didn't use another ludicrous figure to cover how probably String Theory is?

No, you're enjoying a doomsday Prophecy.

Each time you do it- you come up with totally different figures too.
Because they already know what's going on.
Why don't Apollo Astronauts pander to the likes of Bart Sibrel?! Why do you suppose that is?!



Like what?
What SCIENTIFIC theory has been proven false?

And don't even try that Flat Earth nonsense...

You attempted this claim before (Or was it Thomhgeg? Anyway...) and it's been debunked.

Hardly.
Yes and NASA knows that if it addresses all those outlandish Hoagland claims about Mars, they won't pass the Conspiracy Scrutiny.
The Apollo astronauts won't interview with Sibrel and Percy anymore because they know that they will get exposed as frauds.

And I'm a giant Fungus disguised as a human scoping out your planet as a possible source of food for my people.

You claim this as FACT?!
Using my example above-
So that's why NASA never addresses All the outlandish claims- those claims must be True.
Oh come on... How do they "limit" it?

Yeah- In US Dollars

Oh, by the way- with the Stock Market acting the way it is- I hope you have adjusted your US Dollar Value of the Earth...

Ok, not only was that an Ad Hom, but you are now claiming that Ellis LACKS ETHICS AND DOESN'T CARE IF HE DESTROYS THE WORLD.
Warren Platts- You SERIOUSLY need to get a grip on reality. You're so caught up in you "cause" that you're allowing your imagination to do your thinking for you.

Look at this entire post you just made. It's the epitome of HB, CT, ATM and Hoagland type thinking through and through.
You make wild and outlandish claims and accusations. You state your assumptions as facts.
It is so filled with Logical Fallacies that I doubt I could sit here and identify them all.

Would you like some cheese?

Oh... Incidentally... I notice that you failed to address me as Master.

From Yoggoth?

__________________
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 ►

Oh, are you one too?


Sheesh out of that whole long diatribe- that was what caught your eye?

The probability of string theory being accurate, from string theorist Jim Gates view, is far lower than what has been posted on this board. Gates has the math for a string theory that does not require extra dimensions at all.

According to Gates, if supersymmetric particles are not realized by the LHC, string theory is falsified. If the lightest supersymmetric particle ( the LSP and which all the other, heavier supersymmetric particles are calculated to have decayed into and given us dark matter) turns out to be a squark, then it will be over 300 years before the technology will be advanced enought to possibly falsifiy string theory, provided technology continues to advance at the present rate.

24 months ago two Princeton physicists published a paper claiming that they had the math to describe the behavior of quarks at room temperature, whether those quarks are in rocks or flowers at sunrise or anything else. The science community has been waiting for some follow up and nothing has come.

If string theory cannot be falsified even 300 years from now, I still hold very heavy doubts that any mBHs will be formed in the LHC. The solar wind has far greater energy collisions than the LHC and should have far higher probabilities to create billions of mBHs if the LHC has the capability of producing one. That same solar wind has been bashing up against our magnetosphere and atmosphere for 4 billion years+. And now some of you think that you are in danger? We should have been eaten up long ago.

After the first wood and stone cart was invented thousands of years ago, I am sure that some trough-like slope was an experimental ground where some wishful thinking soul thought that he could reach the moon if enough people gave it a real big push. After all, all his other primitive calculations were accurate, weren't they? All those other rocks and boulders couldn't make it cuz they didn't have enough zip. Look at all those meteor showers that gave them the false impression that someone some place else did give it the extra oompf required.

Enough people did give it a 'realy big push' and they reached the moon!

__________________
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 ►

I hate to interrupt a good scrap, but I hope I can add something about 'modern risk analysis'. In almost all financial firms I know of, 'modern risk analysis' has replaced 'old risk analysis' (common sense). I've done some work with it myself. The problem as I see it, is that:

It is all too easy to select the right kind of garbage input, such that the garbage coming out is of the desired smell and consistency.

This is just from finance of course, but reading some of the posts above, I get the feeling it's not so different when it comes to the LHC...

The last figure was high, granted, because I applied it to Drunk Vegan's safety guarantee scenario, and he left out the white dwarf exclusion factor. Also, the 9% was the average subjective probability that the Hawking radiation theory will turn out to be false. But since the data was skewed, I should probably use the median value, and that was 2%. But that won't materially affect the bottom line.

But the white dwarf/neutron star argument cannot guarantee the safety of the LHC to a reasonable certainty because:

• the white dwarf exclusion theory depends on the validity of extending the semiclassical approximation to mBH's existing deep within the quantum gravitational regime;
• the vast majority of white dwarfs are protected from cosmic rays by powerful magnetic fields;
• Eddington limited black holes that would be dangerous for the Earth could exist within white dwarfs, and we wouldn't know it;
• indeed, the population of white dwarfs tends to be slightly hotter than theory would predict; the slight discrepancy is usually explained away as selection bias, but it is also consistent with the idea that Eddington limited black holes might be providing a supplementary power source for white dwarfs;
• neutron star gobbling black holes have in fact been proposed as an explanation for hitherto unexplained gamma ray bursts;
• indeed, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe it's the case that most if not all neutron stars that have been detected exist in other galaxies that are far away, and hence far back in time; neutron stars within the Milky Way are exceedingly rare, if they exist at all; this is consistent with the idea that neutron stars are in fact disappearing for some reason.

Yes, it is the case that a quantitative risk analysis was never done. Show me the quantitative estimate for p_catastrophe in the LSAG report. It's not there.

You keep bringing this up as if it were somehow blasphemous to put a dollar value on Mother Earth. And I actually agree with you. Indeed, I'm uncomfortable with pegging the value of our Mother to individual human lives because that leads to all sorts of paradoxes. For example, and leaving aside the problem of discounting future generations, is it really the case that Earth would be worth ten times more than it is now if there were 60 billion people rather than 6 billion? Or that an Earth with 600 million people would be worth ten times less? No, I think the value of Mother Earth is largely independent of its human denizens. According to the Prime Directive, it is not right that we "mess" with the evolution of planets with rich biospheres. In other words, it would not be right for us to do potentially problematic as in world-destroying experiments on other planets that harbored rich biospheres. Therefore, it is not right that we conduct such experiments on Earth. The mere fact that every single specimen of Homo sapiens exists here on Earth is irrelevant to that ethical fact.

Maybe it would be different if there were some overriding social value that would come out of the LHC. And please don't mention PET scanners again. If we really need better PET scanners, then give the billions of euros to PET scanner engineers rather than particle physicists. No, the best social value that we can hope for from the LHC is that one morning while we're driving to work, the BBC will come on the radio and say "Physicists at the Long Hadron Collider at CERN report that they have finally discovered the elusive Higgs boson", and then we'll all get to experience a collective "Golly-gee-whiz-that's-really-neat" moment in between yawns. If we're really lucky, Philip Glass will write us another opera.

The original deal was I would address you as Master if you would call me Warren or Mr. Platts, instead addressing me "Warren Platts" as if I were some kind of Lee Harvey Oswald psycho-freak. It's kind of off-putting. You reneged on the deal first.

I think you're wrong about the solar wind: the particles in the solar wind don't have nearly energy that cosmic rays have.

Very good point Mr. Street. The "Perfect Storm" of worldwide financial meltdown was never supposed to happen. The best minds money can buy assured us that the global economy was "decoupled" so a crisis in one area wouldn't spread everywhere. Instead we get a 500-year flood of misbegotten assumptions and bad ideas. That's what happens when everyone at once comes down with a bad case of overconfidence bias. Let's hope that the quants at CERN are smarter than the quants of Wall Street. Unfortunately, there's no real reason for that assumption. . . .

LOL ok, there was never Any Such Deal made and...

Warren Platts is Your Own Chosen User Name.

I guess you didn't hear about a newbie cargo master who decided it would make his life easier if he rounded the weights of all the pallets of cargo going on C-130's to the nearest 500 pound mark. Happened when I was in the Navy. The first pilot he would have hosed noticed the round numbers and asked.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

OK if he rounded up.

__________________
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 ►

I predict that if the LHC does destroy the earth, cockroaches and this thread will survive just fine.