Hey Fazor, I think Gillianren is going to have a field day with post #1654 if she reads this thread...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

It's been introduced in CT as a new thread (maybe a mod can merge that into here?)

If you read the article, the three researches state that even if they are right, the longer-lasting mBH's will still pass through the earth without event, and pose no threat. The doom and gloom has all been added by the author of the article.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I'm sure she's use to it by now. It gets even worse when I type in a hurry.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Nobody is perfect... (hint: you did it again).

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Yeh, I didn't mention it there, but the fact that scientists know or don't know doesn't change the event.

I'm comfortable knowing that this happens plenty of time naturally without us knowing how long, and that there isn't a disaster.

Did learning about continental drift increase the danger of earthquakes?
Did learning about rocks from the sky increase the danger of craters?
Did learning that we go around the sun change the daylight?

Sorry; but I know that scientists can be wrong, but those comments don't even make sense because that was a learning process, not a creation process.

I'd agree with that too.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Sorry; but I know that scientists can be wrong, but those comments don't even make sense because that was a learning process, not a creation process.
That was the funniest part. The author points to irrelevant "wrongness" that you described better than I could as a learning process. Sure, the LHC could be a learning process aswell, but don't give stupid examples. At least list examples like Marie Curie. Something that turned out bad in some way, at least. :-P

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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

I would also recommend this paper, by Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg, concerning the risks associated with potentially wrong scientific theories in potentially dangerous situations.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.5515.pdf
They mention the errors associated with the Castle Bravo nuclear test in 1954, where the yield was 15 megatons instead of 4-8. That test unexpectedly showed that lithium can be converted to tritium near a fusion reaction; that reaction unfortunately increased the yield enough to cause massive fallout leading to the death of a fisherman. The theory was, in this case wrong; it could be again.

The LHC is a low-risk, high stakes venture; the magnitude of this low risk must be fully examined and understood before the most controversial experiments are performed, because the stakes are high, not because the risk is high.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

This is the conclusion of the paper:
And apparently, the longer life for the black holes is from a particular model

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

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

(The fact that my prophecy about not being able to understand the paper was right, I have submitted it to JREF for my prize)

Yeah, that's about what I gathered though I couldn't speak for any of the proofs within. The worst part is that it even says that's what the conclusion was in the article, the author adds that it increases the probability of catastrophe, not the paper. IMHO that borders on criminal misrepresentation. Bah.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Clearly, the FoxNews.com piece is an editorial: the conclusions they state that go beyond the Casadio and Harms paper are clearly stated as the opinion of FoxNews.com:

FoxNews.com can think of a few other things that didn't seem possible once — . . . that scientists could be horribly wrong.

We're also wondering how often the LHC might create individual black holes, . . . [that would be 1 per second]

If the worst comes to pass, and there's now a slightly greater chance that it might, at least it might explain why we've never heard from extraterrestrial civilizations: Maybe they built Large Hadron Colliders of their own.

Also they don't state that catastrophe will necessarily happen.

And the reference to the Great Silence is apropos--and that's something that hasn't really been discussed much in this thread. Think about it: if other extraterrestrial civilizations destroyed themselves, they probably didn't do it on purpose. Probably, their scientists assured everybody that everything would be OK. Perhaps, we should learn from their experience and take advantage of the miracle of September 19th.


According to my calculations on post #1630 (p. 55), collisions between two TeV energy-level cosmic rays happen about once every ~270 billion years.
Did learning about thermonuclear devices increase the danger of nuclear winter?
Did learning how to genetically engineer small pox to make it even more virulent increase the danger of a pandemic?

Obviously; you didn't pick up on my meaning and only framed the examples and not the statement. Fazor seems to have picked up on it.

I was commenting on the particular examples they gave as being irrelevant because the scientists are not "fiddling" with the process.

Yours are much more relevant. If they used those, then I wouldn't have mentioned it.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

dirty G, just what exactly is supposed to be dangerous about the LHC? You're links mentions black holes, but nothing else. And a black hole the mass of two atmoic nuclei, is going to last approximately 1x10-25 of a second before it evaporates.

About the only thing it will suck up it seems is a lot of unwarrented fear.

To try and put things in perspective for you. The LHC is going to lob two particles at near light spdeds at each other. If we go with the heaviest particle planed lead nuclei, its two particles moving, each with relativistic energy of 574 TeV (Tera-Electon Volts). Aassuming all the energy is converted to a black hole (which would not be the case). The resulting black hole would have the equivlent energy of 0.0000000001839299575 watt seconds. This is far far less energy then the leakage of current through the air from an empty power socket in your house.

Converted to mass the resulting black hole woule weight about 22 iron atoms. Or it would weigh about .000000001 of a speck of dust.

Even if such a black hole magically stabilized itself and didn't evaporate, and then sunk into the center of the earth. It Would take it over 12 trillion years for it to absorb enough mass to match the mass of the earths iron core. Most of that time is spent grown from something 22 atoms sized to about 2 kg weight, by absorbing free electrons at a time. Once it gets to about 2kg weight, it only takes about 100,000 years for it to accrete the rest of the iron core.

Our sun will have long long past gone red giant and died, before we'd have to woory about some magical stabalized mini black hole eating the earth.

__________________
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/

Dude, where have you been for the last 1,669 posts? dirty G rarely pops in here anymore: he's too busy spending quality time with his family while he still has the chance!

But here are a few links to get you back up to speed.

First, here's the Casadio et al. (2009) paper that's caused the recent stir. They've revisited their 2002 calculations and now conclude that mBH's could last several seconds: "the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly ≫ 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models"

Here's a brief synopsis of Casadio et al. from arXivblog.com, but at the end, the blogger asks the obvious: "That doesn’t sound good. Anybody at CERN care to clarify?" After a week, however, no one from CERN has cared to clarify so far as I have been able to tell. Don't feed the trolls!

However, Lubos Motl has weighed-in just today on Casadio et al. He says they need to return their undergraduate physics degrees!

The apparent mistake will provide fodder for Ord et al.'s (2008) arXiv paper that analyzes the probability theory behind risk estimates. (Thanks to eburacum45 for the link. ) They argue that the probability of mistakes in theories, models, and calculations swamp scientific estimates of low probability events.

The Ord et al. paper was picked up, surprisingly, in the latest issue of New Scientist, that bastion of anti-anti-science:

"We generally strive to become aware of what former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously called the 'known knowns' and the 'known unknowns', but are perilously ignorant of the 'unknown unknowns', and, worse, blithely unaware of our own ignorance. This becomes particularly dangerous when it hides flaws in an argument we are relying on for reassurance that potentially catastrophic events are virtually impossible."

Here's a news story from MSNBC and Space.com that attempts to correct the earlier Fox News editorial
, reassuring us that the LHC "probably" won't swallow the Earth. Very reassuring indeed!

And here's something new that's very interesting: the first sign that the CERN culture was the ultimate root cause of the Sept 19th disaster/miracle. The new LHC chief promises to be more cautious than his predecessor, noting, "But when you have been working on something for so long, with time you can become blinded by the system and don't find all the faults." Well, at least it is a step in the right direction. . . . BTW, has anyone seen any photographs of the damage? I was just curious what a destroyed collider looks like on the inside.

Well a portion of a second, or a few seconds doesn't really change what I said.

Even if a mini black hole was somehow to magicaly last forever, is so small and has such little gravity, it would take trillions of years for it to accrete enough matter to become a concern.

Which is basically what I was trying to point out.

__________________
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/

Where does your link say that CERN culture was the root cause? what do you mean by 'disaster/miracle?'

What does an undiscovered mechanical fault have to do with your worries about black holes dooming the Earth?

__________________
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 ►

All 4 of those pages are by the same author, with no scientific credentials provided. Fearmongering only. Not credible.

Author: "Anonymous" Again, not credible.

Summary of all of the above links: Don't believe most of what you read on the internet.

My own spin: If we (homo sapiens) can create it here in a laboratory, there's no reason not to assume that it has existed as some point in the history of the universe. If it didn't destroy everything then, it won't do so now.

Besides, if it's going to instantly destroy everything and everyone, who cares? Just as long as it doesn't kill me and give you my Playboy collection.

It doesn't. I said the link was the first sign that the CERN culture was the ultimate, root cause of the explosion that wrecked 3 km of the tunnel. That's just basic safety: to look beyond the mechanical failure and see what possible human factors might be behind the mishap. E.g., consider NASA's safety reviews after the shuttle losses: there was a thorough analysis of the proximate, mechanical causes of the crises, and there was a thorough analysis of the NASA culture that also contributed to the accidents. E.g., political pressures to launch on time despite icicles hanging from rockets.

In the official CERN analyses (here's one that actually includes a couple of photos) there is no mention of human factors. As if the human factor did not play a role. Yet here we are with the new LHC chief being quoted as saying that he's going to be more cautious than his predecessor. As if to say that if his predecessor had been more cautious--and had not bent to political pressures to make the LHC a fait accompli--then perhaps the "incident" might never have occurred.

I was referring to the explosion of September 19th, of course. Whether one regards it as a disaster or a miracle depends on one's perspective.

It has to do with the CERN culture. Like the way they blame a busbar splice rather than themselves. Herr Heuer hit the nail on the head, though, when he said that when one has been working on a system for a long time, it's not hard to become blinded by that system and thus not find all the pinch points. CERN's fundamental problem has been that after ten years of patient building, now that they've got it built, they're in too much of a hurry. The mechanical "fault", as you put it, is evidence of this hurry. Might it thereby be possible that the theoretical safety argument has been hurried as well?

All this ignores the fact that 500 TeV is about .01% of the power of the 1 per square meter per year flux of cosmic rays, or .00001% the power of the 1 per square kilometer per year flux.

That means that there are nearly half a billion particles with ten million times the energy of the LHC hitting the Earth each year.

Last time I checked, the Earth hadnt been destroyed, so that would make it seem unlikely that we need to worry about the LHC.

You're right: that would make it seem unlikely; but you'd better check again: neutral mini-black holes produced by CR collisions are traveling at way past the escape velocity of the Earth (or the Sun for that matter) and would not get stopped. (cf. Giddings and Mangano [2008], p. 8-10).

In marked contrast, a significant percentage of mini-black holes produced by headon collisions within the LHC would have initial velocities less than the escape velocity of the Earth. These would get trapped (G&M Appendix F).

Yes. Here you go.
http://stephatcern.blogspot.com/2008...hc-damage.html

Nothing spectacular. Just some equipment moved out of it place by the malfunctioning magnets.

Oh, and there never was any explosion. The was a short circuit in one of the magnet devices resulting in an electric arc which punctured the encasing that contains the super cooled helium. When the helium was released the magnets were no longer cooled and behaved like they did. they moved the device out of its place. Nothing spectacular just a mechanical failure.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Considering that it would be really freakin obvious what was happening if cosmic rays were traversing the atmo, and considering that the Sun could stop a fairly energetic ray, it is still silly to worry about black holes created by the LHC.

How is ten years too much of a hurry? Are you saying they shouldn't have turned it on when they thought it was ready? Finding faults like this is part of the commissioning process. When should they have turned it on? How could they have ensured that there would be no small hidden fault in such a huge machine? I axpect there will be many similar incidents over the next few years as the system shakes down. Like the new Destroyer just commissioned by the RN. As far as the manufacturers and crew are concerned it's finished and in service but there will be a whole list of problems and faults to be rectified before it's an effective ship. Should they just keep it in harbour?

__________________
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 ►

The Sun can easily stop charged cosmic rays, but it cannot stop a cosmic ray-produced, neutral mini-black hole. From page 28 of the above article:

Any questions?

For one thing--these days at least--all British sailors are volunteers, even though they are not made of iron anymore. Nevertheless, in a worst case scenario, the loss of the destroyer with all hands would be a tragedy, to be sure, but hardly a global catastrophe. In a worst case scenario with the LHC, on the other hand, the Entire Planet would be lost: Homeland, Motherland, Fatherland--you name it. So to answer your question, if I thought there was the slightest chance that a new destroyer would take the Entire Planet with it when it sank, I would recommend not that it be mothballed, but that it be dismantled in its entirety.

Sorry, I don't see how a potential fault with the hardware of the LHC would destroy the planet! What you are saying is ther LHC should never be turned on.

As you admitted in a previous post your arguments are emotional ones not scientific why should they carry any weight?

__________________
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 ►

So Warren, you're saying that Heuer's statement "I'm a bit more carefull in that respect than my predicessor." is hinting at a CERN culture of secrecy and fear of coming forward in opposition of the LHC?

From the article that Warren linked (link) and attributed to "the hidden CERN culture", here's the full context of that particular quote:
(my underlines)

I think it's quite clear he's referring to the hardware and being sure the hardware functions properly. He's not talking about the particle collisions and the expected/possible results of the tests themselves. Basically, it seems Heuer feels that there weren't enough checks of the system, not the physics, before it was turned on. He wants to make sure that every screw is tightened and every weld is solid. You're reading more into it because you want to read more into it.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Why do say you that? Just because I sometimes write things like:

SMELL THE
COFFEE!!!

THESE ARE
BLACK HOLES
PEOPLE!!!

Honestly, where did I say my argument is emotional in the nonscientific sense?

THESE ARE BLACK HOLES PEOPLE!!!

No they are not. And no amount of stating that they are because you want them to be s going to change the fact that the official description of them is "A Fireball that exhibits many of the same properties as a black hole".

Which is your clue that it is not a true black hole, as a fireball emits -Light-, A Black hole does not as its escape velosity is faster then light.

Ergo, as light escapes these collider fireballs, they are not Black Holes.

__________________
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/

The probability of a neutral black hole being the product of an interaction is zero. The process of loosing the charge or color of the hole would result in a rather obvious burst of radiation. That is what they were talking about in the paper you referenced. That would be what I was talking about. That should have been pretty obvious.

Sorry, I meant to type your arguments are political, not emotional.

__________________
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 ►