Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER?? - Page 58

Warren Platts · #**1711** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

As soon as a BH accretes it's own electron shell, it's collision rates drop to that of normal matter.

At that point hawking radiation should take over and it would evaporate. But even if it somehow didn't it would take a long long time to accrete anymore matter.

I can't think of any mechanism that would prevent an atom sized black hole from acreeting it's own electron shell.

Of course a black hole will ingest electrons--though they prefer protons and neutrons. Electrons are more like dietary fiber--not much nutrient, but it aids digestion. But ingesting a bunch of electrons would give the mBH a superstrong Coulomb force in addition to its gravity. The main idea is an mBH with an effective radius << 1 Angstrom is not like a meteoroid marooned in a stately solar system filled with mostly empty space with a few slowly moving objects. It would be more like if a football sized meteoroid were in a solar system where everything was moving chaotically at a quintillion times the speed of light. Thus the mBH would keep accreting matter even if it were at rest with respect to the center of the Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

Seems like a version of cherry picking.

Hey, I'm just trying to "listen to the data".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

Well, you did some cherry picking there, too, in an attempt to support your scenarios. So, I picked a couple of cherries that seem not to support you:
* Plaga doesn't make any sense.
* The evaporation rate by Hawking radiation (which you seem to accept now) is 10²⁰ faster than the mBH growth rate.
* And "velocities of objects that were flying near the black hole before it was there are higher than the velocities that can reasonably be obtained by the black hole's gravitational action," which would seem to say the mBH can't capture them.

Good points. However, according to the Precautionary Principle, we are mainly interested in the worst-case scenarios, and that of necessity requires "cherry picking" the parameter space to see which combinations of parameters yield a catastrophic scenario. Ideally, there would be no combination of parameters that would yield a disaster. On the other hand, if there are, and these cannot be excluded by experiment, then they need to be taken seriously. Or so I would think anyway. But yes, I agree: I am a cherry picker.

Warren Platts · #**1712** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 07:39 PM

OK, I did some calculations and came up with some interesting results. According to my theory, you have to take into account the random, thermal movement of atoms when the mBH is at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. So modifying Casadio et al.'s formula dM/dt = π*v*ρ*R² to:

dM/dt = 4*π*v*ρ*R²

since the mBH will have molecules vibrating at it coming from all directions, we have to use the area of a sphere, rather than the cross-section, to calculate the accretion rate.

Now, going off of Casadio et al.'s (CFH) Table II, for the values M_c (the critical mass an mBH needs to go 4-D--I think) = 10⁶ kg and 10⁷ kg(the second and third lines, respectively). The chart shows the maximum masses mBH's would have under CHF's theory for various values of M_c, along with other parameters like the effective capture radius (R_EM).

Thus, one can calculate roughly the evaporation rate by dividing the maximum mass by the life expectancy. I can now calculate the accretion rate, where I assume v (the average thermal velocity of the surrounding iron atoms) = 2500 m s^-1 and ρ = 13,000 kg m^-3 (R = 1.6 x 10^-16 m and 2 x 10^-15 m, respectively):

Code:

for M_c = 10⁶, the evaporation rate is 2.9 x 10^-21 kg s^-1
for M_c = 10⁶, the accretion rate is   1.6 x 10^-22 kg s^-1

for M_c = 10⁷, the evaporation rate is 2.7 x 10^-22 kg s^-1
for M_c = 10⁷, the accretion rate is   1.6 x 10^-21 kg s^-1

As you can see, for the latter case, the accretion rate exceeds the evaporation rate. Thus, it does seem possible than an mBH could grow to catastrophic sizes. That's potentially problematic.

Swift · #**1713** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 08:05 PM

Ok, let me see if I got this right. For the case of Mc = 10⁷, the accretion rate minus the evaporation rate should be the rate at which the black hole grows, which would be 1.33 x 10^-21 kg/second.

If I did my math right, 10 billion years is 3.16 x 10¹⁷ seconds. So, as a first approximation (I suppose the rates changes as the BH gets bigger) in 10 billion years, the BH will have gained 0.0004 kg. According to google, the Earth weighs 5.97 x 10 ²⁴ kg, so that is 7.03 x 10 ^-27% of the Earth. Of course the sun will become a red giant in half that time... so what's the problem?

dgavin · #**1714** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 08:09 PM

Nice calculations! However I still need to point out, that you cannot discount that an atomic sized black hole would aquire it's own electron shell. As soon as it does this, it pushes other matter away from itself, the same way regular matter does.

This is what is not being accounted for.

Swift · #**1715** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 08:14 PM

I don't disagree, I just don't know. But, if that happens, it is even less of a problem.

By the way, the idea of black hole "atoms" is pretty cool. If you can put electron shells around BH nuclei, you could do BH chemistry, make BH compounds, etc.

dgavin · #**1716** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 08:24 PM

Well my reply was directed at Warren specifically, not you Swift.

But yes, it would make it even harder for an atom sized Black Hole to grow. Trillions of years instead of billions.

Basicaly I thought it 20 ways till sundown, but there is nothing to prevent a mini BH from aquiring an electron shell. Soon as it does, it starts behaving like a proper atoms.

Only real difference is that the BH holds onto the electrons via gravity alone, instead of the proton's positive charge and the necleous' gravity.

Other then that a mini BH would basically behave as a sort of necleous without any charge.

Swift · #**1717** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Only real difference is that the BH holds onto the electrons via gravity alone, instead of the proton's positive charge and the necleous' gravity.

Other then that a mini BH would basically behave as a sort of necleous without any charge.

I thought that black holes could have a charge. If one did, and it had a positive charge, wouldn't quantum mechanics start to apply too?

Warren Platts · #**1718** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Well my reply was directed at Warren specifically, not you Swift.

But yes, it would make it even harder for an atom sized Black Hole to grow. Trillions of years instead of billions.

Basicaly I thought it 20 ways till sundown, but there is nothing to prevent a mini BH from aquiring an electron shell. Soon as it does, it starts behaving like a proper atoms.

Only real difference is that the BH holds onto the electrons via gravity alone, instead of the proton's positive charge and the necleous' gravity.

Other then that a mini BH would basically behave as a sort of necleous without any charge.

A. Without a positive charge to the mBH, the electrons would repel each other;

B. Any acquired positive charge would be discharged instantly through Schwinger radiation.

Your proposal is interesting and creative, but I don't think it could get off the ground without a positive charge to the mBH.

dgavin · #**1719** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

I thought that black holes could have a charge. If one did, and it had a positive charge, wouldn't quantum mechanics start to apply too?

I hadn't heard of this, but if it had a positive charge then it would definatly fall into the quantum realm. And be even more likely to attract electrons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

A. Without a positive charge to the mBH, the electrons would repel each other;

B. Any acquired positive charge would be discharged instantly through Schwinger radiation.

Your proposal is interesting and creative, but I don't think it could get off the ground without a positive charge to the mBH.

A. Not so. Given enough gravity, the gravity would function similar to the electroweak + gravitational attraction of a normal nuecleous. Force is force, doesn't really matter what the source is. Electrons would assume thier shells/orbits (Probability clouds). I expect though the coulds would be radicaly different then normal matter at similar energy states.

But the point I was making was not proposing a new form of BH matter, but that a sub automic sized BH, would be constrained by quantum interactions, and not normal interactions.

And that this was missing from those peoples considerations, and it shouldn't be.

But it looks like you undid your own concerns about fast mini BH growth with good math, so probably this point is now moot.

Swift · #**1720** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift
I thought that black holes could have a charge. If one did, and it had a positive charge, wouldn't quantum mechanics start to apply too?

I hadn't heard of this, but if it had a positive charge then it would definatly fall into the quantum realm. And be even more likely to attract electrons.

From the wikipedia article on BHs (I've also read it elsewhere)

Quote:

According to the "No Hair" theorem a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge and angular momentum.[17]

Since charge is one of the properties, I assume a BH can have a positive or negative charge.

Warren Platts · #**1721** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

Ok, let me see if I got this right. For the case of Mc = 10⁷, the accretion rate minus the evaporation rate should be the rate at which the black hole grows, which would be 1.33 x 10^-21 kg/second.

If I did my math right, 10 billion years is 3.16 x 10¹⁷ seconds. So, as a first approximation (I suppose the rates changes as the BH gets bigger) in 10 billion years, the BH will have gained 0.0004 kg. According to google, the Earth weighs 5.97 x 10 ²⁴ kg, so that is 7.03 x 10 ^-27% of the Earth. Of course the sun will become a red giant in half that time... so what's the problem?

I did some more calculations. You probably will not like the results. Originally I argued that

dM/dt = 4 * π* v * ρ * R²

where R is the effective capture radius of the black hole. Thus mass as a function of time would be

M = (dM/dt) * t

Now the 4 * π* v * ρ part of the equation doesn't change under my scenario, so we can regard it as a constant for our present purposes.

C_w = 4 * π* v * ρ = 4.08 x 10⁸ kg m^-2 s^-1

where v = 2,500 m s^-1 and ρ = 13,000 kg m^-3.

First I solve for CFH's equation (23) substituting the atomic mass of iron atoms (9.27 x 10^-26 kg each), since in my scenario the mBH will be trapped in the Earth's core somewhere.

Then I solve for eq. (22), which I then use to obtain the constant C_em in equation (24) (R = C_em * M^1/4), deriving a value of C_em = 2.89 x 10^-8 m.

Now for a little algebra:

M = (dM/dt) * t

M = (C_wR²) * t

M = C_w * (C_em * M^1/4)² * t

M = C_w * C_em² * M^1/2 * t

M * M^-1/2 = C_w * C_em² * t

M^1/2 = C_w * C_em² * t

M = C_w² * C_em⁴ * t²

M = 1.16 x 10 ^-13 * t²

t = (M / 1.16 x 10^-13)^1/2

Now, according CFH, the mBH will start evolving on a 4-D basis when it reaches a mass on the order of kilograms. Thus setting M = 1 kg, then it would take 2.9 x 10⁶ s (< 1 month) to achieve a mass of 1 kg. If we go with an M_c of 10⁷ kg, then it would take 9.3 x 10⁹ s to achieve M_c. That's about 300 years.

Of course we'll all be dead in half that time. So what's the problem?

CAVEAT: According to Ord et al. there is a 1 in 1,000 chance that I made an error in my calculations above!

dgavin · #**1722** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 08:29 PM

Warren, Problems I see with equasions as you presented them.

There is no Accounting of Gravity, Distance, and atom motions all of which are likely to prevent atoms from even impacting or getting close the the black hole. Your equasions seem to assume that all matter that is close will be pulled in and absorbed. That isn't the case at the atomic/quantum level.

There is no Accounting for Objects in the process of being captured, from preventing other objects from getting close. Atom1, in a death spiral into BH, still has electron shell, which deflects atom 2 away from itself and the BH.

Overall the equasions need to be reworked to account for the Probability of atom-atom collisions based on temperature first, (modified to remove the electron shell repulsion of normal matter)

Once you have the probibility of collision (Pc) at temp t, over time T, then you can work this into your existing equasions. However you'll likely get a result more in line with billions or trillions of years, unless the BH mass starts out as a few kg's.

This is what I meant before about accouting for quantum interactions. Those are all probibility based, and the person writing that paper is totaly ignoring them.

Which you can't. If something is as small, (or Smaller) then an atom, then quantum rules always apply. Even to Black Holes. Which means the absorbsion rates will be based on the result of probibility of a collision over some time first.

Not to mention a whole slew of motion, charge, and other force interactions not accounted for in his paper.

Warren Platts · #**1723** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Warren, Problems I see with equations as you presented them.

There is no Accounting of Gravity, Distance, and atom motions all of which are likely to prevent atoms from even impacting or getting close the the black hole. Your equasions seem to assume that all matter that is close will be pulled in and absorbed. That isn't the case at the atomic/quantum level.

I do in fact take into account gravity (it's too weak to be a major factor), distance (less than an atomic diameter) and atom motions (I calculated that iron atoms vibrate with an average velocity of 2500 m/s). I also don't assume that all matter that is close will be pulled in and absorbed. I assume that matter that directly collides with the mBH will be absorbed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

There is no Accounting for Objects in the process of being captured, from preventing other objects from getting close. Atom1, in a death spiral into BH, still has electron shell, which deflects atom 2 away from itself and the BH.

The gravitational event horizon is much smaller than an atomic nucleus, so you won't have atoms gravitationally orbiting the mBH in some sort of a death spiral that knocks other atoms out of the way.

ETA: the one thing that would inhibit the influx of matter would be the radiation released by matter as it gets sucked into the mBH. This is the Eddington limited scenario, which has it's own problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Overall the equasions need to be reworked to account for the Probability of atom-atom collisions based on temperature first, (modified to remove the electron shell repulsion of normal matter)

This I did: the probability that a surrounding atom will run into the mBH within 1 second is 1. It's like being an asteroid in a solar system where all the objects don't obey Newton's laws, but instead move around chaotically at 10¹⁵c (c =the speed of light).

dgavin · #**1724** (**permalink**) 04-February-2009, 02:33 AM

the probability that a surrounding atom will run into the mBH within 1 second is 1. It's like being an asteroid in a solar system where all the objects don't obey Newton's laws, but instead move around chaotically at 10¹⁵c (c =the speed of light).

I think there is a problem here, even particles undergoing fusion in the sun are no where near moving at a relativistic speed of 10¹⁵c.

Referensing the correct Temerature to Motion fomula found here

Where
kb = 6504*10^-023
T = 7000Kelvin
m = 9.4*10^-026 (mass of iron atom in kg)

Solves to
v~ = 69594.57

Vel = 120541.33 m/s

120541.33 m/s is a heck of a lot different from 299792458000000000000000 m/s (10¹⁵c)

Conversley at the corrected average velosity, it all calulates out to take 746,115,342,900,001,000,000 years for a 1 iron atom massed BH to reach a problematic mass.

Warren Platts · #**1725** (**permalink**) 04-February-2009, 03:28 AM

No, No. You completely misunderstood me. My fault I'm sure. My point was that the picture we get of these mBH's is like they're this tiny asteroid lost in a vast solar system where they are surrounded by stately moving giants. Sure collisions happen, but not very often. But if the planets were not bound by the speed of light and Newton's laws and instead moved chaotically many times the speed of light, then the collision rate would go up. This is sort of like the situation an mBH faces when inside the center of the Earth, except that nothing moves relativistically. I was just trying to create a visual explanation. Forget I said it.

As for your velocity calculation, I think k_B should be 1.38 x 10^-23 J K^-1. Also I think you also may have forgot to take the square root. I recalculated the mean speed, and got a value of 1.7 km s^-1 (see footnote 16, I had to multiply by 3^1/2 to get the right speed--only a factor of 3/2 difference from my first estimate, which means I was in the right order of magnitude ball park. So my conclusions still stand. I think.

Tomorrow, I'll try and calculate the minimum effective speed below which evaporation dominates accretion.

Warren Platts · #**1726** (**permalink**) 05-February-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Now, according CFH, the mBH will start evolving on a 4-D basis when it reaches a mass on the order of kilograms. Thus setting M = 1 kg, then it would take 2.9 x 10⁶ s (< 1 month) to achieve a mass of 1 kg.

I have to retract my earlier calculation. There is a typo in CFH on the first page where the value of M₅ is given as 10^-27 instead as 10^-24 kg. This threw my calculations off by a factor of 5 orders of magnitude. So the correct time for an mBH to grow to 1 kg (assuming Hawking radiation is switched off) is ~10,000 years, instead of 1 month. Enough time to evacuate the entire Earth!

Jim · #**1727** (**permalink**) 06-February-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

... (assuming Hawking radiation is switched off) ...

Warren, I find it rather disingenuous that you seem (again) to reject (or accept) Hawking radiation based on how it affects your pet scenario.

Warren Platts · #**1728** (**permalink**) 06-February-2009, 01:45 AM

The formula for total growth is dM/dt = dM/dt_evap + dM/dt_accr. So it simplifies things to focus on one side of the equation. But I make no bones that assuming of the failure of Hawking radiation is ad hoc goes against the mainstream thinking in quantum mechanics, requiring as it does the existence of some sort of heretofore unknown persistence mechanism. Meanwhile, I'm still working on the Hawking radiation part. I would like to come up with a real mathematical model that showed both parts. I also just received an email from Ben Harms. He said that they are working on a revised version of the paper that will even more tightly constrain 5-D mBH evaporation and accretion.

captain swoop · #**1729** (**permalink**) 07-February-2009, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Hawking radiation is ad hoc

Why?

Warren Platts · #**1730** (**permalink**) 07-February-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Why?

I said the failure of Hawking radiation is ad hoc.

captain swoop · #**1731** (**permalink**) 07-February-2009, 12:31 AM

ok misread it

gzhpcu · #**1732** (**permalink**) 31-March-2009, 08:40 PM

Just came across this:

http://www.lhcdefense.org/index.php

Quote:

Citizens Against The Large Hadron Collider is a non-profit organization established for the purpose of using legal action to prevent the operation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) until further safety tests are conducted.

Fazor · #**1733** (**permalink**) 31-March-2009, 09:17 PM

Interesting. I have an e-mail in to them. We'll see how it goes.

Grashtel · #**1734** (**permalink**) 01-April-2009, 12:06 AM

I have to ask just what safety tests they propose running? Its been proven that less powerful colliders won't destroy the planet (given that we have been running them for years) the only test I can think of is slowly ramping up the power level looking for signs of potentially dangerous stuff, which is IIRC not much different from the planned initial operation of the LHC.

Fazor · #**1735** (**permalink**) 01-April-2009, 07:17 PM

Well, they haven't answered my e-mail yet, but admittedly it's only been a day. I'll re-querry tomorrow if I still haven't heard anything -- my initial questions were easy answer, not pointed, inquires. If they can't answer them, that tells me a lot about the organization itself. I'll post when I have more info.

Van Rijn · #**1736** (**permalink**) 03-April-2009, 08:29 AM

Of course, somebody had to do an April Fool's Day spoof on this:

http://www.thetechherald.com/article...adron-Collider

The sad thing is seeing some of the comments of people who didn't find it funny because they took it seriously. *sigh*

Warren Platts · #**1737** (**permalink**) 22-August-2009, 04:28 PM

I've done some more research. Actually, under CFH's formalism, it is logically impossible for mBH's to grow exponentially out of control. Moreover, their dM/dt|_accr depends on the velocity v of the mBH--as it goes to zero, so does the accretion rate, and so the mBH evaporates away. At first the world was dismayed that such mBH's could last for several seconds or minutes. However, this result was because CFH did their calculations using metric units, rather than natural, Planck units; they used Planck units in their v2, and so their persistance times were back down to well under 1 second.

However, CFH don't take into account the thermal velocity of atoms in the surrounding medium. Even if the mBH is at rest with respect to the the Earth as a whole, the atoms surrounding the mBH are constantly vibrating on a velocity scale on the order of the speed of sound (c_s). Thus taking Giddings and Mangano's forumla 4-31 as the new dM/dt|_accr that takes over once the velocity of the mBH declines sufficiently, it is easy to see that a dynamic equilibrium will be set up and the mBH will neither grow nor shrink, and will persist indefinitely.

G&M's formula:

dM/dt|_accr = λ * ∏ * R_em² * c_s * ρ

Where λ can vary according to the dimension, and R_em = C_em * M^1/4 (CFH eq. 23) (For the purposes of calculations below I just assume that λ = 4 so that it is just the ordinary formula for the area of a sphere, and ρ is the density of the surrounding medium. R_em is the effective capture radius of the mBH.)

Meanwhile, CFH's formula for dM/dt|_evap:

g_eff * M_p³ / (960 * ∏ * l_p * M_c³ * M)

So that if evaporation and accretion are in equilibrium, then:

dM/dt|_evap = dM/dt|_accr

or:

g_eff * M_p³ / (960 * ∏ * l_p * M_c³ * M) = λ * ∏ * C_em² * M^1/2 * c_s * ρ

where g_eff and C_em are constants, and M_p and l_p are the Planck mass and Planck length respectively--they equal "1" when doing calculations in natural units. And M_c is the "critical mass" the physical significance of which I don't claim to understand--I am definitely in shut-up-and-calculate mode.

So to determine the equilibrium mass of the mBH, just solve for M (the mass of an mBH as a function of time):

M_eq = ((960 * λ * ∏² * c_s * ρ * C_em² * l_p * M_c³) / (g(eff) * M_p³))²

It turns out that the first mBH produced (assuming a worst-case M_crit) would travel about ~1 cm before it's velocity declined to <1 mm/s in about 3 seconds. At this point, it will be converting atoms into gamma rays at a rate that's on the order of ~100 tons of TNT per second.

Thus, the good news is the LHC would destroy itself before it could produce much more than 1 or 2 or 3 mBH's.

At this point, the only force moving it would be the gravity of the Earth. But the acceleration due to gravity is sure to be resisted by the powerful drag that comes from absorbing matter.

So you would wind up with this smoking volcano where the beautiful city of Geneva once stood that would last for who knows how long before it slowly sunk into the Earth where it would only bump up the Earth's intrinsic power by 1%.

_________________________
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.
-Winston Churchill

matthewota · #**1738** (**permalink**) 22-August-2009, 08:40 PM

The only danger I see from the LHC is that it will produce too many new particles and further complicate the zoo that particle physics has now.

mugaliens · #**1739** (**permalink**) 23-August-2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

It turns out that the first mBH produced (assuming a worst-case M_crit) would travel about ~1 cm before it's velocity declined to <1 mm/s in about 3 seconds. At this point, it will be converting atoms into gamma rays at a rate that's on the order of ~100 tons of TNT per second.

Well, it cannot be more than the energy put into creating the MBH's in the first place, now, can it? Thus, I don't think it would be nearly that violent. Perhaps a hand grenade level explosion...

Regardless, I previously calculated that a BH massing two aircraft carriers would disintegrate in about one second, releasing enough energy to blow half of Kansas clear across Colorado. Thus, I seriously doubt the LHC's input energies would be any more than a very, very tiny fraction of that amount. Again, at most, a hand grenade.

Quote:

So you would wind up with this smoking volcano where the beautiful city of Geneva once stood that would last for who knows how long before it slowly sunk into the Earth where it would only bump up the Earth's intrinsic power by 1%.

Sounds like the interesting opening to a science fiction novel.

Quote:

Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.
-Winston Churchill

Spoken like a true pyro! Alas, my "pyro" efforts were limited to building a kiln on the concrete parking slab next to where I lived as a teen.

Warren Platts · #**1740** (**permalink**) 23-August-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Well, it cannot be more than the energy put into creating the MBH's in the first place, now, can it?

You could apply the same argument to an atomic bomb, and you would be wrong. Black holes convert matter into pure energy through the process of Hawking radiation.

Quote:

Regardless, I previously calculated that a BH massing two aircraft carriers would disintegrate in about one second, releasing enough energy to blow half of Kansas clear across Colorado.

Really? What model did you use? I used the Randall-Sundrum model.

Quote:

Thus, I seriously doubt the LHC's input energies would be any more than a very, very tiny fraction of that amount. Again, at most, a hand grenade.

Like I said, your outputs are going to be model-dependent. That's the problem with all the safety scenarios--they are model-dependent--yet these models have yet to be checked out empirically, at the controlled experiment level of science--the only sure-fire way to get at cause-and-effect. Mere correlation does not equate to causation.

Quote:

Sounds like the interesting opening to a science fiction novel.

Thanks!

You should read the novel Blasphemy. It's about a scientist who uses a large particle accelerator to start a new religion.

Quote:

Spoken like a true pyro! Alas, my "pyro" efforts were limited to building a kiln on the concrete parking slab next to where I lived as a teen.

The Winston Churchill quote was meant to be taken ironically. I am satisfied with the current state of explosives--and I think we should stand in the way of further improvement!

________________________
"All should leave Geneva. Saturn turns from gold to iron; the proton ray will exterminate everything."--Nostrodamus

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/51643-large-hadron-colliders-danger.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Random Unfinished Thoughts	This thread	Refback	12-September-2008 01:51 PM
The Dodgy Dramatis PersonÃ¦ (persons)	This thread	Refback	10-September-2008 02:42 PM
Amusement value at Random Unfinished Thoughts	Post #964	Pingback	10-September-2008 12:17 PM
Rechenkraft.net e.V. :: Thema anzeigen - Neues Projekt LHC@Home	This thread	Refback	09-February-2008 12:17 AM

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The energy machine of Joseph Newman	banquo's_bumble_puppy	Off-Topic Babbling	243	09-July-2009 09:29 PM
Large Hadron Colliders. Dangerous?	dirty_g	Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers	62	06-June-2006 04:02 AM
Recent possible 'large' meteors in California and elsewhere	Psionyx	Astronomy	2	06-June-2004 11:58 AM
Large body has been spotted beyond Pluto!	Maksutov	Against the Mainstream	37	07-April-2004 09:05 AM
Filamentary and large scale structures of the universe.	D J	Against the Mainstream	24	30-April-2003 08:13 PM