The Case of the Collider and the Great Black Hole - Technology Review

The Case of the Collider and the Great Black Hole

The physicists have had their say. Now a legal study asks how a court might handle a request to halt a multibillion-dollar particle-physics experiment. The analysis makes for startling reading.

kfc 01/05/2010

76 Comments

For particle physicists, the Large Hadron Collider is a long-awaited dream that has finally come true. The LHC should supply a steady stream of data for the community to number crunch and that should lead to some fundamental new insights into the nature of the universe. It also guarantees jobs and careers for a generation of physicists around the world.

But there is another group who say that CERN, the organisation that has built and runs the collider, has not done enough to reassure the world that the work is safe. The fear is that the collider can produce black holes that might gobble up the Earth. Various legal actions have failed to halt the work, not because of the scientific or safety issues involved, but because of problems of jurisdiction. CERN has an immunity from court action in its member states and a US court action in Hawaii found that it did not have the jurisdiction to proceed.

Today, we get a fascinating new perspective on the issue from Eric Johnson, an assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota School of Law in Grand Forks. Johnson asks what a court should do with a preliminary-injunction request to halt a multibillion-dollar particle-physics experiment that plaintiffs claim could create a black hole that will devour the planet.

This is a problem, he says, that has all the hallmarks of a law-school classic. And to give him his due, it's certainly a gripping read.

Johnson begins with an account of the history of the debate behind the science and its safety. This is worth a read by itself because Johnson writes with flare, clarity and an excellent grasp of the issues that scientists grapple with. He is not a physicist but uses his journey of understanding as a way of benchmarking how a court might come to grips with the issues involved.

Having set the scene, he then introduces the unique legal problems that this case presents. "The enormity of the alleged harm and the extreme complexity of the scientific factual issues combine to create seemingly irreducible puzzles of jurisprudence," says Johnson.

For example, one problem that a court might have to deal with is the expert witness. The problem here is one of independence. There is a huge amount at stake for these witnesses. On the one hand, an injunction would threaten the career of almost any particle physicist who gave evidence. On the other hand, there is the threat to the Earth.

"The experts are either afraid for their livelihoods or afraid for their lives," writes Johnson.

One way round this is to carry out a cost-benefit analysis but this soon runs into problems too. How do you value the future of entire planet? You could argue that it is infinite in which case any risk that it will be destroyed, no matter how tiny, is too much. Another argument, well established in law, is that there can be no award to a dead person's estate. "Death is simply not a redressable injury under American tort law," says Johnson.

By this argument, the downside of a particle-accelerator disaster that destroys the planet--assuming it is quick--is nothing. The cost-benefit analysis simply blows up in our faces.

There is a way out of these legal conundrums, however. Johnson describes four categories of meta-analysis that could be used to address the black hole case.

One line of analysis focuses on the possibility that the scientific theory upon which the safety assurances are based may be defective. He points out that these safety assurances have not yet stood the test of time. In fact, the various safety assurances that CERN has given over the last ten years or so have changed several times as new ideas and challenges have arisen. That's worrying.

And in any case, there is a more general point. Many scientists, even particle physicists, would surely agree that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naïve in the next.

This raises the important question of whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is up to the task of making a trustworthy prediction that the LHC is safe.

Then there is the possibility that the scientists at CERN who have given the safety assurances have simply made a mistake in their thinking. Is it really possible that a team of world class scientists could make such an error?

Well, yes. One fatal example is the 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test which was supposed to yield 5 megatons but actually yielded 15 megatons because of flawed calculations. In this case, a Japanese trawler fishing outside the exclusion zone was engulfed by fallout killing one of the crew.

Then there were the calculations that physicists used to reassure the public that another accelerator called RHIC was safe. These too turned out to be seriously flawed.

But perhaps the most worrying problem is the possibility of groupthink, that particle physicists have simply convinced themselves that the LHC is not dangerous and will brook no alternative view. There are some other examples of this in science, perhaps the most high profile one being the Columbia space shuttle tragedy.

Johnson says this: "The report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board ("CAIB") found that decision makers focused on information that tended to support their expected or desired result--that the foam strike that ultimately doomed Columbia did not represent a safety of flight issue."

Indeed CAIB said: "In our view, the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam."

It would be hard to rule out the possibility that a similar form of groupthink infects the particle physics community. On the contrary, there is evidence that physicists have little time for anyone who questions their safety assurances. Johnson quotes the British physicist Brian Cox who is reported to have said: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."

That is not an encouraging sign.

But perhaps the most powerful argument that all is not well with CERN's safety assurances is the fact that the organisation has carried out the safety studies itself. Here is Johnson's take:

"It is remarkable to think for a moment how CERN's situation might be viewed if, instead of operating a particle accelerator, CERN was a developer of pharmaceuticals. If a pharmaceutical firm attempted to take a drug to market based on the safety assessment of a panel of five of its employees, who in turn relied on the scientific work of one employee and one other scientist with a pending visiting position with the firm--it would be a scandal of epic proportions."

Having presented the case, Johnson himself is remarkably relaxed about the issue. "My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear. I have no apprehension to share. Nor is it my intent or my desire to shut down the LHC. ... My argument is one of law," he says. He does not not predict how such a legal case might pan out. Instead, he says it would be a matter for a court decide (presuming one could be found with the necessary authority to hear it).

Nevertheless, it is hard to come away from Johnson's analysis with the impression that the global public interest has been well served in this matter.

Johnson says this:

"While it seems absurd, in the abstract, that a group of apparently normal people could risk the entire planet in the course of carrying out a science experiment, the prospect does seem distinctly plausible once one takes a look at the details. Such a disaster is not likely, to be sure, but it does appear plausible enough to give one pause."

Johnson is well aware that this case may never come to court (although he points out that one like it that raises the same issues may well come about in the future).

So the real test will be how the particle physics community responds, whether with spittle-flecked ire or reasoned argument.

There is another possibility of course; that they'll simply attempt to ignore it.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480: The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

How to Halt Disease with Limited Amounts of Vaccine Days 'n' Years

4 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

So the only way a case will be made is if the physics is wrong and the resulting damage is not great enough to destroy the legal system.

Sounds like a win/win for science on the off chance an insanely improbable set of untested theories is correct or the scientific community succeed in the destruction of the world.

For a legal case to be mounted one must assume there is enough of a world left to mount it in.

7 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

The Quark Cannon

The company tells us that the quark cannon will produce the quark-gluon soup responsible for the biggest explosion in the Universe, the big-bang, when a quark -gluon soup exploded with such amazing power that it blew up the space-time of the Cosmos to the size it is now. We discovered in the last decade, when the machine was already commisioned and could not be stopped without shutting down CERN, that a quark condensate is the cause of Nova and Supernova explosions that create pulsars, before thought to be made of neutrons, now known to have a quark-gluon soup in its center. Thus, if a quark-gluon soup exploded with such force as to dillate space-time to the limits of the Universe and a tiny quantity of it starts a Nova reaction, it is obvious that the same quark soup will blow up of the Earth. Let us explain why:
The Universe of matter and energy is built as a Russian doll: each time we perforate further into the doll we uncover new, smaller layers of increasing energy/mass. Since a weapon is an instrument that kills by releasing an overdrive of energy that erases the information of life, the best weapons are cannons and bombs that break with an explosion a deep layer of the Russian Doll of the Universe, releasing its inner energy that erases the information of life.
In that regard, the evolution of artillery is dual. On one side cannons have increased their precision in order to perforate and release the energy accumulated in ever tinier bits of matter. On the other side, bombs have increased the quantity of the explosive material they carry, increasing their destructive power. Thus, the first cannons and bombs released gunpowder energy - the physical, outer cover of lesser energy - with limited precision. In the XVII century Galileo improved that precision, studying cannonball trajectories and setting the foundation of the science of ballistics, soon a fundamental part of physics. Then, in the XIX century, Nobel discovered chemical explosives that released the next, molecular, chemical cover. So bombs and cannons improved in explosive power. And the Nobel Prize was set up with the benefits of war...
It was only left to explode the atom, which is made of an electroweak cover and a strong nuclei of quarks. Thus, the final horizon on the evolution of artillery was the atomic cannon. It first perforated the atom in 1936, in Nazi Germany, causing its fission. Soon the atomic bomb released the energy of that 'electroweak' cover of the atom. Then cyclical cannons were discovered; and so the bullet could turn around the barrel as many times as needed to perforate further the atom, allowing the fusion processes that gave birth to the Hydrogen Bomb. Now in its 3rd evolutionary age, the atomic cannon will explore the next 'russian doll' of energy/mass - the quark. So in the XXI century the Quark cannon will open the final, 'solid' russian doll of 'strong' quarks, which accumulate 99% of the mass-energy of the Universe, provoking a big 'bang' so enormous that it could blow up the entire Earth.
It is the culmination of a long evolution of Atomic cannons that dates back to the age of the Manhattan project that created the first atomic bombs in the 1940s. Indeed, the 1st Atomic Bomb was intended to be also an Atomic Cannon that would shoot 2 halves of a critical mass of plutonium, but due to its enormous size, physicists opted out for a smaller Bomb, which was detonated with chemical explosives (dynamite), instead of using a cannon barrel that had to be transported in a super-carrier ship.
All those atomic cannons were funded to study nuclear reactions that could be use latter to create bombs. The study of particles became then a collateral benefit of the study of future Nuclear Weapons with atomic cannons. And so a natural synergy occurred: the first 'tiny' bombs were explored in the atomic cannon. And those reactions which were susceptible of further military use, would be studied in more detail and if suitable, a larger 'critical mass' would be built and a Nuclear Bomb exploded.
Now, unfortunately the 'detonator substance' of the quark bomb, are a mere thousands of quarks, which weighs so little that the quark cannon can do the job of starting the mass-reaction, without the need to evolve further a quark bomb. This happens precisely because the Russian dolls become smaller and more attractive when we perforate the Universe. So the final doll is very attractive and very small. If a few quarks can hold together all the mass of your body, when we pack them their attractive power is awesome - 100up to3 stronger than our electroweak atoms. So calculations by the Shanghai National Center for Nuclear Research on China have shown that a quark condensate of only 10.000 quarks could start the chain-reaction that will devour the Earth. By 2012, when it reaches its maximal power, CERN, the 'European Company of Nuclear Research' that has built the cannon, will be deconfining millions of quarks per second, enough quarks to detonate 100 Earths.
Thus, the quark cannon/bomb means a growth of explosive power similar to the jump that happened between atomic weapons and dynamite, but far more dangerous, for 2 reasons:
- The quark cannon will cross for the first time in history the 1 teravolt barrier of energy that causes the death of our electroweak matter - what physicists call the 'breaking of electroweak symmetry'. Symmetry is a property of all entities of Nature. For example, humans have bilateral symmetry, meaning we have 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, and if our symmetry breaks because we are axed in half, we die. So happens to our electroweak matter when it 'breaks its symmetry'. It dies.
- The explosion a quark bomb produces is similar to a fire in the sense that once the fire/quark bomb starts it is self-sustained mass-bomb (M=e/c2), as the combustible is all the matter of the Earth – all the wood of the forest, converted into ashes - till it becomes a small, ultra-dense lump of quark matter, a strangelet, quark star, pulsar or black hole.
The quark cannon is plainly speaking a Damocles sword that will hang over all of mankind, as the Nuclear Company that manufactured it shoots every day protons and lead to make the most dangerous substance of the Universe, ‘quark matter condensates’. During 2 years, with increasing power, we shall enter a region in which the most dangerous, attractive substance of the cosmos, quark matter condensates, could become stable and feed on Earth's electroweak matter. As in the Greek legend in which each day the sword hangs on a thinner thread over the throne of Damocles, the quark cannon will be each day more dangerous, as the Company ramps up its power during 2 years in which the cannon promises to reach finally over 1000 teravolt shots in lead to lead collisions in Christmas 2012…
If the existence of the Damocles Machine is bad enough, as in the legend, the nightmare becomes complete when we realize that only Damocles – only a few nuclear physicists – know the secrets of the quark cannon and they cannot reveal them to the rest of mankind, because they will loose their kingdom, their jobs and position of power as the 'high priests of science', who have never been made responsible for the enormous harm their weapons have caused to mankind. So none of them talks of the dangers of the quark cannon, only of the incredible discoveries it will bring to the human species...
Indeed, to understand while mankind has paid for the quark cannon, we must consider a historic overview of the ways in which the military-industrial system has evolved and markets today successfully its weapons to governments and public alike, brushing off any opposition with the usual tools of industrial marketing and political corruption.
It is a deja vu experience in the world of nuclear weapons. Physicists at CERN do not want to blow up the Earth; and so, as anyone in the military profession of making or using weapons, for decades they have found 'intellectual reasons' to justify the industry of atomic cannons. Already Teller convinced Truman of the need to make Hydrogen bombs, because they were needed to 'know better' the atom. Then he proposed a H-Bomb made with his company at stratospheric price to blow up THE WHOLE URSS, backed by the entire nuclear community. Eissenhower realized of this MAD strategy and called Krushev starting the process of disarmament. Again Lederman invented the Higgs hoax and sold it to Reagan as 'God's particle' to get 13 billion for the Texas quark cannon. Clinton far more intelligent realized of the dangers, uselesness and tag prize and cancelled. I suggest mr. obama to call sarkozy and do the same with this, the 3rd time, the nuclear industry tries to create a doomsday weapon.... Since as they say in spanish 'a la tercera va la vencida'(3rd time always happens). Indeed, the excuse of knowledge is weakened as the fundamental particles of the Universe are ALL discovered, diminishing the 'scientific returns' of those weapons; while on the other hand, the dangers increased, as the potency of atomic bombs and cannons increased. The quark cannon has definitely tilted the balance: the risk are far bigger than the knowledge we shall extract from it.
But the Nuclear company of Europe did not want to shut down, so it found 3 excuses to dilute the dangers: 'denial of dangers', 'excuses of knowledge', and 'ad hominem campaigns' against those who opposed them, paid by with the enormous 10 billion $ budget given to the company to build the machine.
- CERN diluted the dangers with false statements that portrayed the quark cannon as a harmless cosmic ray factory, when it is a fact of science that quarks and cosmic rays are completely different kind of particles. We have, in fact, excellent cosmic rays observatories and we never found quarks in cosmic rays. So we have in a surrealist twist a factory of a certain, dangerous substance, quarks, which is not mentioned in all its communiques, but substituted by a harmless one, cosmic rays. Imagine a factory of missiles that would systematically affirm, it produces only knives. But in an age in which research journalism is dead, it has been possible to pull out this kind of lie.
- Then, during all the years in which the company lobbied for money to construct the machine, it made marketing campaigns affirming that this machine will prove a series of fringe theories, pumped up as the ‘meaning of it all’:
The company said that the quark cannon would find 'God's particle', a hypothesized particle called the Higgs, which according to the company shall explain the meaning of mass. This again is false. The particle is self-similar to a well known quark, the top quark. It has the same mass and properties, and so it is very likely, since the Universe is efficient and not redundant, that the Higgs, which we haven't found in 30 years, does not exist at all but it is the already known top quark and the 'God's particle sting', just a trick to get funding for a 'new, stupendous discovery' that will never happen. Further on, even if it exists it is only useful to explain a reaction, the death of our matter, as neutrons and protons decay into 2 particles called W and Z, which are related to the Higgs=Top quark (the sum of their masses is that of a Higgs/Top: W+Z=T). So this hypothetical Higgs merely would be the catalyzer of the death of our matter. And a factory of Top/Higgs quarks means only a factory that will kill our matter, and if the reaction goes out of hand, all the matter of the planet Earth.
Apart from that, the Higgs/Top does not explain at all the meaning of mass, or gives mass to other particles. This is nonsense. It is just one more particle of the zoo of the Universe.
So all that marketing about the Higgs/Top, being 'God's particle' and the most important particle of the Universe is ludicrous.
If the Higgs Hoax is not widely recognized among nuclear physicists it has to do with the confrontation between quantum, nuclear physicists and Einstein, the pacifist scientist who worked out a theory of gravitation and mass, which still stands. In essence, Einstein defined masses as 'whirls of space-time', attractive tornado-like vortices that followed his principle of equivalence between mass and acceleration. So as a hurricane accelerates towards its center, attracting all what surrounds it, a mass is an attractive whirl of space-time. Unlike the Higgs, a particle with a limited use, such definition of mass, taken to its ultimate consequences, illuminates the understanding of the Universe as nothing else has done since Darwin, reason why those 2 colossus stand as the key figures of XIX and XX century science, while Higgs is still an unrecognized, retired, Edinburgh professor without a Nobel Prize. Why Einstein's mass theory is so important? Because it means among other facts:
-The existence of a spiritual universe based in 'motions', in 'time events' more than in substances, in space. Indeed, if mass is a cyclical, accelerated motion and energy is a lineal motion, then the Universe is an eternal game of two motions in constant transformation. What we call energy or entropy and what we call in/form/ation, or cyclical form (masses and charges).
-It explains easily how mass becomes energy and vice-versa. Indeed, in Einstein's model of mass, E=Mc2 means just that when energy approaches the c-limit of speed of our spacetime, as it cannot go faster, it 'deflects' its energy that curls into cyclical motion, into mass.
-The duality and constant transformation of energy into information (masses and particles) applies also to other sciences, as biologists well know. Since they also describe biological beings as a series of cycles of transformation of energy into information. Thus Einstein's theory gives science the possibility to relate naturally all disciplines and species as systems of energy (fields of forces in physics, bodies in biology) and information (cyclical particles and spherical heads). This is in fact recognized even by quantum physicists as the fundamental law of their science, called the Principle of Complementarity: 'all particles need an energetic field and an informative particle to exist.'
For all those reasons, the 2 most important physicists alive, laugh at the Higgs. Mr. Weinberg, the Nobel Prize, discoverer of the weak force, called it 'the toilet particle' to flush in a vortex of mass of Dr. Einstein. Mr. Wilczek, discoverer of the strong force, says that masses are the frequencies of a whirl of space-time; and that is the only explanation of mass there is. Obviously the discoverer of the modern laws of gravitation, the 3rd force of the Universe, Mr. Einstein would disagree also with Higgs theory. The 4th fundamental physicist of the modern age, Mr. Maxwell, discoverer of the laws of the 4th force of Nature, electromagnetism, lived in the XIX c. So we do not know what he thinks. Perhaps for that reason Mr. Higgs likes to compare himself with this 'other' Scottish genius, as he does in the documentary provided by CERN.
- Finally, when the dangers of the Large Hadron Cannon were known, as scientists sued CERN for genocide in different Courts of Europe and America, the Nuclear Company put the 'system' of defamation, so useful in those cases, at work. First it voiced out 'ad hominem' campaigns against those scientists who denounced the crime.
Let us follow the account of those facts, according to Eric Johnson in the paper that prompted this article:
'Brian Cox, spokesman for CERN, said in public: “Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world,” he said, “is a twat.” John Ellis, chief theorist at CERN referred to LHC detractors as “nuts” and insinuated that one of them, Walter Wagner, was only pursuing a lawsuit against CERN to make money. Yet Wagner was suing for an injunction, not damages.'
On the other side, none of the scientists who denounced the quark cannon were able to explain themselves in the press (reasons why we have to do this kind of long posts to give an information which is vial to mankind). Thus by monopolizing all the information about the suits, CERN soon convinced mankind that all those scientists who were not in favor of CERN, were 'crazy people' for suing CERN - as another CERN physicist put it.
Let us quote again jonson: John Ellis, gave a talk in the CERN auditorium in which he sought “to provide the ammunition” that CERN people could use to convince others that the quark cannon poses no danger. After reviewing the scientific arguments that the LHC is safe, Ellis explained that a question that worried him more than whether humanity was safe from the LHC, was the opposite—whether the LHC was safe from Humanity. Ellis then briefed the audience on unfavorable press reports, the various lawsuits filed to stop the LHC, and a public opinion poll indicating that most people thought the LHC was not worth the risk. Ellis also introduced the audience to Richard Posner, whom Ellis said he found “really worrying” for considering that society and judges should have a telling in an experiment that could cause our demise. Wrapping up, Ellis came to what his presentations slides labeled “The Best answer.” “So, to finish,” Ellis said, “the way to stop all this argument about whether the LHC is going to destroy the planet is to get the LHC working.” “Within a few weeks time, we will know that LSAG was right.” Of course, in making such a statement, Ellis either showed that he misapprehends the relevant physics, which seems highly doubtful, and accepted as a way of 'doing science' , wishful thinking.
is John Ellis right? Shall we, human beings, mankind at large and our institutions and courts, let scientists invent all kind of machines, even those who can destroy us? Obviously not. Consider for example, a factory of Ebola Virus that would study different mutations of the Virus for knowledge. We would not allow crazy scientists to create such factory. So why we allow a factory of dark, quark matter, the physical equivalent of the Ebola Virus? i suggest NATO closes down this disguised weapon, as we asked in our suits, using the provisions of the Patriot Act that allow governments to seize any nuclear substance that endangers the life of Americans and citizens of allied countries. In that regard, there is a law that allows to close CERN despite its diplomatic immunity.
Luis Sancho, Plaintiff on Sancho Vs. Doe&CERN

146 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: The Quark Cannon

This is a blog, not a location to publish your WHOLE book. Keep it simple and to the point.

7 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: The Quark Cannon

as i said in the post (not a book, just a page :), giving the 10 billion $ power of the Nuclear Company, and the censorship on this case, a minimal size post is needed to explain at least that:
- This is a weapon not an instrument of research as its marketing pretends.
- The risks are real.
- CERN denies standard theory of quarks and Einstein's work in mass and gravitation because it shows those risks. And promotes with the nuclear industry community absurd, fringe theories like Higgs to keep getting billions of funding. So it halts not advances 'true science'.
- The MANY people who sued the Nuclear Company of Europe are not here for personal gain at all, unlike CERN, but have put their careers in line for bio-ethic reasons as true scientists should do. In that sense, i rather hear from you NOT personal attacks as CERN always does but REASONS that prove my arguments false. Truth not authority as Johnson and this blog demands in a matter of life and death for all of us. It will be greatly apreciated.Instead all other posts ignore my reasons and just repeat the false arguments of CERN about cosmic rays.
'You can cheat all the people some time, you can cheat some people all the time, but you can't cheat all the people all the time' Lincoln. In any case, for those who would like to know the truth about the quark cannon without censorship, marketing or 'newspeak' you have a documentary at lhc.defence.org. thanks

299 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Higgs particle is self-similar to top quark

This insight just renders incompetence of mainstream physics in more bright light. Physicist are just asking us for another money from our taxis - but they're not able to even recognize even their own concepts in their expensive experiments! I explained it in more details here:

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-time-travelling-higgs-sabotage-lhc.html

The same controversy exists in gravitational wave research (which are corresponding CMB field).
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-gravitational-waves.html

Anther controversies revealing sloppy nature of contemporary physics exist in research of hidden dimensions, Lorentz symmetry violation, and so on. Fortunately, this silly re-search is "just" expensive, it doesn't appear dangerous for me, like LHC. But it demonstrates clearly, the formal approach in theoretical physics reached its technical limits. Physicists don't understand their concepts in wider consequences, so they cannot imagine their usefulness or risks as well.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: The Case

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

Guest (Neil2009)

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

I am a retired physicist, so I have no reason for bias. My job is not at stake.

We know, absolutely for sure, that the LHC experiments will not destroy the earth by colliding high-energy particles, because nature has been colliding equally high-energy particles on Earth for the last 3 billion years. Cosmic rays are striking the earth all the time, about one every square metre of the earth's surface every couple of seconds. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles like the ones in the LHC. Most of them are not of such high energy, but some of them are - some cosmic rays have even higher energy than the LHC can generate. The only difference is that the LHC generates the events where physicists can easily observe and measure them.

Mother nature has done, and is constantly doing, this experiment. The LHC is not generating any events that do not already occur on, in, and around the Earth naturally.

click here...

29 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Neil is correct: the same physics used to bolster arguments for our destruction actually says that the LHC is safe.

I will further add that black holes, let alone micro-black holes, are *purely speculative* constructs that have not been demonstrably proven to exist. This means the probability the LHC will destroy us is the probability micro-black holes even exist times the probability the LHC can even create them times the probability they will survive long enough to grow; the probability of the latter two conditions is mind-bogglingly small, and the probability of the former is < 1, which reduces the overall risk even further.

Additionally, these fear mongers are contradicting themselves by using physics to argue there's a danger, and then denying the validity of the same physics when it concludes there is no danger. Can't have it both ways folks.

Ultimately, experimental evidence trumps speculation any day of the week. The experimental evidence from cosmic rays is the only hard data we have, and it implies the LHC is perfectly safe. That's really all we need.

7 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

You invent your probabilities as you wish. You deny the enormous evidence of black holes as the dominant species of the Universe. you ignore the biggest danger, strong quark condensates proved to be the cause of nova reactions. You know perfectly cosmic rays are single atoms without enough critical mass to start a reaction. And we have NEVER found a quark in cosmic rays. You ignore as cern does the papers by the Chinese national institute of nuclear research tht prove 10.000 quarks will start an ice-9 reaction that will blow us all when the quark cannon will produce 1 million quarks. You ignore as all physicists do that cern has no right to play a game of russian roulette with our lives. deja vu as per oppenheimer 'I am kali god of death' father of hiroshima, teller 'physicists have sin' father of the h-bomb and the 1st doomsday weapon cancelled by eisenhower, as per the IAEA, who certified that in chernobyl ONLY 56 people die when the byelorussian government talk of over 200.000 cancer deaths. Enough is enough.

8 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Perhaps you are being metaphorical in your use of "ice-9," but Ice 9 was a fictional construct from Kurt Vonnegut's book Cat's Cradle. Based on the comments you've left so far, I can't tell if you're trolling, mentally unhinged, or what.

Quarks have never been found naked in nature, and the time scales on which they might be seen outside of a subatomic particle (e.g., proton) are vanishingly small. There's a lot of binding energy holding those particles together -- they don't call it the strong force for nothing. I seriously doubt the LHC will produce a shower on the order of millions of naked quarks...

Further, I fail to see how a bunch of naked quarks floating around for whatever fraction of a second could possibly induce a phase transition like the one you suggest, assuming you are using "ice-9" metaphorically. Inducing that kind of phase transition in local space or matter... just doesn't seem likely. Though you really didn't explain coherently or precisely what kind of phase transition you're talking about, except to say that the results would be explosive or catastrophic.

I also am not sure where you came up with this "quark cannon" concept, since the particles being accelerated are either protons or lead (Pb) nuclei. Quarks are what get briefly liberated as those particles are smashed together; quarks are not what get accelerated. It's a bit like calling a rifle a "shrapnel shooter." I suppose the word "cannon" does serve the purpose of evoking fear and a sense of danger in the reader or listener, though.

Oh, and by the way, the correct Oppenheimer quote is: "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." It's a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, and it's attributed to Vishnu, not Kali for crying out loud.

7 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Earth's big bang

Apart from your insults, which seems to be the trade mark of nuclear physicists today, obviously you know nothing about quarks. the 'ice-9' transition, which creates a strange liquid vortex of attractive mass that explodes a nova, described first by Wilczek requires according to chen from Shangai institute 10.000 quarks(1). Precisely because quarks have a strong force, you need so little. Engelens, chief engineer at CERN, in his conference in poland gave 1 million deconfined quarks as the target of lead to lead collisions. Obviously they collide lead, 'hadrons' because they are the stable atoms with maximal number of quarks,in order to deconfine quarks. They are trying to reproduce the quark soup of the center of pulsars formed in Nova Explosions (and maybe in the big-bang explosion of the entire Universe). That is why it is a quark cannon that will make the Earth into a nova. Bose-Einstein quark condensates are basic quark physics. When the quark cannon was designed it was thought that fermions couldnt form condensates. Or else they would have NEVER done it. But as in Jurassic park nature is much more clever than humans. So it turns out that they form cooper pairs and color-locked triplets becoming bosons first and then quark condensates, forming a 100 up to 3 times stronger vortex than a normal electroweak bose condensate called a dumb hole because it absorbs sound at 300 m/s. Do your maths. 300 m/s x 100 up to 3= a 300.000 Km./second vortex.. A kerr black hole proving Einstein's prediction that black holes if existing will be made of an ultradense substance... quarks. Those recent discoveries mean top quark black holes will be produced cetainly. A recent experiment in haifa found that a dumb hole (a sound black hole didnt evaporate). So they wont evaporate. The fermi has found 1600 gamma ray sources none an evaporating black hole. So now do your maths, inverse to the guy before my comment: probability that a black hole evaporate = 0% x probability a top quark black hole doesnt form 0% x probability black holes dont exist in nature = 0% =probability we do not die between now and 2012. Because in true science there are no probabiities but truth or falsities. And as today, quark science says quark condensates do exist, do not evaporate and do cause nova explosions: 100% truth. Quantum physicists have been denying, after his death obviously not to make fools of themselves, Einstein's mass theory of space-time whirls (Higgs), Einstein's frozen stars (Wheeler, who changed their name to black holes to impose with his power as the boss of the H-Bomb his 'singularity theory' and Hawking who said 'Einstein is double wrong'(2)) and Einstein's condensates (CERN who denies 99% of his production will be quark liquid condensates). RHIC experiment on the verge of 1 teravolt formed a proto-black hole as per Nastase, which was a 'perfect surprise' (sciam (3)) that NOT a single scientist had predicted. And yet CERN still talks of forming a quark plasma. CERN lies systematically and makes his workers sign zero risk statements (as per the Newyorker) but the Universe will NOT change its laws because of CERN's wishful thinking. It will kill them all for their arrogance, ignorance and despise of bio-ethics. What we need is NOT a new Oppenheimer, but a new Eisenhower which called Krushev & stopped Teller and Wheeler from doing an H-bomb to blow the entire soviet Union. Mr Obama could learn from Ike a man of action, a military who probably saved the world, call Van Rompuy and together apply the Patriot act that allow any president to seize any dangerous nuclear substance produced anywhere in the world. That is THE JURISDICITION WE ASKED in our suit, as NO factory of lethal substances should have diplomatic immunity. It is AGAINST Natural Law. This is no a silly 1st horizon nuke but a potential cosmic bomb. He then indeed will deserve the Nobel prize. CERN has not answered any of those arguments and dont appear in court because it knows it CANNOT answer them with science.
(1)http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512112
(2)'The quantum mechanics of black holes'
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4357613.stm

1 Comment

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Earth's big bang

I do not know where you are getting this stuff, but it sounds like a bunch of junk science, spouted by fear monger's and conspiracy theorists. If you were to go and get a proper education in physics and mathematics you should easily see there is nothing to worry about. The LHC will do nothing but further mankinds knowledge of the universe. Between cosmic rays, and the experiments already conducted at the Tevatron, and SLAC you should know that there will be no matter phase transition produced by quarks. Quarks do not have the energy, or the mass to do anything significant. Go and read some books, or take some quantum classes at uni.

7 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Earth's big bang

The quotes are there, if 'you do not know' how to
read physics, don't resort to insults and patronizing
like CERN tried... that's the best you/CERN can do?
Still waiting a single CERN/nuclear physicist to argue
real science or come out of the closet and say the truth.
They made a mistake, quark physics advanced in the
20 years of LHC planning. We didnt even know then
that pulsars are NOT neutron stars but quark stars
born in supernovas or quark locked in condensates.
Now that we know they are making a much bigger
mistake.... I suggest they appear in court instead
of hiding in their cave. 'Physicists are often wrong
but never in doubt' Landau.
pd. And i do read mathematics. My theoretical work
precisely departs from the discovery of the 4
unresolved non-euclidean postulates, a century old
question of maths & cosmology, since Riemann,
which allows the expansion of 'relativity' (Einstein
could apply at the time only the 5th found postulate)
to all sciences (1)... So can we leave aside the
'ego'/authority thing and focus on what really matters,
the 'truth'/risks for life of creating quark condensates
on earth? thanks
(1)http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/view/29/200

395 Comments

514 Days Ago
09/13/2010

Re: "and I DO read mathematics."

Hey, you aren't supposed to READ those -- as soon as you take the plastic cover off you lose at LEAST 90% of the collectors' value.

Seriously, the fact that you CAN'T SEE what everyone else sees, what reveals that you don't know what you are talking about, says even MORE about what you don't know.

I'm tempted to discuss with kfc how we would go about charging per comment in here -- with that charge refunded after a peer-review which determines "yeah, THAT comment shows some grasp of technical and scientific reality..."

In THAT case we could TRULY say "your input has been very valuable" (i.e., the lounge needed some new coffee stirrers) -- because YOU aren't going to be getting any refunds.

(adding you to The List -- check)...

click here...

395 Comments

514 Days Ago
09/13/2010

Re: Earth's big bang

Nice concept -- have you run it past the people at Marvel Comics?? They MAY say something like "but it doesn't have any meaningful physics behind it", to which you can respond "but it's just for FUN, ya know!"... I don't see any movie spin-off in it for you, though... Just not believable enough, no real sense of "impending catastrophe".

I mean, be real -- Nothing you've described matches any of the known physics involved, and people get really tired, really quickly, of "deadly dangers" you just pull out of your... of a hat. But I guess there's still a chance of getting a video game going -- thirteen-year-olds still tend to be fairly gullible if it has good graphics.

By the way, I'm sure nobody HERE is going to appreciate your efforts -- they're all too busy with REAL stuff to appreciate fantasy.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

29 Comments

514 Days Ago
09/13/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Assuming this is what you're referring to, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

1 Comment

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

It seems that you disagree with Tony Rothman at Princeton, who despite not being a collider critic dismisses the cosmic ray argument in his blog (February 2009)

http://press.princeton.edu/blog/2009/02/02/metaphysics-apocalypse-cern/

Also I'm surprised a scientist such as yourself would take an absolute position, saying there is NO possibility of something happening. There is an obvious rejoinder to this that 'of course anything could happen at any time owing to uncertainty', but that is not my argument here. Anything could happen at any time anywhere, but 600 million particle collisions a second can only happen in the collider.

These 600 million collisions a second directly create a great many chances for events to occur, for better or worse.

One argument after another for the safety of the LHC has been undermined and eroded by its critics over the last two years. It is time scientific complacency on this matter ended, and it seems we have to look to lawyers such as Johnson and others outside the physics community to get the issues properly aired.

12 Comments

763 Days Ago
01/07/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

The statement that "Anything can happen and will happen" is incorrect. The actual statement should be "Anything that is possible will happen somewhere in infininte space and time." So, if something is not physically possible then it CANNOT happen anywhere at anytime, period. Furthermore the occurrance of any "possible" event is truly dependent upon probabilities of that event occurring. If a thing is highly improbable then, although it will happen given infinite space and time, it will most probably not happen here and now. Take for example 100 dice, what is the probability of rolling 100 6s? The answer is "small" (I don't have time to figure out the actuall probability). So for each roll of these 100 dice the probability is the same for each roll and the probability of rolling 100 6s is "small". Given an infinite number of rolls of these 100 dice then, yes, there will be at least one time you get 100 6s.

Having said all that and probably confusing a few of you. Is it possible for a micro blackhole being created by the LHC? The answer is yes. The next question is what is the probability of that micro blackhole gathering enough mass prior to its leaving the gravitational well of the earth to "Eat the Earth"? Well the gravitational pull of such a small object is very small so it will have little effect on nearby mass so it won't pull that much into itself. A black hole has no more gravitational pull than the original mass-energy itself had no matter what the science fiction crowd would have you believe. Blackholes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners, they don't "suck". So the question arises as to the mass of the micro black hole. Using two lead atoms as the collision mass and 0.99999C as the velocity the total mass of the blackhole would be 9.29E-09 grams or 9.29 nano-grams. What is the gravitational pull of such a small mass? Far too small to have much effect on surrounding atoms. What is the size of such a small blackhole? My guess is that it would be much smaller than a proton. So, what is the probability of it actually hitting another mass object and 'eating it up'? Given the fact that atoms are mostly empty space I would say the probability is quite small. What would be the effect of this micro blackhole eating, say, a proton? The blackhole would grow by the mass-energy of that proton. Not much change in total mass there.

Given the size of the created micro blackhole and taking into account Hawking radiation and the eventual (I would say immediate or on a timescale too small to be measured) evaporation of said blackhole I don't think there is anything to worry about regarding micro blackholes.

7 Comments

763 Days Ago
01/07/2010

THE TOTALITARIAN PRINCIPLE

of physics to which you refer, stated by Gell-mann, the nobel prize that discovered the quark, is similar to the ideas of Jurassic park or the murphy law: if nature can create certain particle which is not forbidden by physical laws, it WILL CREATE IT, with 100% probability. This applies here to quark condensates; strangelets and the nova-reactions they catalyze. On the other hand what has a very low probability of happening are 'mathematical fictions', which break standard laws of the scientific method: black hole evaporation (breaks causality in time, breaks the laws of thermodynamics, as it implies they will get hotter in a colder ambient, which is like saying a hot coffee evaporates in your hands and they destroy information, which nothing does), and the Higgs, whose absurd mechanism cannot give mass to other particles as Einstein's whirls of space-time do. In other words, what the quark cannon will certainly do are the particles that can big-bang the Earth, what is very unlikely to do are the particles their marketing sells us. But quantum physicists have long abandoned the laws of the scientific method, so they can 'invent' anything they fancy.

76 Comments

762 Days Ago
01/08/2010

Micro black holes will not evaporate

When you use 100 dice you can't guarantee that the next toss won't be all 6s. That is the risk involved.

The problem I have is there is an assumption that the micro black hole will simply evaporate away due to the Hawking radiation. However, the micro black hole produced and therefore it's event horizon will be smaller than particle-antiparticle that the Hawking radiation requires to loose mass. So how can the black hole evaporate if it's not strong enough and can't produce the radiation? The black hole will be stable and gobble mass until it reaches a critical stage where it can evaporate, but it will also start drawing particles that comes near it and soon the whole earth. (Explanation would be appreciated since I'm a lay person.)

click here...

12 Comments

751 Days Ago
01/19/2010

Re: Micro black holes will not evaporate

Black holes are not made of particle-anti-particle pairs. The maths do not state that it takes a blackhole of a specific size to emit Hawking radiation it states that a blackhole of any size will emit such radiation, the amount of radiation being inversely dependent upon the surface area of the event horizon. This means that a two-particle black hole (i.e. a radius smaller than a proton) will emit such radiation much, much faster and therefore will evaporate (the energy has to come from somewhere) extremely quickly, quite possibly before it has a chance to absorb any other mass. However, even if it does absorb a proton, what is the total effect on the overall mass-energy of the blackhole? Miniscule. Will the blackhole reach out and suck in any other mass? Not if that mass is outside the gravitational or electromagnetic pull of the blackhole.

Also, the collision that resulted in the creation of a blackhole would be extremely inelastic and the kinetic energy of the resulting mass would be much less than the original kinetic energies of the two masses as much (most) of the original kinetic energy would have gone into the mass-energy of the blackhole. Therefore the velocity of the resulting blackhole would be small and the probability of it reaching enough mass to cause a self sustaining micro blackhole would be very small.

76 Comments

745 Days Ago
01/25/2010

Re: Micro black holes will not evaporate

Thanks for your explanation and you seem to know what you are talking about. But I still have a problem believing a micro black hole will disappear due to generation of particle and antiparticle pair--the mechanism of evaporation, or tunneling.

IMO(layman), Perhaps the theory only considers the radiation at the macroscopic level and does not deal with the particle level. If the boundary or event horizon of the black hole is much smaller than the size of the particle how can it generate the particle pair to evaporate? Why would the particle tunnel if it is the constitution of the black hole--in the case of a one particle bh?

Perhaps, when we get down to a one particle black hole, it will be inert because it is too small to swallow another particle. Perhaps the tensile constitution forces of subatomic particles are stronger than gravity at this size.

I pose that inert micro black holes with the mass of particles--which makes the size much smaller, makes up dark matter. The black holes don't coalesce because they cannot overcome the tensile boundary of space. They have mass but are too small to react to anything. That is why we haven't detected them. They are dark matter!

395 Comments

512 Days Ago
09/15/2010

Re: Micro black holes will not evaporate

You're misunderstanding the "particle/anti-particle" evaporation mechanism.

It isn't that the hypothetical micro-blackhole ("m-bh" from here on out) itself somehow "generates" a particle/anti-particle pair -- what happens is that supposedly there's this constant "froth" of "virtual" particles appearing and then self-annihilating... Constantly. Statistically, coming from every possible little Planck-sized granularity, at some improbably short interval.

And the energy required for creation of those particles gets handled like an extremely rapid "IOU ... Paid" sequence, being balanced all-but-instantly by the energy released by the annihilation of those particles.

It is difficult to grasp just how TINY the capture-radius of an m-bh is, based upon the drop-off in gradient of an m-bh with such negligible mass. Comparing that capture radius with the free-space inside an atom, we're talking "a spacecraft, moving at random, running into a one-mile diameter rock in an unknown solar system" odds.

AND, even if the unlikely happens and a particle (even a nucleus, a cluster of particles) IS encountered and "consumed", Pauli's Exclusion Principle pretty much states that NOW the odds of finding ANOTHER particle are many magnitudes lower -- and that just-finished "meal" isn't going to change the capture-radius of our "planet-killer" m-bh in any meaningful sense...

In the meantime, those particle-anti-particle pairs ARE bubbling up everywhere. Constantly. While the odds are massively against a m-bh ever coming close enough to anything for its field gradient to "slurp" up something REAL which would help it GROW, the odds are magnitudes greater of having a virtual particle pair pop-up close enough for the m-bh to grab ONE of the pair. At which point the "pair creation" energy debt (for the particle it missed) comes due -- and the m-bh is the one who pays. And loses energy.

And this happens FAST.

In a perfect world, where we were technologically capable of manufacturing meaningful amounts of anti-matter (waaay out of THIS orbit), we are going to find that controlled blackholes are one of the simplest possible matter-to-energy conversion devices, AND thrust-producing devices (and garbage disposals, for that matter). And we're going to have to battle this exact same "protective factor" in order to MAKE blackholes on PURPOSE.

9 Comments

511 Days Ago
09/16/2010

Re: Micro black holes will not evaporate

Once we not only finally understand how general relativity and quantum mechanics fit together but how to actually apply that knowledge, the era of controlled black holes won't be too far off. That said, we have quite a ways to go before then. Creating some black holes in the laboratory is a good start. . .

299 Comments

759 Days Ago
01/11/2010

Re: What is the gravitational pull of such a small mass?

Very small, indeed. But whether black holes or strangelets cannot have a charge? Isn't the electromagnetic force 10 E+40 stronger, then the gravity?

Why this point is ignored all the time even by most renowned scientists? Are they really incompetent to evaluate LHC risks at scientific basis?

299 Comments

759 Days Ago
01/11/2010

Re: Given the size of the created micro blackhole and taking into account Hawking radiation

You forget the strangelets, supersymmetry, Yukawa coupling, Higgs boson. These concepts have all the very same principle: a surface tension force, which can stabilize particle clusters, like tetraneutron, top-quark pairs and pentaquarks, glueballs, muon or tauon pairs. Many of these particles were observed already at Fermilab, so we can be sure, they can exist - LHC just will prepare them faster and in larger quantity.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-lhc-risk.html

The whole problem is, physicists don't understand their own business. They're not even able to recognize gravitational waves or Higgs boson by their own methods! The whole mainstream physics is just one single big parody of science. Such ignorance would be funny, if it couldn't be so dangerous for the rest of human civilization.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-time-travelling-higgs-sabotage-lhc.html

395 Comments

512 Days Ago
09/15/2010

Zephir, you're amusing, except that you need some work.

But one of these days I'm going to have to get you to sign a release form -- because your material is being watched by a group of writers (working for several well-known comedians) as a source of inspiration. And while they all appreciate the work you put into your schtick, the consensus is that you need... something...

click here...

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

1 Comment

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

This argument was examined by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) and found to be faulty. In particular, microblackholes (mbhs)created by nature (cosmic ray particles impinging on Earth, etc.) would create near-relativistic mbhs relative to Earth that would harmlessly pass through in a fraction of a second. Speeds of LHC produced microblackholes would be much slower, having residence times in Earth on the order of hours. That distinction was recognized by the LSAG, which sought an alternative safety argument, seizing instead on the so-called "neutron star" argument. That too has been amply criticzied, as referenced by Johnson in his paper.

This comment from a senior physicist (retired) is a prima-facie example of the dogmatic approach to safety that CERN was also taking, giving us the situation of them having built the machine first, and then doing the safety analysis after the machine was built and the sociological impetus to proceed forward is tremendous.

Johnson referenced a similar situation with the Challenger disaster, in which the sociolgocial impetus to proceed forward outweighed the safety concern being voiced by competent individuals, leading to disaster.

1 Comment

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Re the comparison between cosmic rays and happenings at the LHC:

First, high energy cosmic rays have been observed indirectly only. A shower of particles can be measured and indicates a high energy collision. This means, we don’t know the sort, mass, speed or origin of these particles.

Physicists assume that high energy cosmic rays are protons, like at the LHC. Last year the AUGER observatory found that these particles must be iron nuclei and not protons. Big surprise, nobody knew why this should be the case.

Let me quote a calculation frequently demonstrated by CERN:

"The area of the Earth’s surface is about 5×1018 square centimeters, and the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years. Therefore, over 3×10^22 cosmic rays with energies of 10^17 eV or more, equal to or greater than the LHC energy, have struck the Earth’s surface since its formation. This means [6] that Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists."

This sounds reassuring - but: The same calculation shows that at the LHC, within a very tiny space, as many high energy collisions would happen as occur naturally on the whole planet Earth within 45.000 years! So what is happening at the LHC is an extreme and absolutely not a natural thing. Also consider that the calculation is only true if the comparability between cosmic rays and collisions at the LHC is as given, which is doubtful.

High energy collisions are infrequent and single events. And they occur at relativistic speed with one fixed target. During the head on collisions at the LHC, the impulse could easily be neutralized and the collision product could remain on Earth and not fly through it or somewhere into space.

Further, this study (page 1)
http://omega.physics.uiowa.edu/HEP/Files/Talks/CR2007_013.pdf
speaks about Pb - Pb collisions at the LHC that could produce outcomes that are not possible with natural collisions: "Pb-Pb events can be expected to show exotic phenomena that is beyond the reach of cosmic rays."

In conclusion, we would need far more empirical evidences that the cosmic ray comparison is suitable. At the moment, it does not appear so.

www.LHC-concern.info

299 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Cosmic ray cannot be compared with proton beam of LHC in any way. Cosmic rays are always formed by isolated individual particles - not by collimated proton beam of relatively high mass density. The high energy density of gamma rays means, they're "hot", not heavy: during their collisions with matter they would vaporize it, not to condense it.

A condensation of matter of Earth into higher state could be initiated by more dense state of matter, not by more fast/energetic state. The highly asymmetric state of protons in LHC exist nowhere in our Universe. These protons are colliding with zero rest momentum toward center of Earth mass. The resulting products of LHC collisions would have a lotta time to interact with it with compare to products of cosmic ray collisions.

Again, NO existing safety analysis of CERN has considered these trivial connections. The apparent ignorance of these guys really annoys me. They're supported by bunch of private companies, profiting from LHC construction.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

1 Comment

746 Days Ago
01/24/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

The fact is that all current science points to the LHC being safe. All the stuff about the 'russian doll' analogy is fundmentally flawed because it assumes that the forces binding quarks in protons/neutrons are exponentially stronger than forces binding protons/neutrons together in the atom (it is in fact weaker by a factor of ~10^13). Whatever 'bang' is produced by colliding particles together must be constrained by conservation of mass/energy; even if all the mass in these collisions were converted to energy (which is impossible, of course), the resulting 'bang' would at the most scorch some expensive equipment.

The other, unrelated doomsday theory is that the micro black holes that might be created by the lhc will conglomerate into a growing black hole that would swallow the earth. The problem with this theory is that these micro black holes will evaporate nearly instantly due to a very well documented phenomenon known as tunneling: particles inside the black holes (if they are created) would "teleport" out. Difficult as this concept is to swallow, it has actually been observed, and the likelihood of a particle tunneling out of a black hole increases as the black hole gets smaller; it happens slowly but measurably with large black holes, so it will happen extremely rapidly with these unimaginably small holes. Also note that there is almost no chance that one of these holes, even if it were to survive for a significant period of time, would ever encounter something else; its gravitational force, though locally strong, becomes immeasurably weak outside a very small radius, so the chance of its hitting something else is like the chance of our solar system colliding with another star.

If there were any chance that the LHC could destroy the world, I'd say that it had to be stopped. However, there are so many layers of safety here; each one of them is founded not only in theory but in observation. The entire controversy is generated by superstitious hysteria over 2012, fundamentalist Christian mistrust of science in general, and the pseudo-science brewed up to support sensationalists' political agendas.

2 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

What makes me angry is, that CERN is stultifying critic ad hominem

@ http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html (all down the site just above the downloadsection) CERN stilltoday presents the calculations of Plaga and Rossler as erroneous - but CERN just did not actualize this very populistic desinformations since summer 08.

Plaga answered already Fri, 26 Sep 2008 and explicated his warnings again on Sun, 9 Aug 2009. ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 ) His document: "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders" is an important one - pls. download the pdf: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1415v3

Rossler published the 20 Jan 2009 a second version of his calculations where he corrected some error of his previous paper - until today his gothic-R-theoreme with the probably most frightening scenario is NOT disproven: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf

But the hole risk-discussion onto possible catastrophic events has had much to much focus onto micro-black-holes.

The main risk is, as Sancho puts out correctly, that at the LHC there will be quark-gluon-plasmae as there haven't been any in the universe since the so called big bang.

What makes me more angry is, that CERN commits desinformation of the public, by talking about cosmic-rays that would be similar or even stronger then what they are going to do:

1) a part of the products of collisions at the LHC won't have enough velocity to leave Earth - collisions of particles from cosmic-rays onto particles of the stratosphere, on the contrary always had, since 4.5 billion years, enough velocity to leave Earth and the solar-system due to the fact, that particles of the stratosphere are quasi at rest and so the products of the collisions have always and in anycase enough velocity to leave Earth (and sun).

2) but of even more importance: the collisions at the LHC will happen in extremly much higher density as by nature: the density of the collisions at the LHC will be 10'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 (10^28) higher than ever has been trough cosmic rays onto Earth's stratosphere! ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2009/08/21/r_u_vergleich_lhc_cr )

(Sometimes in super-novae there are happening (but only for for short times and never that parallel) collisions in such a high-density as at the LHC - the outcome of such natural highenergetic collisions in lhc-like densities is a neutron-star: extremly condensed matter - not barebale for any kind of organic life).

And this makes the danger: those collisions in highest density with highest energies will create (quasi-stable) quark-gluon-plasma-conditions where all kind of not forseeable recombinations of quarks could happen ---> Earth could indeed get transformed into a piece of strange matter.

It would be foolish to say there must result any dangerous catalystic outcome resulting of those quark-gluon-plasmae - but on the other hand it is just not true, when CERN and his specialists are claiming there wouldn't for sure be any risk at all. They obviously are bluffing; because they themself just can not know, what there will be in those 'unchartred waters' behind the 'new frontiers' of physics.

I apologize for my english, thank you for reading.

click here...

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Why we can be sure there is no risk whatsoever

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

4 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Target Conditions

Clearly there is no argument that nature produces cosmic rays with more energy. When has there ever been a target available to cosmic rays with 100,000 times the energy density at the core of the sun?

When Iter comes on line the plasma will be an even larger cross section than a hairs width beam line.

1 Comment

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Will hoodster hear a Hoo?

This is fascinating. The evolution our our race to the point where we are now attempting to recreate the exact moment when the known universe is believed, by some, to have begun. Perhaps that is an entirely off the mark analysis of the spirit of the endeavor, however, publicly that is what joe six pack hears. I wonder if we are the first race and the only level of existence to attempt this type of experiment. Perhaps our know universe was created through this same type of experimentation and perhaps we are creating another universe in another level of existince. I appreciate the truly fascinating level of thinking and creation (ahem...) displayed by our world's greatest scientific minds. I am not a scientist, clearly. However, I am extremely interested in the field. Keep us informed eggheads.

76 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Re: Will hoodster hear a Hoo?

When tinkering with creation, you should be fearful not to evoke its duality, which is destruction! I would not trust the eggheads to play dice with the world. What's the probability that the earth can be destroyed in such an experiment? Even infinitesimal, the likelihood of destruction still exist so it could still happen. How many times was Einstein or Hawkings wrong and had to revise their theories? It would be too late for the rest of us when the eggheads of the apocalypse begin to realize that they've just made a booboo!

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Will hoodster hear a Hoo?

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

299 Comments

765 Days Ago
01/05/2010

Scientists are believing..

..LHC is safe, by existing theories. On the other hand, they're hoping, LHC would reveal a "new physics". It's not so difficult to estimate, this new physics could violate the safety assumptions of LHC experiment. Isn't the only purpose of LHC to verify it's own safety at the very end?

One problem is supersymmetry. This theory should manifest by formation of stable particle clusters, so called strangelets: tetraneutron, pentaquark, dimuon events and top-quark pairs. From previous Tevatron experiments we know already, these particle can exist and LHC would be rather close to its formation. These clusters could propagate in contact with ordinary matter in avalanche like mechanism, thus changing it into another strangelets under release of wast amount of energy.

In addition, scientists are ignoring formation of charged black holes, which would interact with Earth in much faster way, then just gravitational black holes, which all CERN analysis considered. It's manifestation of apparent ignorance of existing, not just hypothetical physics.

In fact, no official security analysis exist so far and in CERN no person responsible for completeness of safety analysis exist as well. Such experiments could be never allowed to run and they should be canceled immediately. They're extremely expensive and their practical usage is a matter of too distant future. When we would have usage for supersymmetry after fifty years, we could handle such experiments in safe distance from Earth. In addition, we would save for cooling, vacuum, etc... We have nothing to achieve by now, only to lose.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-lhc-risk.html

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Scientists are believing..

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

click here...

1 Comment

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Making Particle Accelerators Safe

I want to start Thinking about how to make a black hole Containment shield so we can safely Operate a particle accelerator that actually makes black holes. the asking of the "will CERN create a force that can end our existence" question gives me excitement and hope that we can find an answer to that problem and eventually a Solution.

who wants to join ME?
and who is already working on that?

THE solution would give us so many options and a lot of power over the universe as we know it. Like it or not. At least we can try to understand and control this power. But before we venture ON down the LINE, DO we Take Turns debating the unknown, or instead lunge safely while making progress into it? still further down the rabbit hole we go! Very soon we will have our answer and a new question will be reborn.

4 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Making Particle Accelerators Safe

The initial problem of containment is extreme velocity. How does one capture a micro singularity that should detonate into a shower of exotic particles due to lack of containment mass?

While some mathematics suggest a maximum time of around a second before detonation the singularity could be well past the moon by then.

I think the point of the article is there is no legal jurisdiction regulating any form of nuclear physics.

2 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Re: Making Particle Accelerators Safe

there was no idea of possible micro-black-hole- creationing in collider experiments in the eighties when the planning of the lhc has been.

only in the nineties there were first theorethical calculations about the possibility of creating micro-black-holes in accelerators due to extradimensional extragravitation.

from then until now was quite a lot of time to think about a containment for eventually created stable and not-charged micro-black-holes in accelerators - but obviously nobody has found a solution until now.

the theory of Stephen Hawkings that those micro-black-holes must immediatly decay is just a theory - although Stephen Hawkings indeed is a great theorists, his theory of imediat radiation of micro-black-holes is unproven - this theory could possibly be proven exactly by doing this experiments at the lhc - but what is the price for this prove?

the price of the chance of finaly proving hawkings-radiation (and other benefits of better knowing how mass/materia is built) IS the officialy neglected risk of creating masses of either potentialy stable strangelets or potentialy stable micro-black-holes staying in Earth and either transforming or accreting Earth's matter.

To calculate accretion-rates of eventualy stable and uncharged micro-black-holes is in fact not much more than impressioning hokus-pokus; because nobody realy knows about all the parameters that have to be included in such calculations:

If stable micro-black-holes would be created, then their accretion-rate will depend on parameters nobody knows: not 'only' the number of extra-dimensions but also the topolgies of extradimensions and the big question about how calcuable time can be in the quantum-realm.

As an example:
- all 30'000'000th part of a second their will be, at average, 20 collision-events in each of the detectors. Thus sometimes there will result even more collision-products all 30'000'000th part of a second - so possibly 2 or more micro-black-holes will be created at almost the exactly same 'location' in spacetime.
(With a distance smaller than the planck-length.)

There is NO statement neither in the LSAG nor in G&M's huge calculations about the chances that some of those potentially created micro-black-holes could eventually conglomerate and thus accrete many much more of matter than calculated by CERN.

185 Comments

762 Days Ago
01/08/2010

Re: Making Particle Accelerators Safe

Reminds me of walking in the tunnels when NAL was being built and one of the physicists telling me that new calculations said they need more shielding on the targets to prevent irradiating downtown Batavia!

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Making Particle Accelerators Safe

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

1 Comment

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Hesitation at the Precipice

Is there really any time to waste? Is there time to find a 'safer' experiment that will lead to a new, exploitable realm before we destroy ourselves by more conventional means, like pollution or war? I say we've little left to lose and everything more to gain, like finding a way to get out of our existing mess. What point is there in spinning our wheels here when we could be going there?

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Hesitation at the Precipice

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

click here...

1 Comment

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Let's say goodbye with a smile, dear,
Just for a while, dear, we must part.
Don't let the parting upset you,
I'll not forget you, sweetheart.

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.
Keep smiling through, just like you always do,
'Til the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away.

So will you please say hello to the folks that I know,
Tell them I won't be long.
They'll be happy to know that as you saw me go,
I was singing this song.

After the rain comes the rainbow,
You'll see the rain go, never fear,
We two can wait for tomorrow,
Goodbye to sorrow, my dear.

8 Comments

764 Days Ago
01/06/2010

Some nits to pick

Not a bad article, but there were some cringe-worthy bits that kept it from being much better...

"This is worth a read by itself because Johnson writes with flare, clarity [...]"

The word to use here is "flair," meaning a knack or aptitude, not flare.

"In fact, the various safety assurances that CERN has given over the last ten years or so have changed several times as new ideas and challenges have arisen. That's worrying."

Those familiar with the scientific method shouldn't be quite so shocked at the notion of revisiting and revising previous statements in light of new information. That the general public doesn't "get" this would seem to be a monumental failure of science education. One would think that scientists would not be treated the same as politicians and accused of "flip-flopping," but...

"There are some other examples of this in science, perhaps the most high profile one being the Columbia space shuttle tragedy."

While Johnson does make some interesting parallels between the broken culture at NASA and the resulting Columbia disaster (one can make similar statements about the Challenger disaster), and the perception that the LHC community is insular and its viewpoints self-reinforcing, the fact remains that both shuttle disasters were not the product of science, but of engineering decisions and political decisions. (NASA internal politics is still politics, after all, just as anyone else who works in corporate America can attest.)

"So the real test will be how the particle physics community responds, whether with spittle-flecked ire or reasoned argument."

No matter what new arguments are presented, though, someone will no doubt poke holes in the argument. It's back to the expert witness problem Johnson points out. It is doubtful that a group of scientists will make much of the opinion of a legal scholar, so I think this article's author comes across as a little acerbic when s/he writes, "There is another possibility of course; that they'll simply attempt to ignore it." (Also, it seems that this is one of those cases where a colon should have been used instead of a semicolon.)

"[...] there is evidence that physicists have little time for anyone who questions their safety assurances."

Maybe it's because these scientists are sick and tired of addressing the same points brought up over and over in slightly different forms by the vast majority of LHC critics and "skeptics." This is not unlike the situation in the biological sciences where so-called evolution skeptics keep trotting out the same threadbare arguments against evolution, and biologists are forced to reiterate the same responses (with some variation). It does get tiresome after a while, since the con faction's arguments very often betray a lack of understanding of basic physics (e.g., the thermodynamic/entropy argument), biology, or both.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Some nits to pick

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

2 Comments

762 Days Ago
01/08/2010

The actual Johnson article

Perhaps I was one of the few here to actually try to read the Johnson article. I skimmed a great deal of it, and while Johnson at times gave the appearance of trying to appear neutral, his bias crept into the article at times with phrases like "CERN brags" (when is stating a fact "bragging"? Was Johnson bragging when he noted he was a law school professor?) and his descriptions of the articles written by LHC defenders and detractors. At one point Johnson calls the cosmic ray argument the "old argument". He describes the Plaga article as "Plaga’s paper was less alarmist, more deferential, and much
more carefully presented [than the Rossler paper]." Then he later states regarding the Giddings-Mangano reply as follows: "Giddings and Mangano’s reply paper was interesting in both tone and content. The tone was confrontational and decidedly icy." These are purely subjective analyses about scientific papers that Johnson fails, in my opinion, to demonstrate he has the ability to understand. His own subjective views of the papers - as opposed to objective views of the actual science - should not have appeared in the article. They reveal his bias, coloring the entire article.

What is perhaps more disturbing for the article as a whole is that it is clear that Johnson doesn't even have the most basic understanding of physics, apparently, since he states at page 838 incorrectly that black holes were predicted by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, rather than the General Theory. A simple error? I find it hard to believe if he really has any understanding of the physics at a basic level.

Johnson also gave me the impression of completely misunderstanding the scientific method: that of the dialogue - the back and forth between scientists advocating differing positions. It seemed to me that he believed CERN was simply putting forth completely reactionary positions to its critics.

It also seemed to me that he was more attracted to critics arguments. For example, from what I read, it seemed that he was critical of the idea of Hawking radiation as an unproven theory, yet accepted the unproved theory of the creation of microscopic black holes as a fact.

As for the rest of the critics on this board, I would like to ask you if you think the scientists and engineers working directly or indirectly with the LHC are so self-absorbed that they would put their own friends and families at risk of their homeworld being swallowed by a black hole? or as Johnson also mentions, but doesn't discuss, a strangelet or vacuum transition?

4 Comments

762 Days Ago
01/08/2010

Re: The actual Johnson article

The article points to Johnson as a legal expert which means considering arguments both for and against. He concedes that the case most likely will not go to court and looks at the possible approach taken by the scientific community. For instance will scientists ignore those who oppose the collider or treat said persons with 'ire'.

The article does attempt to give a brief outline for both sides and asks the question simply for future experiments regarding perceived threat levels. That is it. It doesn't address the issue of need for the experiment or if alternatives are available.

The National Science Foundation's most prestigious honor for outstanding young researchers in 2009 includes Yong Chen among others. Recognition is given for work in the field of Nanoscience and physics for quark production in graphene. Source http://media-newswire.com/release_1109593.html Media Newswire.

For a lot less than the electricity bill of the Large Hadron Accelerator it may just be possible that the future of nuclear physics is better served by low energy experimentation.

2 Comments

762 Days Ago
01/08/2010

Re: The actual Johnson article

Not quite certain what your point is. I actually read portions of Johnson's article that appeared in the Tennessee Law Review and was posted on arxiv.org. I wasn't referring to the post here at TR.

The fact that Johnson is a law professor or managed to get a law review article published hardly makes him an "expert." Most articles in law reviews, if you ever look at one, are in fact published by 2d year law students - hardly experts because they are published.

Nor does the publication mean there was no bias in Johnson's article. I pointed out those instances I found by quickly skimming portions of his article (sorry, didn't have the time to read the whole 90 pages - nor the inclination to do so when his subtly hidden position became clear to me). You make it sound as though he neutrally presented both sides of the argument. I pointed out where that wasn't the case and why I believed he demonstrated not only bias but a lack of understanding of the physics.

And those examples I gave I found by skimming only portions of the article. Perhaps it was just one of those infinitesimal chances that I happened to hit every one of the instances where the bias seemed to be against the LHC, but I doubt it.

You should also know he described arxiv.org as follows: "arXiv, a hotbed for
developing scholarship in physics and mathematics that functions as a selfpublication
method for pre-prints of articles not yet published in a conventional print journal." He ignores the fact that there are also non-peer reviewed documents published on arxiv - yet, he cites continuously to arxiv in footnotes rather than to the published articles in peer-reviewed journals - assuming they were in fact so published. I'm not going to look at all of his articles and cross-verify that they were in fact so-published, but what does that imply about the supporting research he did?

7 Comments

759 Days Ago
01/11/2010

THE BIG BANG QUARK GLUON SOUP

You keep deflecting the issues AND do ad hominem attacks now to the lawyer. The issue is obvious:The company tells us that the quark cannon will produce the quark-gluon soup responsible for the biggest explosion in the Universe, the big-bang.We believe the Universe started as a quark -gluon soup that exploded with such amazing power that it blew up the space-time of the Cosmos to the size it is now. The mass of that initial quark-gluon soup is still unknown. But we believe it was truly small. We also have discovered in the last decade, when the machine was already commisioned and could not be stopped without shutting down CERN, that a quark condensate is the cause of Nova and Supernova explosions that create pulsars, before thought to be made of neutrons, now known to have a quark-gluon soup in its center. Thus, if a quark-gluon soup exploded with such force as to dillate space-time to the limits of the Universe and a tiny quantity of it starts a Nova reaction, it is obvious that the same quark soup will blow up of the Earth.
Physicists will defend their 'livehood' till the end as they defended Teller's super-bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The question is: who is defending our lives from nuclear physicists? Are we all a sheeple ready for the slaughterhouse?

click here...

299 Comments

759 Days Ago
01/11/2010

Re: THE BIG BANG QUARK GLUON SOUP

Yep, you got it right. We could stop LHC anytime, but scientists cannot stop their wishes. Mainstream science is separated from the needs of society already: physicists are ignoring aether theory of mine, cold fusion research of Arata, antigravity research of Podkletnov, room temperature superconductivity findings of J.F.Prins... They're simply fu*ing everything, which doesn't support their carriers and theories well - no matter how usefull it could be for future of civilisation.

Why they're behaving so? Because we are paying them for it.

12 Comments

751 Days Ago
01/19/2010

Re: THE BIG BANG QUARK GLUON SOUP

"The mass of that initial quark-gluon soup is still unknown. But we believe it was truly small." Belief? Theory? Where are your Maths? Please, your stating that the scientific method is not being followed by physicists at CERN or around the world but you make statements regarding beliefs? Where is your theory and has it stood up to the scientific methodology?

carbon14lifeform

5 Comments

735 Days Ago
02/04/2010

Re: THE BIG BANG QUARK GLUON SOUP

how much does it take to blow up the earth? probably not very much at all. remeber, their GOAL is to "RE-CREATE THE CONDITIONS OF THE BIG BANG".

Sounds like to me if you recreate the conditions of an explosion this big, you are in fact, ... re-creating the explosion. um ... duh

12 Comments

735 Days Ago
02/04/2010

Re: THE BIG BANG QUARK GLUON SOUP

Even if the collider produced a quark-gluon soup what would be the mass of such a soup? A two particle collision (proton-proton), would create a soup with an energy of 9.29E-09 grams. What would you say was the mass energy of the supposed quark-gluon soup that created the universe? You say it was quite small but compared to what? Compared to the current mass-energy of the universe? The resultant mass-energy of the proposed collision is essentially zero when compared to the mass-energy of the universe today.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: The actual Johnson article

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

5 Comments

758 Days Ago
01/12/2010

black hole from LHC

I think it is high time this impossible black hole does swallow all earth. Just look at humanity destroying the life on earth the slow way with overpopulation, crazy and murderous religions and the exhaustion of natural resources, civil and other wars, ethnic cleansing and more horrors in store. So to the black hole: as fast as possible!

299 Comments

743 Days Ago
01/27/2010

Re: black hole from LHC

I know, world is full of depressants - but please, don't bother me with your personal problems and lack of self-preservation instincts. You can finish with this world alone.

click here...

28 Comments

689 Days Ago
03/22/2010

Re: black hole from LHC

... yes, the best solution to genocide and littering is to destroy everything within sight. Good plan. There are people who can help you, if a misanthrope like yourself can sit for a minute with another human being.
BTW- there is no way your little wish of a LHC black hole destroying the earth is going to happen. Sorry.

1 Comment

282 Days Ago
05/03/2011

Re: black hole from LHC

I know that some people destroying the life on earth but It is not right to say that the best solution is to genocide everything. And yea the LHC black hole thing that will destroy earth is impossible to happen.
http://bit.ly/edMzoa

1 Comment

758 Days Ago
01/12/2010

Physicists: you're embarrassing me!

   I am surprised that so many of the responses focus on technical physics details, question the relevance of a non-professional physicist’s opinions, or complain of the lawyerly style.
   As far as I can tell detailed physics has very little to do with the risk analysis. When a complex calculation of the probability of a given outcome yields a sufficiently small number, that number will be dwarfed by probability that the calculation or physical model is flawed or incomplete.
   Among trained physicists this should be non-controversial, and well know from the history of physics. (e.g. Lord Kelvin and the age of the earth.)
   I recommend that the technically inclined read one of the cited articles in the law publication: “Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes” by Toby Ord, Rafaela Hillerbrand and Anders Sandberg of the University of Oxford. (available at http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/selected_outputs/fohi_publications/probing_the_improbable or arXiv). A talk of the same title given by Toby Ord at the 2008 Oxford event “Global Catastrophic Risk” is available at iTunes U.
   The conclusion of the paper is well supported, the structure of the CERN LHC risk assessment is highly flawed and the actual level of risk, although small, is significantly under-estimated.
   I am surprised that so many physicist responders (even when protected by anonymity) dispute this.
   In his talk, Ord displays his pragmatism, stating that politics makes a shut-down of the LCH for global safety reasons extremely unlikely.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Re: Physicists: you're embarrassing me!

Simple, Norway Event ,December 9th

125 Comments

753 Days Ago
01/17/2010

I have never read so much utter nonsense in the Technology review comments.

Cosmic rays in which a single atomic nucleus has the power of a 90 mph fast ball are known to exist. These particles have been flying through the solar system for 4 billion years, yet no one has discovered any black holes here. The energy in a particle like that dwarfs the energies in this collider. Conjecturing that an intense beam of these collider particles will cause something miraculous to happen is like predicting that shooting enough bullets into an iceberg will result in a nuclear fusion explosion. Please find something else to loose sleep over.

I am personally fed up with the medieval distrust of honest scientist that is gathering in this country. Johnson would put Galileo on trial for dangerous thoughts if he lived in his era. Lawyers and other idiots are ruining this country. A witch hunt is in progress to ferret out the evil climate scientists who are telling us something the oil and coal companies don't want us to believe.

A practical solution to our energy problems has been here since the 50’s. It’s called nuclear fission and the French generate 75% of their electric power with. But because a bunch of idiots run this country and are afraid of what they do not understand, we cannot have this solution. We are told that it is impractical, too expensive, too dangerous, will result in terrorist atomic weapons and will destroy us all. Proof is the Chernobyl incident in which the reckless Russians played games with a combustible nuclear reactor having no containment building. This crap certainly suites the needs of the fossil fuel industry and certain mislead “environmental” groups. The Three Mile Island incident did not harm a soul, but sure was exploited to kill nuclear energy in this country. Far more humans are killed every year in coal mining than will die as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.

That people who read Technology Review and comment can be so easily swayed by hysterical articles about black holes swallowing the earth just goes to show that we have little chance of doing anything sensible about anything, especially when every idiot gets to vote.

Black holes are still a conjecture; they are a theoretical result of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (theory of gravity) and our theories of matter and forces. Claims of proof of their existence are not really that at all. They are so far simply observations of very dense volumes in galaxies in which our (probably inadequate) understanding of nature “predicts” that a singularity will form. A singularity is the a mathematical concept in which something infinitely small is substantial. Nothing like that has been observed thus far in nature.

carbon14lifeform

5 Comments

735 Days Ago
02/04/2010

Re: Nonsense

um,.. didn't Einstein's theories lead to and result in the nuclear bomb and nuclear power also? Perhaps you should rethink that and do some more research yourself as to the existence of black holes. a simple google or wiki search perhaps.

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Norway Event December 9th.......................................................................................................

click here...

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Next Hole Event within the next few months will be 10 times worse,larger and longer in duration than Norway. And it will more than likely be the nail on the coffin.........

18 Comments

752 Days Ago
01/18/2010

Assuming you all let it HAPPEN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

299 Comments

746 Days Ago
01/24/2010

Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes

Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes at presence of extradimensions.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/122/1

Well, if we have different probability of black hole formation at presence of extra-dimensions with compare to existing theories, we should revise the speed of Hawking evaporation at presence of extra-dimensions too - for not to become surprised somewhat later...

It's not difficult to see the holes in reasoning of LHC safety.

For example can black holes without magnetic field exist in nature? If not, why all existing security analysis considered the speed of black hole interaction with Earth by using of much weaker gravity force only?

Who is responsible for such "omittance"? No one?? How is it possible, some scientific project without person responsible for completeness of its security analysis can be allowed to start at all?

This is how publicity should ask. Until complete peer reviewed security analysis will not be available, LHC cannot be restarted. It's as simple, as it is.

After all, the ability of scientists to predict some problems is pretty pathetic. Even small child could expect, when some supermagnet will explode, the leak of helium from neighboring supermagnets will lead to their quenching, too.

Believe it or not - no one expected it.

carbon14lifeform

5 Comments

735 Days Ago
02/04/2010

It's about time some had some common sense enough to realize the out of control hubris that is going on here. Mr. Johnson has it right in the "groupthink" argument. I am a physicist and can tell you first hand that this happens all of the time - for more than monetary reasons also - no one wants to look the fool in front of their peers - even if they are right. Kind of like the the "King has no clothes" story.

One thing he doesn't mention is the application of a class action suit. Their action to put the planet at risk involves us all, and probably a civil suit will get farther faster than a criminal one.

Here's some more fuel for the fire:

They say:

"Its happens in nature already"
"Earth is still here"
"So no problem"

The basis of their argument is that we haven't had a problem yet, so why worry? Try to explain to a teenager why they should wear their seat-belt when they use the argument that you've driven for a long time and you've never had an accident, so they should be fine.

Let's look at some difference between reality and their argument.

According to the information on this US DOE site that explains the LHC, the "..the hair-thin proton beams..." "...could see up to 600 million collisions per second.."
http://www.uslhc.us/What_is_the_LHC

I think that this skews their comparison a bit, concentrating the interactions and potential for disaster. The cross-section of the earth's atmosphere is a little larger than that, and I don't think the cosmic beams have that kind of intensity.

The LHC used to have a page on their site that actually admitted that there would be some MBH's created but it's no big deal. That page has since dissapeared and replaced with one with spouting the party line.

Just consider the odds of winning the lottery. Since scientists love to use odds, because even the best will say that nothing is certain, for the local mega million pick 6 it is 1 in 175,711,536
http://www.ohiolottery.com/games/mega/mega_odds_payouts.html
yet, ... people still win. Why, talk to a statistician about population sets, odds, and volume of incidents. Too much to talk about here, but the fact remains, someone wins about once a month.

So my life and my family's (and yours) is at risk, and to say that it is not, is just wrong.

and to use their argument that they are 'normal people with families who don't want anything bad to happen either' is just so much BS. I know these types - they would risk and accept death and gladly to get their name in a book - for any reason. They are as idealogical as a terrorist, and will take the rest of the world with them.

If they are going to "re-create the conditions of the big bang" as they claim, gee wouldn't that mean there will be a big bang? There is a lot of contradictions.

395 Comments

692 Days Ago
03/19/2010

Whata buncha maroons!

Sadly, the majority of commentary in this post can be prefaced by "I have no education in this subject but I have many opinions" and can be summarized by saying that MAYBE three or four people here have demonstrated possessing the ABILITY to understand and discuss the subject matter. And no, I'm not judging by VIEWPOINTS, I'm going by reproducible metrics according to the documentable checklist of inanities, fallacies and meaningless correlations; oddly enough, everyone here who has endorsed demonizing the LHC is, sadly, NOT among that short list of competent individuals. Luckily, however, for the most part the rest of you appear to be protected from "the crushing embarrassment" by your sheer earnestness and innocence. Playful AND mouthy. If it wasn't so irritatingly tragic it would be kind of cute. Kids, eh?

The single most desirable feature that this blog structure is missing is the ability to add individuals to an "ignore" list. Particularly when the LACK of said function means plowing through linear meters of kruft while searching for the scattered centimeter tidbits of meaningful exposition.

Another desirable feature might be a "credibility threshold" filter. I.e., once someone has established their educational credentials as being below some level required for meaningful conversation, it is extremely rare for them to manifest any spark of pertinent insight. Not being elitist or anything, just looking for some way to cut out the excretia rather than have to wade through it.

The problem is that when all the children keep interrupting with nonsense questions, the adults stop coming by for the more meaningful conversations, which is sad.

1 Comment

391 Days Ago
01/14/2011

great reading

Black holes are still a conjecture; they are a theoretical result of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (theory of gravity) and our theories of matter and forces. Claims of proof of their existence are not really that at all. They are so far simply observations of very dense volumes in galaxies in which our (probably inadequate) understanding of nature “predicts” that a singularity will form. A singularity is the a mathematical concept in which something infinitely small is substantial. Nothing like that has been observed thus far in nature.<a href="http://dji.me/">DJI</a>

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

click here...

Recent Posts From
arXiv blog

How Networks of Biological Cells Solve Distributed Computing Problems

How to Predict the Spread of News on Twitter

Embodiment, Computation And the Nature of Artificial Intelligence

Creepies 'n' Crawlies

click here...

Facebook

click here...