QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
Also, the evidence for micro black holes is just as strong (if not stronger) than SUSY LSP evidence.
Source?
Source?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
Why would the dark matter provide higher density areas for the baryonic matter to gravitate toward? Especially in consideration of the hypothesis that LSP's are generally non-interacting!
Evidence you haven't even learnt anything about dark matter. Dark matter is, in terms of the SM, weakly interacting. It isn't EM charged. It still has mass though, that's how we measure it's existence. By it's gravity 
And it would provide the seeds because the thing which stopped normal matter collapsing in the first 300,000 years of the universe was the heat. Just like the heat of the Sun holds it up from gravitational collapse. Photons give electrons and protons so much energy they don't collapse. But if dark matter doesn't interact with photons nothing stops it collapsing.
And it would provide the seeds because the thing which stopped normal matter collapsing in the first 300,000 years of the universe was the heat. Just like the heat of the Sun holds it up from gravitational collapse. Photons give electrons and protons so much energy they don't collapse. But if dark matter doesn't interact with photons nothing stops it collapsing.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
But in the haloes and dark matter galaxies it is generally black, and that's my point. Why is it black? What makes it black?
There's a difference between 'black' and 'transparent in the darkness of space'. You don't seem to understand the difference.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
And just how much energy/momentum are you supposing this material has? Don't you know anything about the conservation of momentum? If some is slowed, musn't some also accelerate?
Do you know anything about thermal distributions? The overall total kinetic energy is parameterised by the temperature. But in any thermally equalised system there's a distribution which looks like this :
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/Lab...ges/maxwell.jpg
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/Lab...ges/maxwell.jpg
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
Are you trying to say there are no problems with the LSP model? Because if you are, I can cite a slew of papers from professional researchers that would disagree with you.
Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to justify your claims does you no favours.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
They can't bump and rub against each other and reduce each other's angular momentums like ordinary matter. This also aplies to, and is part of the hypothesis regarding LSP dark matter (apparently, you didn't know that).
They do interact. If they are 'weakly' interact then they interact via W and Zs. Neutrinos 'weakly interact' and we still measure them. And if they gravitationally interact then they still will alter one anothers motion. Remember, they have billions of years and there's 10 times as much of them as normal matter. That's a lot of gravitational interaction.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
It happens to be quite effective sometimes.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
I'm willing. I'm spending time here, aren't I?
So you're willing to put in time on a website which is getting you nowhere other than being shown to be ignorant but you're not willing to actually talk to people who have control of the 'doomsday machine' and actually do something about it?
Are the lives of you, your family and everyone you know not worth $2000 to go to Geneva and talk to people in CERN directly?
Are the lives of you, your family and everyone you know not worth $2000 to go to Geneva and talk to people in CERN directly?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
I'd call the police.
You struggle with analogies, don't you?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:08 AM)
I have.
Evidence?
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 4 2008, 11:15 PM)
So does that mean that by taking this point and board, and arguing that it works in his favour...
Ubavontuba implicitly admits that his is a crackpot claim?
And you accuse me of deception!
You would use an already falsified argument (one you, yourself admitted was falsified after a protracted argument) and you'd reiterate what I wrote to try and take my points away and make them your own!
You are despicably dishonest.
Ubavontuba implicitly admits that his is a crackpot claim?
And you accuse me of deception!
You would use an already falsified argument (one you, yourself admitted was falsified after a protracted argument) and you'd reiterate what I wrote to try and take my points away and make them your own!
You are despicably dishonest.
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 6 2008, 09:06 AM)
That's rich coming from you of all people.
I notice you still haven't gotten to the relevant conundrum as far as Hawking radiation goes, inspite of having been asked to many times.
Why is that precisely?
It hasn't been relevant to the current discussion. Besides, you wouldn't understand it anyway.
I notice you still haven't gotten to the relevant conundrum as far as Hawking radiation goes, inspite of having been asked to many times.
Why is that precisely?
It hasn't been relevant to the current discussion. Besides, you wouldn't understand it anyway.
QUOTE (Kles+Apr 6 2008, 10:37 AM)
Oh.
Such as how gravity isn't a fundamental force?
You're confusing the notion of "fundamental force" with General Relativity. Gravity isn't a force in general relativity, but it is considered to be a fundamental force in a broader sense.
Such as how gravity isn't a fundamental force?
You're confusing the notion of "fundamental force" with General Relativity. Gravity isn't a force in general relativity, but it is considered to be a fundamental force in a broader sense.
QUOTE (Henry Clerval+Apr 6 2008, 11:10 AM)
Uba
'Digging the dirt' as you put it is not a political tool, if two doctors give me an opinion, one says I am going to die, the other says I am going to live, I am going to check out to see which is the better qualified. You guys are as unreadable as doctors in my world.
First, I'd seek additional opinions.
But you understand the stakes, and surely you can see the risk isn't zero.
But you understand the stakes, and surely you can see the risk isn't zero.
The curves ahead you use as an example are the black holes, they are something you can foresee and to an extent, measure.
Then you've misunderstood the whole argument. The physics community doesn't perceive the black holes as a "curve" to be concerned about.
But if someone other than you saw the daffodil soup coming and tried to warn you, would it still be intangible?
But if someone other than you saw the daffodil soup coming and tried to warn you, would it still be intangible?
If your argument is that we are going too fast and if we come agaisnt a corner, then we are in trouble, and you can demonstrate that, then please, in clear terms, do.
I have. I've verifiably falsified CERN's own safety analysis. How much more do you need, to become concerned?
Why?
Why?
Should the experiment be stopped because of the risk of things you know about (measured as unnacceptable), or should it be stopped just in case there are things you dont know about?
It should be stopped for both reasons. There is no risk to not performing the experiment (as currently designed). There either is a measurable risk, or there may be unforeseen risks to performing the experiment. Why take the chance at all?
'Digging the dirt' as you put it is not a political tool, if two doctors give me an opinion, one says I am going to die, the other says I am going to live, I am going to check out to see which is the better qualified. You guys are as unreadable as doctors in my world.
First, I'd seek additional opinions.
QUOTE
Anyway.
Right, but completely proves what I am trying to say to you. Your understanding of risk management in this respect is inadequate. My understanding of the physics will never be adequate, we cannot therefore reach any meaningful agreement.
Right, but completely proves what I am trying to say to you. Your understanding of risk management in this respect is inadequate. My understanding of the physics will never be adequate, we cannot therefore reach any meaningful agreement.
But you understand the stakes, and surely you can see the risk isn't zero.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyway. Right, but completely proves what I am trying to say to you. Your understanding of risk management in this respect is inadequate. My understanding of the physics will never be adequate, we cannot therefore reach any meaningful agreement. |
But you understand the stakes, and surely you can see the risk isn't zero.
The curves ahead you use as an example are the black holes, they are something you can foresee and to an extent, measure.
Then you've misunderstood the whole argument. The physics community doesn't perceive the black holes as a "curve" to be concerned about.
QUOTE
The 'intangible' risk which would not be measureable, nor foreseeable would be your car being hit by a low flying bowl of daffodil soup round the corner.
But if someone other than you saw the daffodil soup coming and tried to warn you, would it still be intangible?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The 'intangible' risk which would not be measureable, nor foreseeable would be your car being hit by a low flying bowl of daffodil soup round the corner. |
But if someone other than you saw the daffodil soup coming and tried to warn you, would it still be intangible?
If your argument is that we are going too fast and if we come agaisnt a corner, then we are in trouble, and you can demonstrate that, then please, in clear terms, do.
I have. I've verifiably falsified CERN's own safety analysis. How much more do you need, to become concerned?
QUOTE
If your argument relates to the daffodil soup, you are wrong.
Why?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If your argument relates to the daffodil soup, you are wrong. |
Why?
Should the experiment be stopped because of the risk of things you know about (measured as unnacceptable), or should it be stopped just in case there are things you dont know about?
It should be stopped for both reasons. There is no risk to not performing the experiment (as currently designed). There either is a measurable risk, or there may be unforeseen risks to performing the experiment. Why take the chance at all?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:11 AM)
I have. I've verifiably falsified CERN's own safety analysis. How much more do you need, to become concerned?
No, you just ignored the notion of a gas of black holes. You didn't provide any reason to not consider it, you just refused to.
No, you just ignored the notion of a gas of black holes. You didn't provide any reason to not consider it, you just refused to.
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 07:29 AM)
But I did describe it, you even refuted my description of it. Contradict yourself much?
Arrogant much?
Again, I've stated a few example, but a quick look at your posting history reveals 1356 posts of misconceptions and delusions.
Only because you didn't understand what you were reading.
Trippy canoe and Tyler too!
Arrogant much?
Again, I've stated a few example, but a quick look at your posting history reveals 1356 posts of misconceptions and delusions.
Only because you didn't understand what you were reading.
Trippy canoe and Tyler too!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 12 2008, 07:15 AM)
No, you just ignored the notion of a gas of black holes. You didn't provide any reason to not consider it, you just refused to.
If you had a gas comprized of black holes they'd all attract each other and fall into each other. Then what?
If you had a gas comprized of black holes they'd all attract each other and fall into each other. Then what?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 6 2008, 11:49 AM)
Do you know the difference between a locally and globally defined quantity?
Sure.
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
Read a book. Learn some relativity. Actually, start by learning some basic physics.
You should heed your own advice.
Why don't you try citing a few more references?
Sure.
QUOTE
In GR it's common to use notions only defined at a point. That's what 'normal coordinates' are.
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In GR it's common to use notions only defined at a point. That's what 'normal coordinates' are. |
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
Read a book. Learn some relativity. Actually, start by learning some basic physics.
You should heed your own advice.
Why don't you try citing a few more references?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 12 2008, 06:41 AM)
Source?
Evidence you haven't even learnt anything about dark matter. Dark matter is, in terms of the SM, weakly interacting. It isn't EM charged. It still has mass though, that's how we measure it's existence. By it's gravity
And it would provide the seeds because the thing which stopped normal matter collapsing in the first 300,000 years of the universe was the heat. Just like the heat of the Sun holds it up from gravitational collapse. Photons give electrons and protons so much energy they don't collapse. But if dark matter doesn't interact with photons nothing stops it collapsing.
There's a difference between 'black' and 'transparent in the darkness of space'. You don't seem to understand the difference.
Do you know anything about thermal distributions? The overall total kinetic energy is parameterised by the temperature. But in any thermally equalised system there's a distribution which looks like this :
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/Lab...ges/maxwell.jpg
Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to justify your claims does you no favours.
They do interact. If they are 'weakly' interact then they interact via W and Zs. Neutrinos 'weakly interact' and we still measure them. And if they gravitationally interact then they still will alter one anothers motion. Remember, they have billions of years and there's 10 times as much of them as normal matter. That's a lot of gravitational interaction.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
So you're willing to put in time on a website which is getting you nowhere other than being shown to be ignorant but you're not willing to actually talk to people who have control of the 'doomsday machine' and actually do something about it?
Are the lives of you, your family and everyone you know not worth $2000 to go to Geneva and talk to people in CERN directly?
You struggle with analogies, don't you?
Evidence?
Dark matter will be shown to be regular matter and not something exotic. The keep finding more and more brown dwarfs, carbon antiparticles and kupier belt solar system haloes that seems to be the most plausible explanation.
It's awesome how much matter is in cometary haloes.
Lately there has been lot of questioning about whether the standard candles used to define distances are defined accurately. That will overshadow everything else in intensity of discussion if you ask me. Until astronomers really know how bright the stars are everything else is in question to one degree or another. Nobody knows if the universe is really expanding at an accelerating pace or if it is slowing down in fact.
Evidence you haven't even learnt anything about dark matter. Dark matter is, in terms of the SM, weakly interacting. It isn't EM charged. It still has mass though, that's how we measure it's existence. By it's gravity
And it would provide the seeds because the thing which stopped normal matter collapsing in the first 300,000 years of the universe was the heat. Just like the heat of the Sun holds it up from gravitational collapse. Photons give electrons and protons so much energy they don't collapse. But if dark matter doesn't interact with photons nothing stops it collapsing.
There's a difference between 'black' and 'transparent in the darkness of space'. You don't seem to understand the difference.
Do you know anything about thermal distributions? The overall total kinetic energy is parameterised by the temperature. But in any thermally equalised system there's a distribution which looks like this :
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/Lab...ges/maxwell.jpg
Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to justify your claims does you no favours.
They do interact. If they are 'weakly' interact then they interact via W and Zs. Neutrinos 'weakly interact' and we still measure them. And if they gravitationally interact then they still will alter one anothers motion. Remember, they have billions of years and there's 10 times as much of them as normal matter. That's a lot of gravitational interaction.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
So you're willing to put in time on a website which is getting you nowhere other than being shown to be ignorant but you're not willing to actually talk to people who have control of the 'doomsday machine' and actually do something about it?
Are the lives of you, your family and everyone you know not worth $2000 to go to Geneva and talk to people in CERN directly?
You struggle with analogies, don't you?
Evidence?
Dark matter will be shown to be regular matter and not something exotic. The keep finding more and more brown dwarfs, carbon antiparticles and kupier belt solar system haloes that seems to be the most plausible explanation.
It's awesome how much matter is in cometary haloes.
Lately there has been lot of questioning about whether the standard candles used to define distances are defined accurately. That will overshadow everything else in intensity of discussion if you ask me. Until astronomers really know how bright the stars are everything else is in question to one degree or another. Nobody knows if the universe is really expanding at an accelerating pace or if it is slowing down in fact.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 06:08 AM)
I didn't "dismiss the SUSY LSP" model. I just stated it has problems. If you disagree with me, then address the issues I raised.
Also, the evidence for micro black holes is just as strong (if not stronger) than SUSY LSP evidence.
Which is a fool's supposition, if ever there was one. Why would the dark matter provide higher density areas for the baryonic matter to gravitate toward? Especially in consideration of the hypothesis that LSP's are generally non-interacting!
Heck, if this were true, wouldn't those dark matter galaxies (with enough hydrogen to create hundreds of millions, even billions of stars) be creating localized densities (i.e. star nurseries) like crazy?
But in the haloes and dark matter galaxies it is generally black, and that's my point. Why is it black? What makes it black?
And just how much energy/momentum are you supposing this material has? Don't you know anything about the conservation of momentum? If some is slowed, musn't some also accelerate?
Are you trying to say there are no problems with the LSP model? Because if you are, I can cite a slew of papers from professional researchers that would disagree with you.
Yes.
They can't bump and rub against each other and reduce each other's angular momentums like ordinary matter. This also aplies to, and is part of the hypothesis regarding LSP dark matter (apparently, you didn't know that).
It happens to be quite effective sometimes.
I'm willing. I'm spending time here, aren't I?
I'd call the police.
I have.
Take look at the very violent and heated discussion on the bulletin board topic "The World's Most Prolific Inventor" I'm calling the police myself!
Also, the evidence for micro black holes is just as strong (if not stronger) than SUSY LSP evidence.
Which is a fool's supposition, if ever there was one. Why would the dark matter provide higher density areas for the baryonic matter to gravitate toward? Especially in consideration of the hypothesis that LSP's are generally non-interacting!
Heck, if this were true, wouldn't those dark matter galaxies (with enough hydrogen to create hundreds of millions, even billions of stars) be creating localized densities (i.e. star nurseries) like crazy?
But in the haloes and dark matter galaxies it is generally black, and that's my point. Why is it black? What makes it black?
And just how much energy/momentum are you supposing this material has? Don't you know anything about the conservation of momentum? If some is slowed, musn't some also accelerate?
Are you trying to say there are no problems with the LSP model? Because if you are, I can cite a slew of papers from professional researchers that would disagree with you.
Yes.
They can't bump and rub against each other and reduce each other's angular momentums like ordinary matter. This also aplies to, and is part of the hypothesis regarding LSP dark matter (apparently, you didn't know that).
It happens to be quite effective sometimes.
I'm willing. I'm spending time here, aren't I?
I'd call the police.
I have.
Take look at the very violent and heated discussion on the bulletin board topic "The World's Most Prolific Inventor" I'm calling the police myself!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 07:29 AM)
Sure.
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
You should heed your own advice.
Why don't you try citing a few more references?
Intersting. I forgot most of that stuff.
Einstein was very interested in global properties of the universe and the effect of all parts of it on all other parts, Mach's principle. He envisioned it all built up from infinitesimal localized points.
Think globally act locally.
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
You should heed your own advice.
Why don't you try citing a few more references?
Intersting. I forgot most of that stuff.
Einstein was very interested in global properties of the universe and the effect of all parts of it on all other parts, Mach's principle. He envisioned it all built up from infinitesimal localized points.
Think globally act locally.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
Review of physics for Henry Clerval:
(Yet another post I lost in mid-flight and had to start over from scratch.)
Have you ever tried saving your work? It's real easy.
Right. Tell him what happens to the matter they don't "hoover up."
Right. Tell him what happens to the matter they don't "hoover up."
The rate at which a sub-femtometer scale black hole consumes the Earth can be closely approximated by treating it as carving a cylinder. For a Earth of approximate diameter, 2 r_{Earth} = 1.27×10^7 m, density D = 8000 kg/m³, and ½ LEO period, T=44 minutes, we can compute the rate of mass consumption as D(2 r_{Earth})σ/T
This is completely ridiculous. It's not carving a cylinder. It's carving a fluted cone (think trumpet).
That depends on how large the motion is.
That depends on how large the motion is.
GR can't be the end-all to black hole physics, since GR has no quantum effects.
That's not how Hawking saw it.
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
Effect two:
Black holes with too much angular momentum aren't black anymore (they are naked singularities). This limit on angular momentum is related to mass. Just below the Planck mass is a mass where a spin-less black hole cannot absorb a fermion without losing it's black-ness. This means that for smaller black holes, their capacity to absorb matter must be severely reduced from the non-quantum estimates.
That's pure GR in the extreme, with a dash of QM. The two don't mix so easily!
Which is in sharp contrast to the fact that you admitted a certain percentage would expect to be captured. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Which is in sharp contrast to the fact that you admitted a certain percentage would expect to be captured. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
LHC has a planned luminosity of 10^38/m²s so that events with a cross-section of less than about 3×10^-51 m² have less than even odds of being seen in a billion years of continuous LHC operation. For comparison, a 2 TeV GR Black Hole has a cross-section of about 10^-100 m²
A hypothesis with as yet no experimental data, called XLD, for Extra Large Dimensions, speculates that 2 TeV black holes might have a radius larger than the 5.30×10^-51 m predicted by GR, with correspondingly larger cross-section. XLD does have Hawking evaporation, as its authors started with quantum theory to get to XLD. There seem to be no good reason for equating 2 TeV with a XLD black hole radius of 0.0001 fm, except for the publicity reasons that just happens to make the luminosity-cross-section product near the 1 black-hole per second that makes the paper inflaming to the imagination.
Give me a break!
When did I say that?
When did I say that?
It seems obvious that a 0.0001 fm XLD 2 TeV black hole would have far less gravity than a 0.0001 fm GR 67,500 ton black hole, so that the factor k would be exactly 1.
Which only affects the initial fall (growth) rate.
That's ridiculous and unfounded.
That's ridiculous and unfounded.
...-- if we suppose (as Eric insists) that we discount Hawking evaporation for the trifling reason that we haven't observed it yet. (This is highly inconsistent, since we haven't observed sub-stellar-mass black holes or evidence for XLD, but Eric insists on those.)
We have observed evidence for XLD. It's admittedly sketchy, but it's been observed (I don't necessarily buy it).
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
The problem with risk analysis and Eric, is even when we assume as facts the hypotheses he comes up with, the numbers indicate the risk is actually zero.
Wrong.
Intersting reading: Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity.
Nice chart. So, do you suppose the universe obeys our predictions without fail, or do we have more to learn than we might imagine?
(Yet another post I lost in mid-flight and had to start over from scratch.)
Have you ever tried saving your work? It's real easy.
QUOTE
Protons are composite particles, with a radius of about 10^-15 m = 1 femtometer = 1 fm
Quarks and leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are hypothetically non-composite and point-like.
Subatomic nature of solid matter: Most matter at the sub-femtometer scale is empty space with a distribution of relativistic fermions.
All fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, etc.) have an angular momentum of h/4π (or 3h/4π if you assume SUSY).
GR Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. They have radius r_{Schwarzschild} = 2Gm/c²
Black holes work by a central force, so they conserve angular momentum. This mean they do not hoover up star systems, but are sloppy, inefficient eaters at best. For a GR black hole, the capture cross-section for relativistic particles is a small multiple of the geometric cross-section: σ = πkr² = 4πkG²m²/c^4
Quarks and leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are hypothetically non-composite and point-like.
Subatomic nature of solid matter: Most matter at the sub-femtometer scale is empty space with a distribution of relativistic fermions.
All fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, etc.) have an angular momentum of h/4π (or 3h/4π if you assume SUSY).
GR Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. They have radius r_{Schwarzschild} = 2Gm/c²
Black holes work by a central force, so they conserve angular momentum. This mean they do not hoover up star systems, but are sloppy, inefficient eaters at best. For a GR black hole, the capture cross-section for relativistic particles is a small multiple of the geometric cross-section: σ = πkr² = 4πkG²m²/c^4
Right. Tell him what happens to the matter they don't "hoover up."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Protons are composite particles, with a radius of about 10^-15 m = 1 femtometer = 1 fm Quarks and leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are hypothetically non-composite and point-like. Subatomic nature of solid matter: Most matter at the sub-femtometer scale is empty space with a distribution of relativistic fermions. All fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, etc.) have an angular momentum of h/4π (or 3h/4π if you assume SUSY). GR Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. They have radius r_{Schwarzschild} = 2Gm/c² Black holes work by a central force, so they conserve angular momentum. This mean they do not hoover up star systems, but are sloppy, inefficient eaters at best. For a GR black hole, the capture cross-section for relativistic particles is a small multiple of the geometric cross-section: σ = πkr² = 4πkG²m²/c^4 |
Right. Tell him what happens to the matter they don't "hoover up."
The rate at which a sub-femtometer scale black hole consumes the Earth can be closely approximated by treating it as carving a cylinder. For a Earth of approximate diameter, 2 r_{Earth} = 1.27×10^7 m, density D = 8000 kg/m³, and ½ LEO period, T=44 minutes, we can compute the rate of mass consumption as D(2 r_{Earth})σ/T
This is completely ridiculous. It's not carving a cylinder. It's carving a fluted cone (think trumpet).
QUOTE
This rate is highly optimistic since even a small non-zero motion relative to Earth's center will cause the period to increase and the chord of Earth to be a non-diameter.
That depends on how large the motion is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This rate is highly optimistic since even a small non-zero motion relative to Earth's center will cause the period to increase and the chord of Earth to be a non-diameter. |
That depends on how large the motion is.
GR can't be the end-all to black hole physics, since GR has no quantum effects.
That's not how Hawking saw it.
QUOTE
Effect one: Hawking evaporation
According to Hawking, black holes lose mass due to evaporation at a rate of hc^4/(30720π²G²m²)
This means they have a lifetime of 92160π²G²m³/(hc^4)
This also means that there is a minimum mass, below which the black hole evaporates faster than it gains, m_0 = (c²/G) ((2640 s) h/(245760π³k(8000 kg/m³)(1.27×10^7 m)))^(1/4)
According to Hawking, black holes lose mass due to evaporation at a rate of hc^4/(30720π²G²m²)
This means they have a lifetime of 92160π²G²m³/(hc^4)
This also means that there is a minimum mass, below which the black hole evaporates faster than it gains, m_0 = (c²/G) ((2640 s) h/(245760π³k(8000 kg/m³)(1.27×10^7 m)))^(1/4)
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Effect one: Hawking evaporation According to Hawking, black holes lose mass due to evaporation at a rate of hc^4/(30720π²G²m²) This means they have a lifetime of 92160π²G²m³/(hc^4) This also means that there is a minimum mass, below which the black hole evaporates faster than it gains, m_0 = (c²/G) ((2640 s) h/(245760π³k(8000 kg/m³)(1.27×10^7 m)))^(1/4) |
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
Effect two:
Black holes with too much angular momentum aren't black anymore (they are naked singularities). This limit on angular momentum is related to mass. Just below the Planck mass is a mass where a spin-less black hole cannot absorb a fermion without losing it's black-ness. This means that for smaller black holes, their capacity to absorb matter must be severely reduced from the non-quantum estimates.
That's pure GR in the extreme, with a dash of QM. The two don't mix so easily!
QUOTE
LHC throws protons together with a center-of-mass mass-energy of about 14 TeV, but the interesting collisions are the quark-quark collisions which are designed to happen with a center-of-mass mass-energy of 2 TeV.
There is no records of collider experiments producing products with zero velocity in the lab frame. Since most products are highly relativistic, a crude estimate of quark-quark center-of-mass velocities < 10^-5 c is 0.001% which is 2 orders of magnitude less than Walter Wagner's lowest estimate.
There is no records of collider experiments producing products with zero velocity in the lab frame. Since most products are highly relativistic, a crude estimate of quark-quark center-of-mass velocities < 10^-5 c is 0.001% which is 2 orders of magnitude less than Walter Wagner's lowest estimate.
Which is in sharp contrast to the fact that you admitted a certain percentage would expect to be captured. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LHC throws protons together with a center-of-mass mass-energy of about 14 TeV, but the interesting collisions are the quark-quark collisions which are designed to happen with a center-of-mass mass-energy of 2 TeV. There is no records of collider experiments producing products with zero velocity in the lab frame. Since most products are highly relativistic, a crude estimate of quark-quark center-of-mass velocities < 10^-5 c is 0.001% which is 2 orders of magnitude less than Walter Wagner's lowest estimate. |
Which is in sharp contrast to the fact that you admitted a certain percentage would expect to be captured. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
LHC has a planned luminosity of 10^38/m²s so that events with a cross-section of less than about 3×10^-51 m² have less than even odds of being seen in a billion years of continuous LHC operation. For comparison, a 2 TeV GR Black Hole has a cross-section of about 10^-100 m²
A hypothesis with as yet no experimental data, called XLD, for Extra Large Dimensions, speculates that 2 TeV black holes might have a radius larger than the 5.30×10^-51 m predicted by GR, with correspondingly larger cross-section. XLD does have Hawking evaporation, as its authors started with quantum theory to get to XLD. There seem to be no good reason for equating 2 TeV with a XLD black hole radius of 0.0001 fm, except for the publicity reasons that just happens to make the luminosity-cross-section product near the 1 black-hole per second that makes the paper inflaming to the imagination.
Give me a break!
QUOTE
Eric has uncritically accepted 2 TeV = 0.0001 fm, which begs the question about growth.
When did I say that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Eric has uncritically accepted 2 TeV = 0.0001 fm, which begs the question about growth. |
When did I say that?
It seems obvious that a 0.0001 fm XLD 2 TeV black hole would have far less gravity than a 0.0001 fm GR 67,500 ton black hole, so that the factor k would be exactly 1.
Which only affects the initial fall (growth) rate.
QUOTE
...It also seems obvious that the XLD-mass-radius curve must approach the GR mass-radius curve so that macroscopic GR (which is observed) is preserved. So XLD black holes must increase in radius very slowly over the 2-TeV to 67,500 ton mass range ( 31 orders of magnitude! ). This means that growth is not geometric, but linear, taking billions of billions of years to grow to 67,500 tons...
That's ridiculous and unfounded.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...It also seems obvious that the XLD-mass-radius curve must approach the GR mass-radius curve so that macroscopic GR (which is observed) is preserved. So XLD black holes must increase in radius very slowly over the 2-TeV to 67,500 ton mass range ( 31 orders of magnitude! ). This means that growth is not geometric, but linear, taking billions of billions of years to grow to 67,500 tons... |
That's ridiculous and unfounded.
...-- if we suppose (as Eric insists) that we discount Hawking evaporation for the trifling reason that we haven't observed it yet. (This is highly inconsistent, since we haven't observed sub-stellar-mass black holes or evidence for XLD, but Eric insists on those.)
We have observed evidence for XLD. It's admittedly sketchy, but it's been observed (I don't necessarily buy it).
QUOTE
So even if LHC makes stable 2 TeV, 0.0001 fm black holes at a rate of 1/second for 1500 years (50 billion black holes), and even if each we produced at exactly zero relative motion relative to Earth's center, over 10 billion years they would only grow to 3.8×10^-13 kg (each) for a total mass of 19 grams of black hole against the Earth's mass of nearly 6×10^24 kg. (Except that even 3.8×10^-13 kg is well below the Kerr limit which keeps tiny black holes from absorbing fermions.)
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So even if LHC makes stable 2 TeV, 0.0001 fm black holes at a rate of 1/second for 1500 years (50 billion black holes), and even if each we produced at exactly zero relative motion relative to Earth's center, over 10 billion years they would only grow to 3.8×10^-13 kg (each) for a total mass of 19 grams of black hole against the Earth's mass of nearly 6×10^24 kg. (Except that even 3.8×10^-13 kg is well below the Kerr limit which keeps tiny black holes from absorbing fermions.) |
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
The problem with risk analysis and Eric, is even when we assume as facts the hypotheses he comes up with, the numbers indicate the risk is actually zero.
Wrong.
Intersting reading: Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity.
QUOTE
CODE
Black Hole GR Hawking Hawking In-Earth
Mass Radius Lifetime Mass Loss Mass Gain
(kg) (m) (s) (kg/s) (kg/s)
1.00E-024 1.48E-051 8.38E-089 3.98E+063 2.40E-093
3.57E-024 5.30E-051 3.80E-087 3.13E+062 3.05E-092 2 TeV = LHC quark-quark energy
2.50E-023 3.71E-050 1.30E-084 6.39E+060 1.50E-090 14 TeV = LHC proton-proton energy
1.00E-021 1.48E-048 8.38E-080 3.98E+057 2.40E-087
1.00E-018 1.48E-045 8.38E-071 3.98E+051 2.40E-081
5.35E-016 7.94E-043 1.28E-062 1.39E+046 6.87E-076 300 EeV = Observed cosmic rays
1.00E-015 1.48E-042 8.38E-062 3.98E+045 2.40E-075
1.00E-012 1.48E-039 8.38E-053 3.98E+039 2.40E-069
1.54E-008 2.29E-035 3.06E-040 1.68E+031 5.69E-061 Limit for black hole to absorb fermion and stay black
2.18E-008 3.23E-035 8.63E-040 8.41E+030 1.14E-060 Planck Mass
1.00E-006 1.48E-033 8.38E-035 3.98E+027 2.40E-057
1.00E-003 1.48E-030 8.38E-026 3.98E+021 2.40E-051
1 1.48E-027 8.38E-017 3.98E+015 2.40E-045 LHC Safety limit on GR BH creation
1.00E+003 1.48E-024 8.38E-008 3.98E+009 2.40E-039
1.00E+006 1.48E-021 8.38E+001 3.98E+003 2.40E-033
6.75E+007 1.00E-019 2.58E+007 8.74E-001 1.09E-029 Radius = 0.0001 fm
1.00E+009 1.48E-018 8.38E+010 3.98E-003 2.40E-027
1.73E+011 2.57E-016 4.34E+017 1.33E-007 7.18E-023 Decay time = age of universe
1.00E+012 1.48E-015 8.38E+019 3.98E-009 2.40E-021
1.00E+015 1.48E-012 8.38E+028 3.98E-015 2.40E-015 Hawking/GR safety limit Earth-internal black holes
1.00E+018 1.48E-009 8.38E+037 3.98E-021 --
1.00E+021 1.48E-006 8.38E+046 3.98E-027 --
1.00E+024 1.48E-003 8.38E+055 3.98E-033 --
5.97E+024 8.87E-003 1.79E+058 1.12E-034 -- Mass of Earth
1.00E+027 1.48E+000 8.38E+064 3.98E-039 --
1.00E+030 1.48E+003 8.38E+073 3.98E-045 --
1.99E+030 2.95E+003 6.59E+074 1.01E-045 -- Mass of Sun
1.00E+033 1.48E+006 8.38E+082 3.98E-051 --
1.00E+036 1.48E+009 8.38E+091 3.98E-057 --
1.00E+039 1.48E+012 8.38E+100 3.98E-063 --
6.00E+039 8.91E+012 1.81E+103 1.11E-064 -- 3 billion solar masses
Mass Radius Lifetime Mass Loss Mass Gain
(kg) (m) (s) (kg/s) (kg/s)
1.00E-024 1.48E-051 8.38E-089 3.98E+063 2.40E-093
3.57E-024 5.30E-051 3.80E-087 3.13E+062 3.05E-092 2 TeV = LHC quark-quark energy
2.50E-023 3.71E-050 1.30E-084 6.39E+060 1.50E-090 14 TeV = LHC proton-proton energy
1.00E-021 1.48E-048 8.38E-080 3.98E+057 2.40E-087
1.00E-018 1.48E-045 8.38E-071 3.98E+051 2.40E-081
5.35E-016 7.94E-043 1.28E-062 1.39E+046 6.87E-076 300 EeV = Observed cosmic rays
1.00E-015 1.48E-042 8.38E-062 3.98E+045 2.40E-075
1.00E-012 1.48E-039 8.38E-053 3.98E+039 2.40E-069
1.54E-008 2.29E-035 3.06E-040 1.68E+031 5.69E-061 Limit for black hole to absorb fermion and stay black
2.18E-008 3.23E-035 8.63E-040 8.41E+030 1.14E-060 Planck Mass
1.00E-006 1.48E-033 8.38E-035 3.98E+027 2.40E-057
1.00E-003 1.48E-030 8.38E-026 3.98E+021 2.40E-051
1 1.48E-027 8.38E-017 3.98E+015 2.40E-045 LHC Safety limit on GR BH creation
1.00E+003 1.48E-024 8.38E-008 3.98E+009 2.40E-039
1.00E+006 1.48E-021 8.38E+001 3.98E+003 2.40E-033
6.75E+007 1.00E-019 2.58E+007 8.74E-001 1.09E-029 Radius = 0.0001 fm
1.00E+009 1.48E-018 8.38E+010 3.98E-003 2.40E-027
1.73E+011 2.57E-016 4.34E+017 1.33E-007 7.18E-023 Decay time = age of universe
1.00E+012 1.48E-015 8.38E+019 3.98E-009 2.40E-021
1.00E+015 1.48E-012 8.38E+028 3.98E-015 2.40E-015 Hawking/GR safety limit Earth-internal black holes
1.00E+018 1.48E-009 8.38E+037 3.98E-021 --
1.00E+021 1.48E-006 8.38E+046 3.98E-027 --
1.00E+024 1.48E-003 8.38E+055 3.98E-033 --
5.97E+024 8.87E-003 1.79E+058 1.12E-034 -- Mass of Earth
1.00E+027 1.48E+000 8.38E+064 3.98E-039 --
1.00E+030 1.48E+003 8.38E+073 3.98E-045 --
1.99E+030 2.95E+003 6.59E+074 1.01E-045 -- Mass of Sun
1.00E+033 1.48E+006 8.38E+082 3.98E-051 --
1.00E+036 1.48E+009 8.38E+091 3.98E-057 --
1.00E+039 1.48E+012 8.38E+100 3.98E-063 --
6.00E+039 8.91E+012 1.81E+103 1.11E-064 -- 3 billion solar masses
Nice chart. So, do you suppose the universe obeys our predictions without fail, or do we have more to learn than we might imagine?
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 07:16 AM)
No. I got part of it wrong.
Yeah, the part that mattered.
Not in the relevant context.
Not in the relevant context.
More bull. I've already described the error I made, alluded to some of the reasons why, and how my error was self consistent. The fact that you fail to grasp theses basic points suggests you're an idiot and a BS artist.
But you didn't grasp the implications of your error.
I've been completely consistent. I've stated often, it's speculative. I never stated it as an assertion or affirmation. What's so hard to understand about that?
Yeah, the part that mattered.
QUOTE
I was partly correct.
Not in the relevant context.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was partly correct. |
Not in the relevant context.
More bull. I've already described the error I made, alluded to some of the reasons why, and how my error was self consistent. The fact that you fail to grasp theses basic points suggests you're an idiot and a BS artist.
But you didn't grasp the implications of your error.
QUOTE
:ROTFLMFGDAO:
In one breath you claim or imply that microblackholes must constitute darkmatter, and in the other breath you claim you never said or implied it.
Consistent? Yeah, right. (a reference I'm sure N O M will appreciate).
In one breath you claim or imply that microblackholes must constitute darkmatter, and in the other breath you claim you never said or implied it.
Consistent? Yeah, right. (a reference I'm sure N O M will appreciate).
I've been completely consistent. I've stated often, it's speculative. I never stated it as an assertion or affirmation. What's so hard to understand about that?
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 12 2008, 08:22 AM)
If you had a gas comprized of black holes they'd all attract each other and fall into each other. Then what?
No, you wouldn't. Neutrinos gravitationally attract one another but don't combine. Things like angular momentum prevent it. You're under the misconception that a black hole's gravitational force is some kind of all powerful, inescapable thing. It's not. It's only inescapable once you're at the event horizon.
No, you wouldn't. Neutrinos gravitationally attract one another but don't combine. Things like angular momentum prevent it. You're under the misconception that a black hole's gravitational force is some kind of all powerful, inescapable thing. It's not. It's only inescapable once you're at the event horizon.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
Sure.
Then feel free to explain.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
So? How does that prove gravity is a force in GR?
I thought you said you understood how to define quantities locally?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
You should heed your own advice.
I'm still waiting for you to name a single QM book you've read. How many months is that now? You could have actually read one by now!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
Why don't you try citing a few more references?
Why? So you can ignore a few more?
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
Dark matter will be shown to be regular matter and not something exotic. The keep finding more and more brown dwarfs, carbon antiparticles and kupier belt solar system haloes that seems to be the most plausible explanation.
It's awesome how much matter is in cometary haloes.
It's awesome how much matter is in cometary haloes.
Except that we can put upper bounds on such things. Cometary halos don't even add up to the mass of Jupiter, never mind 10 times the mass on the Sun, which is what dark matter does.
Besides, there's a difference between a lot of small but normal objects and dark matter. We cannot see individual grains of dust in space but we can see it's overall effect. Normal matter doesn't explain what we see.
Besides, there's a difference between a lot of small but normal objects and dark matter. We cannot see individual grains of dust in space but we can see it's overall effect. Normal matter doesn't explain what we see.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:29 AM)
Have you ever tried saving your work? It's real easy.
Ever tried reading about dark matter? It's real easy. But you seem not to have done that.
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 07:24 AM)
Actually, there is some genuine wisdom behind that sentiment, and a particular fictional character is not the only person ever to have expressed, simply perhaps the popular culture icon that made it both accessable and widely known.
Ah baloney. If you lived by that then you'd never do anything because if you failed, you'd never be able to give yourself credit for being "partially correct."
And he knowingly and willfully continued to post in a manner that offended me. I have nothing to apologize for.
Sure, it's sad. But it's sad like hitting an abusive drunk. He didn't mean to offend, but I've the right to defend myself, nonetheless.
And he knowingly and willfully continued to post in a manner that offended me. I have nothing to apologize for.
Sure, it's sad. But it's sad like hitting an abusive drunk. He didn't mean to offend, but I've the right to defend myself, nonetheless.
Funny, didn't stop you from ignoring me until I nailed you over it.
I only use the ignore feature when irrelevance and obnoxious behavior begins to be intolerable. You've stretched my level of tolerance.
Ah baloney. If you lived by that then you'd never do anything because if you failed, you'd never be able to give yourself credit for being "partially correct."
QUOTE
And yet you knowingly, and wilfully continued to post in a manner that you knew would cause offense to RC.
And he knowingly and willfully continued to post in a manner that offended me. I have nothing to apologize for.
Sure, it's sad. But it's sad like hitting an abusive drunk. He didn't mean to offend, but I've the right to defend myself, nonetheless.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yet you knowingly, and wilfully continued to post in a manner that you knew would cause offense to RC. |
And he knowingly and willfully continued to post in a manner that offended me. I have nothing to apologize for.
Sure, it's sad. But it's sad like hitting an abusive drunk. He didn't mean to offend, but I've the right to defend myself, nonetheless.
Funny, didn't stop you from ignoring me until I nailed you over it.
I only use the ignore feature when irrelevance and obnoxious behavior begins to be intolerable. You've stretched my level of tolerance.
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 07:29 AM)
But I did describe it, you even refuted my description of it.
But you described it wrong!
Rarely.
Rarely.
Arrogant much?
Not at all.
Couldn't come up with a relevant argument, eh?
Couldn't come up with a relevant argument, eh?
Only because you didn't understand what you were reading.
Ha!
But you described it wrong!
QUOTE
Contradict yourself much?
Rarely.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Contradict yourself much? |
Rarely.
Arrogant much?
Not at all.
QUOTE
Again, I've stated a few example, but a quick look at your posting history reveals 1356 posts of misconceptions and delusions.
Couldn't come up with a relevant argument, eh?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, I've stated a few example, but a quick look at your posting history reveals 1356 posts of misconceptions and delusions. |
Couldn't come up with a relevant argument, eh?
Only because you didn't understand what you were reading.
Ha!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 12 2008, 09:17 AM)
No, you wouldn't. Neutrinos gravitationally attract one another but don't combine. Things like angular momentum prevent it. You're under the misconception that a black hole's gravitational force is some kind of all powerful, inescapable thing. It's not. It's only inescapable once you're at the event horizon.
Then feel free to explain.
I thought you said you understood how to define quantities locally?
I'm still waiting for you to name a single QM book you've read. How many months is that now? You could have actually read one by now!
Why? So you can ignore a few more?
Except that we can put upper bounds on such things. Cometary halos don't even add up to the mass of Jupiter, never mind 10 times the mass on the Sun, which is what dark matter does.
Besides, there's a difference between a lot of small but normal objects and dark matter. We cannot see individual grains of dust in space but we can see it's overall effect. Normal matter doesn't explain what we see.
Ever tried reading about dark matter? It's real easy. But you seem not to have done that.
Nobody knows for certain what the mass of cometary halo's could be I've seen figures stating millions of comets are out there extending halfway to alpha centauri. What if the estimates are off by a few million or thousand? maybe some parts of the galaxy have more cometary haloes than other parts. The abscence of dark matter is reality. Now what do you say?
Then feel free to explain.
I thought you said you understood how to define quantities locally?
I'm still waiting for you to name a single QM book you've read. How many months is that now? You could have actually read one by now!
Why? So you can ignore a few more?
Except that we can put upper bounds on such things. Cometary halos don't even add up to the mass of Jupiter, never mind 10 times the mass on the Sun, which is what dark matter does.
Besides, there's a difference between a lot of small but normal objects and dark matter. We cannot see individual grains of dust in space but we can see it's overall effect. Normal matter doesn't explain what we see.
Ever tried reading about dark matter? It's real easy. But you seem not to have done that.
Nobody knows for certain what the mass of cometary halo's could be I've seen figures stating millions of comets are out there extending halfway to alpha centauri. What if the estimates are off by a few million or thousand? maybe some parts of the galaxy have more cometary haloes than other parts. The abscence of dark matter is reality. Now what do you say?
There is a very small possibility that microblack holes will form at higher energy collisions. Higher than those that are are possible now.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
That's not how Hawking saw it.
So how did Hawking see it? Of course, just because Stephen Hawking thinks something it means it must be right.
I'm utterly fed up of telling you this: The original Hawking radiation calculation had no infalling particles at all. Hawking considered a scalar quantum field in the background of a collapsing body and discovered that at a long way away from the body a particle detector would detect a thermal spectrum of particles, the temperature of which would depend on the mass of the body. Subsequently, the calculation was done for Schwarzschild and Kerr-Newman black holes.
I reiterate: There are no infalling particles only quantum filed theory in a curved background. Read Birrell & Davies and you'll be able to see exactly what I mean. Of course, you'll need a reasonable working knowledge of both GR and QFT to get anything from this book, which I highly doubt you have.
I notice you say "maybe" quite a lot. You really need to get a lot less speculative and start talking about calculated facts. The trouble is, if you did that this thread would die very rapidly.
I'm utterly fed up of telling you this: The original Hawking radiation calculation had no infalling particles at all. Hawking considered a scalar quantum field in the background of a collapsing body and discovered that at a long way away from the body a particle detector would detect a thermal spectrum of particles, the temperature of which would depend on the mass of the body. Subsequently, the calculation was done for Schwarzschild and Kerr-Newman black holes.
I reiterate: There are no infalling particles only quantum filed theory in a curved background. Read Birrell & Davies and you'll be able to see exactly what I mean. Of course, you'll need a reasonable working knowledge of both GR and QFT to get anything from this book, which I highly doubt you have.
I notice you say "maybe" quite a lot. You really need to get a lot less speculative and start talking about calculated facts. The trouble is, if you did that this thread would die very rapidly.
That's pure GR in the extreme, with a dash of QM. The two don't mix so easily!
But we do know how to do QFT calculations (not QM) in curved space and, more importantly, we know whether we're being consistent or not. The title of the book above is "Quantum fields in curved space!" Understand the maths before you start rubbishing.
No.
No.
We have observed evidence for XLD. It's admittedly sketchy, but it's been observed
Ah ha!
Now we're being a little paranoid aren't we? rpenner laid nothing at your door, just gave a concise and clear argument why your scaremongering is unfounded.
Now we're being a little paranoid aren't we? rpenner laid nothing at your door, just gave a concise and clear argument why your scaremongering is unfounded.
Nice chart. So, do you suppose the universe obeys our predictions without fail, or do we have more to learn than we might imagine?
More supposing, perhapsing and speculation. You really will have to do better.
So how did Hawking see it? Of course, just because Stephen Hawking thinks something it means it must be right.
QUOTE
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
I'm utterly fed up of telling you this: The original Hawking radiation calculation had no infalling particles at all. Hawking considered a scalar quantum field in the background of a collapsing body and discovered that at a long way away from the body a particle detector would detect a thermal spectrum of particles, the temperature of which would depend on the mass of the body. Subsequently, the calculation was done for Schwarzschild and Kerr-Newman black holes.
I reiterate: There are no infalling particles only quantum filed theory in a curved background. Read Birrell & Davies and you'll be able to see exactly what I mean. Of course, you'll need a reasonable working knowledge of both GR and QFT to get anything from this book, which I highly doubt you have.
I notice you say "maybe" quite a lot. You really need to get a lot less speculative and start talking about calculated facts. The trouble is, if you did that this thread would die very rapidly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations. |
I'm utterly fed up of telling you this: The original Hawking radiation calculation had no infalling particles at all. Hawking considered a scalar quantum field in the background of a collapsing body and discovered that at a long way away from the body a particle detector would detect a thermal spectrum of particles, the temperature of which would depend on the mass of the body. Subsequently, the calculation was done for Schwarzschild and Kerr-Newman black holes.
I reiterate: There are no infalling particles only quantum filed theory in a curved background. Read Birrell & Davies and you'll be able to see exactly what I mean. Of course, you'll need a reasonable working knowledge of both GR and QFT to get anything from this book, which I highly doubt you have.
I notice you say "maybe" quite a lot. You really need to get a lot less speculative and start talking about calculated facts. The trouble is, if you did that this thread would die very rapidly.
That's pure GR in the extreme, with a dash of QM. The two don't mix so easily!
But we do know how to do QFT calculations (not QM) in curved space and, more importantly, we know whether we're being consistent or not. The title of the book above is "Quantum fields in curved space!" Understand the maths before you start rubbishing.
QUOTE
Give me a break!
No.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Give me a break! |
No.
We have observed evidence for XLD. It's admittedly sketchy, but it's been observed
Ah ha!
QUOTE
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
Now we're being a little paranoid aren't we? rpenner laid nothing at your door, just gave a concise and clear argument why your scaremongering is unfounded.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes. |
Now we're being a little paranoid aren't we? rpenner laid nothing at your door, just gave a concise and clear argument why your scaremongering is unfounded.
Nice chart. So, do you suppose the universe obeys our predictions without fail, or do we have more to learn than we might imagine?
More supposing, perhapsing and speculation. You really will have to do better.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 06:34 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 4 2008, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Apr 4 2008+ 04:18 AM)
Didn't rpenner essentially assure me recently that I have the attention of "dozens of physics professors?"
To clarify, a month ago I talked about the world aggregate response to the crackpot claims, not necessarily ubavontuba's, based on various non-professional intuitions that the Earth (or a larger portion of the universe) was at risk from Bevatron/Tevatron/RHIC/CERN/LHC.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 4 2008, 08:58 AM)
Physics students, physics Ph.D. students and dozens of physics professors with hundreds of published papers have written replies, and ubavontuba considers all of them to be insufficient to budge his opinion. This is because his fears are not based on science but on the conviction that he was correct over 2 years ago.
So then you lied, because you wrote they had written replies, not argued my points in general.
They are replies to your stolen and old questions. (You have as yet made no points because your demonstrated comprehension of physics in general and black hole physics in specific seems to limited to the correct spelling of certain terms.) They were made in ignorance of your personal existence and probably in ignorance of the existence of this forum, because your personal contribution to the science has been non-existent. The debate happened in the places where scientific debates happen.
You uncritically took my words without understanding them and quoted them to boost your personal sense of self-worth. That was in error.
Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho at least got their names in the papers, but they too make no points, just ask questions. And as I pointed out months ago personally to Walter Wagner, it makes no sense to try to stop CERN in U.S. Federal Court, and none of their supporters can given expert opinions on any relevant topic, because of the rules of evidence.
They are replies to your stolen and old questions. (You have as yet made no points because your demonstrated comprehension of physics in general and black hole physics in specific seems to limited to the correct spelling of certain terms.) They were made in ignorance of your personal existence and probably in ignorance of the existence of this forum, because your personal contribution to the science has been non-existent. The debate happened in the places where scientific debates happen.
You uncritically took my words without understanding them and quoted them to boost your personal sense of self-worth. That was in error.
Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho at least got their names in the papers, but they too make no points, just ask questions. And as I pointed out months ago personally to Walter Wagner, it makes no sense to try to stop CERN in U.S. Federal Court, and none of their supporters can given expert opinions on any relevant topic, because of the rules of evidence.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 06:34 AM)
And the only example you provided was for an argument that you KNOW has been falsified! Give me a break!
I know no such thing. For one, you don't name or point to the argument or the falsification. The claim you make refers to subjects which exist only in your head, so it is unclear to the rest of us.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 12 2008, 07:22 AM)
If you had a gas comprized of black holes they'd all attract each other and fall into each other. Then what?
The point is, for a sparse gas of black holes, there would be an arbitrarily large period of time where the number of black holes is essentially constant since the rate of black hole mergers was low. Thus for astronomical periods of time, a black hole gas would be physically similar to any other gas -- elastic collisions would be replaced by hyperbolic black-hole-black-hole interactions.
The point is, for a sparse gas of black holes, there would be an arbitrarily large period of time where the number of black holes is essentially constant since the rate of black hole mergers was low. Thus for astronomical periods of time, a black hole gas would be physically similar to any other gas -- elastic collisions would be replaced by hyperbolic black-hole-black-hole interactions.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
Protons are composite particles, with a radius of about 10^-15 m = 1 femtometer = 1 fm
Quarks and leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are hypothetically non-composite and point-like.
Subatomic nature of solid matter: Most matter at the sub-femtometer scale is empty space with a distribution of relativistic fermions.
All fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, etc.) have an angular momentum of h/4π (or 3h/4π if you assume SUSY).
GR Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. They have radius r_{Schwarzschild} = 2Gm/c²
Black holes work by a central force, so they conserve angular momentum. This mean they do not hoover up star systems, but are sloppy, inefficient eaters at best. For a GR black hole, the capture cross-section for relativistic particles is a small multiple of the geometric cross-section: σ = πkr² = 4πkG²m²/c^4
Quarks and leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are hypothetically non-composite and point-like.
Subatomic nature of solid matter: Most matter at the sub-femtometer scale is empty space with a distribution of relativistic fermions.
All fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, etc.) have an angular momentum of h/4π (or 3h/4π if you assume SUSY).
GR Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. They have radius r_{Schwarzschild} = 2Gm/c²
Black holes work by a central force, so they conserve angular momentum. This mean they do not hoover up star systems, but are sloppy, inefficient eaters at best. For a GR black hole, the capture cross-section for relativistic particles is a small multiple of the geometric cross-section: σ = πkr² = 4πkG²m²/c^4
Right. Tell him what happens to the matter they don't "hoover up."
For a 2 TeV black hole? Nothing happens at all. Even a 1 kg black hole would not have enough gravity to tidal disrupt a proton, nucleus or atom. Or more formally, the cross-section of tidal disruption is orders of magnitude smaller than the ludicrously inflated XLD numbers below which prove to be safe and wonderful.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
The rate at which a sub-femtometer scale black hole consumes the Earth can be closely approximated by treating it as carving a cylinder. For a Earth of approximate diameter, 2 r_{Earth} = 1.27×10^7 m, density D = 8000 kg/m³, and ½ LEO period, T=44 minutes, we can compute the rate of mass consumption as D(2 r_{Earth})σ/T
This is completely ridiculous. It's not carving a cylinder. It's carving a fluted cone (think trumpet).
Then you must have growth rate calculations which differ radically from mine. Funny that in two years of posting that you never referred to them. Until you post your calculations and, well, argument, you have not made a physics argument. And without a physics argument you have no points.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
This rate is highly optimistic since even a small non-zero motion relative to Earth's center will cause the period to increase and the chord of Earth to be a non-diameter.
That depends on how large the motion is.
??? You seem to miss the point which was formulated on a knowledge of the relevant velocity scales and orbital dynamics. In simple terms, if you are a black home disaster scenario enthusiast, then ZERO velocity is the most dangerous black hole. It's a simple concept, easily grasped by even Walter Wagner.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
GR can't be the end-all to black hole physics, since GR has no quantum effects.
That's not how Hawking saw it.
Wrong tense. Wrong facts. Since the 1970's Hawking has been adding quantum effects to GR, and famously related black holes to thermodynamics. GR (Einstein, 1916) is a classic (meaning non-quantum) theory. Both Hawking and XLD authors are working with quantum theory/GR theory mash-ups.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
Effect one: Hawking evaporation
According to Hawking, black holes lose mass due to evaporation at a rate of hc^4/(30720π²G²m²)
This means they have a lifetime of 92160π²G²m³/(hc^4)
This also means that there is a minimum mass, below which the black hole evaporates faster than it gains, m_0 = (c²/G) ((2640 s) h/(245760π³k(8000 kg/m³)(1.27×10^7 m)))^(1/4)
According to Hawking, black holes lose mass due to evaporation at a rate of hc^4/(30720π²G²m²)
This means they have a lifetime of 92160π²G²m³/(hc^4)
This also means that there is a minimum mass, below which the black hole evaporates faster than it gains, m_0 = (c²/G) ((2640 s) h/(245760π³k(8000 kg/m³)(1.27×10^7 m)))^(1/4)
Maybe they don't evaporate. Maybe he forgot to consider the potential energy of the infalling particles in his calculations.
It doesn't matter to me personally if they evaporate or not, but since Hawking calculated such strange results that for 3 decades physicists have worked to prove Hawking wrong and failed -- some have even taken different approaches entirely to wind up with the same numbers as Hawking -- then the physics is as good as anything that Man has done. But just to bend over backwards for you non-physicist black-hole groupies, I have ignored Hawking when calculating the rate of the Earth's demise. By petulantly making noise at every point, you aren't doing your reputation any favors. People want well-argued answers not more questions, and they want relevant interruptions. Disputing Hawking gains no points, since I have already ignored Hawking to consider your ludicrous position.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
Effect two:
Black holes with too much angular momentum aren't black anymore (they are naked singularities). This limit on angular momentum is related to mass. Just below the Planck mass is a mass where a spin-less black hole cannot absorb a fermion without losing it's black-ness. This means that for smaller black holes, their capacity to absorb matter must be severely reduced from the non-quantum estimates.
Black holes with too much angular momentum aren't black anymore (they are naked singularities). This limit on angular momentum is related to mass. Just below the Planck mass is a mass where a spin-less black hole cannot absorb a fermion without losing it's black-ness. This means that for smaller black holes, their capacity to absorb matter must be severely reduced from the non-quantum estimates.
That's pure GR in the extreme, with a dash of QM. The two don't mix so easily!
Actually, it's pure GR and conservation of angular momentum, which is a topic within the theory of GR. The "quantum" bit, is just a fact -- fermions have non-zero angular momentum.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
LHC throws protons together with a center-of-mass mass-energy of about 14 TeV, but the interesting collisions are the quark-quark collisions which are designed to happen with a center-of-mass mass-energy of 2 TeV.
There is no records of collider experiments producing products with zero velocity in the lab frame. Since most products are highly relativistic, a crude estimate of quark-quark center-of-mass velocities < 10^-5 c is 0.001% which is 2 orders of magnitude less than Walter Wagner's lowest estimate.
There is no records of collider experiments producing products with zero velocity in the lab frame. Since most products are highly relativistic, a crude estimate of quark-quark center-of-mass velocities < 10^-5 c is 0.001% which is 2 orders of magnitude less than Walter Wagner's lowest estimate.
Which is in sharp contrast to the fact that you admitted a certain percentage would expect to be captured. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Neither. Both times I'm talking about a very small percentage would be gravitationally captured by Earth. And I have specifically requested reasonable calculations from your side about what that percentage is. Walter's 0.1% is not credible and his 14% is ludicrous.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
LHC has a planned luminosity of 10^38/m²s so that events with a cross-section of less than about 3×10^-51 m² have less than even odds of being seen in a billion years of continuous LHC operation. For comparison, a 2 TeV GR Black Hole has a cross-section of about 10^-100 m²
A hypothesis with as yet no experimental data, called XLD, for Extra Large Dimensions, speculates that 2 TeV black holes might have a radius larger than the 5.30×10^-51 m predicted by GR, with correspondingly larger cross-section. XLD does have Hawking evaporation, as its authors started with quantum theory to get to XLD. There seem to be no good reason for equating 2 TeV with a XLD black hole radius of 0.0001 fm, except for the publicity reasons that just happens to make the luminosity-cross-section product near the 1 black-hole per second that makes the paper inflaming to the imagination.
A hypothesis with as yet no experimental data, called XLD, for Extra Large Dimensions, speculates that 2 TeV black holes might have a radius larger than the 5.30×10^-51 m predicted by GR, with correspondingly larger cross-section. XLD does have Hawking evaporation, as its authors started with quantum theory to get to XLD. There seem to be no good reason for equating 2 TeV with a XLD black hole radius of 0.0001 fm, except for the publicity reasons that just happens to make the luminosity-cross-section product near the 1 black-hole per second that makes the paper inflaming to the imagination.
Give me a break!
Why should I give you a break? Where have you done any of the "heavy lifting" (by which I mean physics arguments and calculations) which would entitle you to a break? You're not union labor, you're a dilettante.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
Eric has uncritically accepted 2 TeV = 0.0001 fm, which begs the question about growth.
When did I say that?
When you linked to the CERN Courier report without criticizing it. If you have a different physics argument as how black holes from LHC will doom the Earth, you are welcome to state it. But we've already ruled out "pure GR," because as stated above, "a 2 TeV GR Black Hole has a cross-section of about 10^-100 m²."
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
It seems obvious that a 0.0001 fm XLD 2 TeV black hole would have far less gravity than a 0.0001 fm GR 67,500 ton black hole, so that the factor k would be exactly 1.
Which only affects the initial fall (growth) rate.
No, the gravity due to a 2 TeV or a 67,500 ton black hole doesn't materially affect their orbital dynamics due to the Earth's 5.97×10^21 tons. It does somewhat affect the capture cross-section, which is the cited effect.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
It also seems obvious that the XLD-mass-radius curve must approach the GR mass-radius curve so that macroscopic GR (which is observed) is preserved. So XLD black holes must increase in radius very slowly over the 2-TeV to 67,500 ton mass range ( 31 orders of magnitude! ). This means that growth is not geometric, but linear, taking billions of billions of years to grow to 67,500 tons
That's ridiculous and unfounded.
It is founded only on the assumption that radius is a non-diminishing function of mass, which is founded on the assumption that the 2 TeV black hole is the same class of object as stellar black holes, which is founded on your use of the term black hole to describe them. Thus "seems obvious."
You have a curve from GR which is reasonable for Earth-sized objects up to billions of solar masses, you have a hypothetical point off that curve -- so there is no way to draw a new curve that doesn't stay flat for 31 orders of magnitude.
You have a curve from GR which is reasonable for Earth-sized objects up to billions of solar masses, you have a hypothetical point off that curve -- so there is no way to draw a new curve that doesn't stay flat for 31 orders of magnitude.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
-- if we suppose (as Eric insists) that we discount Hawking evaporation for the trifling reason that we haven't observed it yet. (This is highly inconsistent, since we haven't observed sub-stellar-mass black holes or evidence for XLD, but Eric insists on those.)
We have observed evidence for XLD. It's admittedly sketchy, but it's been observed (I don't necessarily buy it).
I'm aware only of evidence that doesn't discredit XLD -- please cite or describe your evidence for XLD in a positive sense.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
So even if LHC makes stable 2 TeV, 0.0001 fm black holes at a rate of 1/second for 1500 years (50 billion black holes), and even if each we produced at exactly zero relative motion relative to Earth's center, over 10 billion years they would only grow to 3.8×10^-13 kg (each) for a total mass of 19 grams of black hole against the Earth's mass of nearly 6×10^24 kg. (Except that even 3.8×10^-13 kg is well below the Kerr limit which keeps tiny black holes from absorbing fermions.)
Stop it! Stop putting your assumptions on me. I never gave a dimension for the black holes.
You did when you uncritically referred to the danger in the hypothesis in the CERN Courier. Since risk assessment needs numbers, I have used those. You are free to lay out your case with your assumptions at any time.
You are very constrained by reality here. If you choose a smaller radius, you make your case even worse than it is now. If you choose a much larger radius you leave the shadow of Man's ignorance which allows your imagination to run free.
My May 30 2007 post has a link to the articleThe case for mini black holes (2004) by Aurélien Barrau and Julien Grain, if you need a review. Only recently did I find this: Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group (2003)
You are very constrained by reality here. If you choose a smaller radius, you make your case even worse than it is now. If you choose a much larger radius you leave the shadow of Man's ignorance which allows your imagination to run free.
My May 30 2007 post has a link to the articleThe case for mini black holes (2004) by Aurélien Barrau and Julien Grain, if you need a review. Only recently did I find this: Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group (2003)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
The problem with risk analysis and Eric, is even when we assume as facts the hypotheses he comes up with, the numbers indicate the risk is actually zero.
Wrong.
(The way you refute this is to lay out the hypotheses and demonstrate the calculations -- which you haven't done in 2 years. So when you say "Wrong." no one believes you.)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
Intersting reading: Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity.
Dr. Rössler is no quantum or GR physicist, presents no arguments, and demonstrates no calculations, and writes no publications on this issue. A simple mistake like using 67500 ton GR black holes instead of 2 TeV black holes would explain his calculations based on "chaos theory" which is a theory of dynamical systems with non-linear interactions. With 2 TeV black holes, there are no interactions to speak of, even in my hypothetical case of 50 billion of them. It is also of note that Dr. Rössler talks about a basic undergraduate misunderstanding of GR as if it were a 90-year-old mistake in GR. Where's the paper demonstrating that?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 7 2008, 05:44 AM)
CODE
Black Hole GR Hawking Hawking In-Earth
Mass Radius Lifetime Mass Loss Mass Gain
(kg) (m) (s) (kg/s) (kg/s)
1.00E-024 1.48E-051 8.38E-089 3.98E+063 2.40E-093
3.57E-024 5.30E-051 3.80E-087 3.13E+062 3.05E-092 2 TeV = LHC quark-quark energy
2.50E-023 3.71E-050 1.30E-084 6.39E+060 1.50E-090 14 TeV = LHC proton-proton energy
1.00E-021 1.48E-048 8.38E-080 3.98E+057 2.40E-087
1.00E-018 1.48E-045 8.38E-071 3.98E+051 2.40E-081
5.35E-016 7.94E-043 1.28E-062 1.39E+046 6.87E-076 300 EeV = Observed cosmic rays
1.00E-015 1.48E-042 8.38E-062 3.98E+045 2.40E-075
1.00E-012 1.48E-039 8.38E-053 3.98E+039 2.40E-069
1.54E-008 2.29E-035 3.06E-040 1.68E+031 5.69E-061 Limit for black hole to absorb fermion and stay black
2.18E-008 3.23E-035 8.63E-040 8.41E+030 1.14E-060 Planck Mass
1.00E-006 1.48E-033 8.38E-035 3.98E+027 2.40E-057
1.00E-003 1.48E-030 8.38E-026 3.98E+021 2.40E-051
1 1.48E-027 8.38E-017 3.98E+015 2.40E-045 LHC Safety limit on GR BH creation
1.00E+003 1.48E-024 8.38E-008 3.98E+009 2.40E-039
1.00E+006 1.48E-021 8.38E+001 3.98E+003 2.40E-033
6.75E+007 1.00E-019 2.58E+007 8.74E-001 1.09E-029 Radius = 0.0001 fm
1.00E+009 1.48E-018 8.38E+010 3.98E-003 2.40E-027
1.73E+011 2.57E-016 4.34E+017 1.33E-007 7.18E-023 Decay time = age of universe
1.00E+012 1.48E-015 8.38E+019 3.98E-009 2.40E-021
1.00E+015 1.48E-012 8.38E+028 3.98E-015 2.40E-015 Hawking/GR safety limit Earth-internal black holes
1.00E+018 1.48E-009 8.38E+037 3.98E-021 --
1.00E+021 1.48E-006 8.38E+046 3.98E-027 --
1.00E+024 1.48E-003 8.38E+055 3.98E-033 --
5.97E+024 8.87E-003 1.79E+058 1.12E-034 -- Mass of Earth
1.00E+027 1.48E+000 8.38E+064 3.98E-039 --
1.00E+030 1.48E+003 8.38E+073 3.98E-045 --
1.99E+030 2.95E+003 6.59E+074 1.01E-045 -- Mass of Sun
1.00E+033 1.48E+006 8.38E+082 3.98E-051 --
1.00E+036 1.48E+009 8.38E+091 3.98E-057 --
1.00E+039 1.48E+012 8.38E+100 3.98E-063 --
6.00E+039 8.91E+012 1.81E+103 1.11E-064 -- 3 billion solar masses
Mass Radius Lifetime Mass Loss Mass Gain
(kg) (m) (s) (kg/s) (kg/s)
1.00E-024 1.48E-051 8.38E-089 3.98E+063 2.40E-093
3.57E-024 5.30E-051 3.80E-087 3.13E+062 3.05E-092 2 TeV = LHC quark-quark energy
2.50E-023 3.71E-050 1.30E-084 6.39E+060 1.50E-090 14 TeV = LHC proton-proton energy
1.00E-021 1.48E-048 8.38E-080 3.98E+057 2.40E-087
1.00E-018 1.48E-045 8.38E-071 3.98E+051 2.40E-081
5.35E-016 7.94E-043 1.28E-062 1.39E+046 6.87E-076 300 EeV = Observed cosmic rays
1.00E-015 1.48E-042 8.38E-062 3.98E+045 2.40E-075
1.00E-012 1.48E-039 8.38E-053 3.98E+039 2.40E-069
1.54E-008 2.29E-035 3.06E-040 1.68E+031 5.69E-061 Limit for black hole to absorb fermion and stay black
2.18E-008 3.23E-035 8.63E-040 8.41E+030 1.14E-060 Planck Mass
1.00E-006 1.48E-033 8.38E-035 3.98E+027 2.40E-057
1.00E-003 1.48E-030 8.38E-026 3.98E+021 2.40E-051
1 1.48E-027 8.38E-017 3.98E+015 2.40E-045 LHC Safety limit on GR BH creation
1.00E+003 1.48E-024 8.38E-008 3.98E+009 2.40E-039
1.00E+006 1.48E-021 8.38E+001 3.98E+003 2.40E-033
6.75E+007 1.00E-019 2.58E+007 8.74E-001 1.09E-029 Radius = 0.0001 fm
1.00E+009 1.48E-018 8.38E+010 3.98E-003 2.40E-027
1.73E+011 2.57E-016 4.34E+017 1.33E-007 7.18E-023 Decay time = age of universe
1.00E+012 1.48E-015 8.38E+019 3.98E-009 2.40E-021
1.00E+015 1.48E-012 8.38E+028 3.98E-015 2.40E-015 Hawking/GR safety limit Earth-internal black holes
1.00E+018 1.48E-009 8.38E+037 3.98E-021 --
1.00E+021 1.48E-006 8.38E+046 3.98E-027 --
1.00E+024 1.48E-003 8.38E+055 3.98E-033 --
5.97E+024 8.87E-003 1.79E+058 1.12E-034 -- Mass of Earth
1.00E+027 1.48E+000 8.38E+064 3.98E-039 --
1.00E+030 1.48E+003 8.38E+073 3.98E-045 --
1.99E+030 2.95E+003 6.59E+074 1.01E-045 -- Mass of Sun
1.00E+033 1.48E+006 8.38E+082 3.98E-051 --
1.00E+036 1.48E+009 8.38E+091 3.98E-057 --
1.00E+039 1.48E+012 8.38E+100 3.98E-063 --
6.00E+039 8.91E+012 1.81E+103 1.11E-064 -- 3 billion solar masses
Nice chart. So, do you suppose the universe obeys our predictions without fail, or do we have more to learn than we might imagine?
Perhaps you misunderstand that the topic is physics.
Hi Uba
That's the problem. You may well have done, I would not be able to tell either way, that's why RPenner decided to write, in laymans terms, his reasons for thinking it is safe. Which I must say were fairly convincing.
Could you put your argument which refutes that in laymans terms?
You seem to be using the fact that if it did go wrong in the worst manner, that the world would end as the reason to fear the LHC. But from RPenners argument, which seems to have been applauded by others, the risk of that is actually zero.
I realise you don't approve of following popular opinion, but if i want my car fixed, I don't want to take it to a mechanic who does not believe in internal combustion and sees himself as a pioneer. Sometimes the pack are right.
Has your own opinion not moved one inch with the avalanche of information on here?
Henry
QUOTE
QUOTE
If your argument is that we are going too fast and if we come against a corner, then we are in trouble, and you can demonstrate that, then please, in clear terms, do.
I have. I've verifiably falsified CERN's own safety analysis. How much more do you need, to become concerned?
If your argument is that we are going too fast and if we come against a corner, then we are in trouble, and you can demonstrate that, then please, in clear terms, do.
I have. I've verifiably falsified CERN's own safety analysis. How much more do you need, to become concerned?
That's the problem. You may well have done, I would not be able to tell either way, that's why RPenner decided to write, in laymans terms, his reasons for thinking it is safe. Which I must say were fairly convincing.
Could you put your argument which refutes that in laymans terms?
You seem to be using the fact that if it did go wrong in the worst manner, that the world would end as the reason to fear the LHC. But from RPenners argument, which seems to have been applauded by others, the risk of that is actually zero.
I realise you don't approve of following popular opinion, but if i want my car fixed, I don't want to take it to a mechanic who does not believe in internal combustion and sees himself as a pioneer. Sometimes the pack are right.
Has your own opinion not moved one inch with the avalanche of information on here?
Henry
Sorry, sent that before I finished........
Uba, if I had observed you concede even one part of one point I believe your argument would hold more credibility.
As it is you seem to hold everybody with an opposing opinion as incompetent.
Uba, if I had observed you concede even one part of one point I believe your argument would hold more credibility.
As it is you seem to hold everybody with an opposing opinion as incompetent.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 12 2008, 08:49 PM)
Wrong.
Intersting reading: Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity.
Right...
So you're citing BIOCHEMIST in a physics debate.
And you have the nerve to have a go at me for not checking my references?
As for the rest of you BS? Nothing there worth responding to, you fail to grasp basic philisophical concepts as well as physical ones, and yet you claim to have overturned 30 years of physics. You repeatedly complain about peoples dishonesty, while deliberately engaging in dishonest tactics.
You're a hyocrite, a liar, and a fraud.
Intersting reading: Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity.
Right...
So you're citing BIOCHEMIST in a physics debate.
And you have the nerve to have a go at me for not checking my references?
As for the rest of you BS? Nothing there worth responding to, you fail to grasp basic philisophical concepts as well as physical ones, and yet you claim to have overturned 30 years of physics. You repeatedly complain about peoples dishonesty, while deliberately engaging in dishonest tactics.
You're a hyocrite, a liar, and a fraud.
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 12 2008, 11:08 PM)
Right...
So you're citing BIOCHEMIST in a physics debate.
And you have the nerve to have a go at me for not checking my references?
As for the rest of you BS? Nothing there worth responding to, you fail to grasp basic philisophical concepts as well as physical ones, and yet you claim to have overturned 30 years of physics. You repeatedly complain about peoples dishonesty, while deliberately engaging in dishonest tactics.
You're a hyocrite, a liar, and a fraud.
I think it was hawking that theorized that microblack holes, remnants of the big bang might be in existence. If they are common could we be in danger of the earth being swallowed up by primordial black holes? They must be extremelyy rare or nonexistent since no black holes the size of planets or asteroids are making their presence felt in the stellar neighborhood. I dont think they would be invisible.
So you're citing BIOCHEMIST in a physics debate.
And you have the nerve to have a go at me for not checking my references?
As for the rest of you BS? Nothing there worth responding to, you fail to grasp basic philisophical concepts as well as physical ones, and yet you claim to have overturned 30 years of physics. You repeatedly complain about peoples dishonesty, while deliberately engaging in dishonest tactics.
You're a hyocrite, a liar, and a fraud.
I think it was hawking that theorized that microblack holes, remnants of the big bang might be in existence. If they are common could we be in danger of the earth being swallowed up by primordial black holes? They must be extremelyy rare or nonexistent since no black holes the size of planets or asteroids are making their presence felt in the stellar neighborhood. I dont think they would be invisible.
Why black holes must occure if cosmic rays flying with much bigger energy than would be in LHC?
DavidD, are your posts generated with Markov chains?
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 08:01 AM)
I understand it well enough to pick out several idiocies, including some that i've already addressed in both words and my mathmatical derivation.
I don't think you do. You're only arguing the closed earth system where I clearly state there is no actual increase in energy. I also express doubts about the orbital model, but merely suggest the possibilty of some interesting practical results. The "extra" energy always comes from changes in gravitational potentials. In the broadest (fully isolated) frame I'm sure it's always conserved. But in a practical sense, frames can't always be isolated. Therefore (in a practical sense), energy isn't always conserved.
From a practical point of view, the increase in KE is the result of an increase in GPE (the actual potential to fall, versus the hypothetical altitude relative to the center of mass).
From a practical point of view, the increase in KE is the result of an increase in GPE (the actual potential to fall, versus the hypothetical altitude relative to the center of mass).
It's that simple. You've converted the potential to move into actual movement.
Or from another point of view, I've changed the potential. The movement is irrelevant. However, this is only in relation to the closed earth system, and there is no actual increase in energy. It's only perceived that way at the point of impact.
In principle, not in practice.
In principle, not in practice.
It's really that simple, I don't understand why you have so much trouble understanding this.
I don't understand why you do.
Actually, it's you that've failed to consider the entire picture.
I don't think you do. You're only arguing the closed earth system where I clearly state there is no actual increase in energy. I also express doubts about the orbital model, but merely suggest the possibilty of some interesting practical results. The "extra" energy always comes from changes in gravitational potentials. In the broadest (fully isolated) frame I'm sure it's always conserved. But in a practical sense, frames can't always be isolated. Therefore (in a practical sense), energy isn't always conserved.
QUOTE
The Increase in kinetic energy comes from the decrease in gravitational potential energy.
From a practical point of view, the increase in KE is the result of an increase in GPE (the actual potential to fall, versus the hypothetical altitude relative to the center of mass).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Increase in kinetic energy comes from the decrease in gravitational potential energy. |
From a practical point of view, the increase in KE is the result of an increase in GPE (the actual potential to fall, versus the hypothetical altitude relative to the center of mass).
It's that simple. You've converted the potential to move into actual movement.
Or from another point of view, I've changed the potential. The movement is irrelevant. However, this is only in relation to the closed earth system, and there is no actual increase in energy. It's only perceived that way at the point of impact.
QUOTE
If you sum the kinetic energy and GPE at the point of impact the moment before impact (or the heat/sound energy generated by the impact, and the GPE at the point of impact) then it is the same as the GPE at the top of the hill.
In principle, not in practice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you sum the kinetic energy and GPE at the point of impact the moment before impact (or the heat/sound energy generated by the impact, and the GPE at the point of impact) then it is the same as the GPE at the top of the hill. |
In principle, not in practice.
It's really that simple, I don't understand why you have so much trouble understanding this.
I don't understand why you do.
QUOTE
You continually fail to consider the entire picture, and you have the nerve to complain about my understanding of physics?
Actually, it's you that've failed to consider the entire picture.
Ub, what makes you think that Hawking radiation doesn't consider the infalling motion of the particles produced on the event horizon?
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 7 2008, 08:18 AM)
No. I mean that your arguments are patheicaly empty headed.
If that were so, it should be easy to come up with a relevant argument, rather than these pathetic dodges.
This shows how poorly you understand the relevant physiscs. There wouldn't be any appreciable accretion disks.
This shows how poorly you understand the relevant physiscs. There wouldn't be any appreciable accretion disks.
Same goe with your idea that dark matter consists of stellar black holes - or are you going to suggest that "Dark matter and ordinary matter have divergent gravitational properties", that somehow, magically, the dark matter manages to avoid the clouds of neutral hydrogen that we observe.
When did I say, "dark matter consists of stellar black holes?"
It would tend to "avoid" the hydrogen, as it's weakly interacting and interstellar hydrogen is comprised of small, dispersed particles.
So why aren't there any stars? What's so special about the dark matter in the haloes?
So why aren't there any stars? What's so special about the dark matter in the haloes?
Better than you, apparently. I understand that three body interactions result in the loss of angular momentum,..
Momentum is conserved. You can't "lose" it. It has to go somewhere.
This makes no sense at all. What calculations are you talking about?
You seem to be talking about primodial black holes again. Didn't you get that they're nonsensical in relation to your own arguments for them?
This makes no sense at all. What calculations are you talking about?
You seem to be talking about primodial black holes again. Didn't you get that they're nonsensical in relation to your own arguments for them?
No, not Newton, just you.
My argument was that Newton proved that two-body gravitational captures are mathematically impossible. If you disgree with my argument, then you disagree with Newton.
If that were so, it should be easy to come up with a relevant argument, rather than these pathetic dodges.
QUOTE
Where all the stars are, is irrelevant, ceartainly they haven't been swallowed up by mini black holes. How do I know this? Because then we'd be able to see the accretion disks associated with stellar and some substellar black holes.
This shows how poorly you understand the relevant physiscs. There wouldn't be any appreciable accretion disks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where all the stars are, is irrelevant, ceartainly they haven't been swallowed up by mini black holes. How do I know this? Because then we'd be able to see the accretion disks associated with stellar and some substellar black holes. |
This shows how poorly you understand the relevant physiscs. There wouldn't be any appreciable accretion disks.
Same goe with your idea that dark matter consists of stellar black holes - or are you going to suggest that "Dark matter and ordinary matter have divergent gravitational properties", that somehow, magically, the dark matter manages to avoid the clouds of neutral hydrogen that we observe.
When did I say, "dark matter consists of stellar black holes?"
It would tend to "avoid" the hydrogen, as it's weakly interacting and interstellar hydrogen is comprised of small, dispersed particles.
QUOTE
More to the point - every paper I have ever read about Dark Matter essentially suggests that when the ratio of dark matter to baryonic gets too high (I forget the general limit) that stars tend not to form, and, as I have already stated, if the gas clouds are too cold, again, stars tend not to form.
So why aren't there any stars? What's so special about the dark matter in the haloes?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More to the point - every paper I have ever read about Dark Matter essentially suggests that when the ratio of dark matter to baryonic gets too high (I forget the general limit) that stars tend not to form, and, as I have already stated, if the gas clouds are too cold, again, stars tend not to form. |
So why aren't there any stars? What's so special about the dark matter in the haloes?
Better than you, apparently. I understand that three body interactions result in the loss of angular momentum,..
Momentum is conserved. You can't "lose" it. It has to go somewhere.
QUOTE
...and I also understand that if there happened to be a micro black hole hanging around, moving at about the same speed, in about the same direction as the primordial gas cloud that would later form the solar system (and teh calculations based on your assertions suggest this is the case) then a micro black hole either stationary relative to the center of the sun, or in a small, tight orbit around the center of the sun, becomes a relatively trivial matter
This makes no sense at all. What calculations are you talking about?
You seem to be talking about primodial black holes again. Didn't you get that they're nonsensical in relation to your own arguments for them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...and I also understand that if there happened to be a micro black hole hanging around, moving at about the same speed, in about the same direction as the primordial gas cloud that would later form the solar system (and teh calculations based on your assertions suggest this is the case) then a micro black hole either stationary relative to the center of the sun, or in a small, tight orbit around the center of the sun, becomes a relatively trivial matter |
This makes no sense at all. What calculations are you talking about?
You seem to be talking about primodial black holes again. Didn't you get that they're nonsensical in relation to your own arguments for them?
No, not Newton, just you.
My argument was that Newton proved that two-body gravitational captures are mathematically impossible. If you disgree with my argument, then you disagree with Newton.
QUOTE (prometheus+Apr 7 2008, 08:37 AM)
I am quoting this for the benefit of ubavontuba who clearly must have missed it.
Sheesh! You guys get all uptight if I don't respond to every itty bitty point, then you get all uptight if I take awhile to respond. You need to decide which is more important. I'm busy.
Also, you guys have been chopping up my posts. Please hold yourselves to the same standards you would hold me.
Sheesh! You guys get all uptight if I don't respond to every itty bitty point, then you get all uptight if I take awhile to respond. You need to decide which is more important. I'm busy.
Also, you guys have been chopping up my posts. Please hold yourselves to the same standards you would hold me.
QUOTE (Kles+Apr 14 2008, 08:10 AM)
DavidD, are your posts generated with Markov chains?
whatever, who interesting this f* LHC
whatever, who interesting this f* LHC
QUOTE (DavidD+Apr 15 2008, 10:17 AM)
whatever, who interesting this f* LHC
That's awesome.
That's awesome.
QUOTE (Kles+Apr 15 2008, 06:55 PM)
That's awesome.
f* !!!!!
f* !!!!!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 15 2008, 06:32 AM)
You guys get all uptight if I don't respond to every itty bitty point
Like the question of a mechanism where even 50 billion hypothetically stable 2 TeV black holes might pose a risk to real estate values?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 15 2008, 06:32 AM)
I'm busy.
Which proves that either
- you don't think its likely that LHC poses a danger to the world, or
- you now believe what we told you two years ago that no one on this board has anything to do with LHC planning, or
- you have a very wacked sense of what constitutes a proper use of your time and resources.
Quick question previously they said in May but now news articles are claiming July or August ...
Which is it
Which is it
Big projects often have optimistic schedules which have "critical paths." If any small thing perturbs the critical path, then the effects propagate to the schedule as a whole.
The LHC had some improperly secured magnets which came loose in a testing phase and had to be redesigned and rebuilt.
So the later dates are probably the most recently revised schedule.
Also, the LHC doesn't turn on with a switch. So there may be weeks of fine tuning before they attempt particle collisions. The 27 kilometers of LHC must keep track of unavoidable motions at the sub-millimeter scale. So the exact start date depends both on what criteria you use to label a milestone as a start date and how the schedule changes ("slips") over time.
In February, the "Cold Date" for all 8 segments to be cold at 1.9 K was June 1, and the first time protons will be used is given as mid-June.
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?co...es&confId=28775 (Page 7)
Only one of the eight segments of the ring have passed the cool-down tests.
http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-ne...%20overview.gif
And some vacuum leaks may have slowed down the schedule by 2 more weeks.
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
The LHC had some improperly secured magnets which came loose in a testing phase and had to be redesigned and rebuilt.
So the later dates are probably the most recently revised schedule.
Also, the LHC doesn't turn on with a switch. So there may be weeks of fine tuning before they attempt particle collisions. The 27 kilometers of LHC must keep track of unavoidable motions at the sub-millimeter scale. So the exact start date depends both on what criteria you use to label a milestone as a start date and how the schedule changes ("slips") over time.
In February, the "Cold Date" for all 8 segments to be cold at 1.9 K was June 1, and the first time protons will be used is given as mid-June.
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?co...es&confId=28775 (Page 7)
Only one of the eight segments of the ring have passed the cool-down tests.
http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-ne...%20overview.gif
And some vacuum leaks may have slowed down the schedule by 2 more weeks.
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
Yo R I love ya and all but you always confuse the heck out of me, lol
So I take it what you are trying to say is the date of may which was planned is pretty much scratched
Collisions will only be June or later am I right or did you confuse the heck out of me...lol
So I take it what you are trying to say is the date of may which was planned is pretty much scratched
Collisions will only be June or later am I right or did you confuse the heck out of me...lol
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 16 2008, 04:45 PM)
Like the question of a mechanism where even 50 billion hypothetically stable 2 TeV black holes might pose a risk to real estate values?
Which proves that either
Whitewalls have been out of fashion for a long time. That means something.
Most places you cant buy a set of whitewalls even if you are willing to pay for it.
Which proves that either
- you don't think its likely that LHC poses a danger to the world, or
- you now believe what we told you two years ago that no one on this board has anything to do with LHC planning, or
- you have a very wacked sense of what constitutes a proper use of your time and resources.
Whitewalls have been out of fashion for a long time. That means something.
Most places you cant buy a set of whitewalls even if you are willing to pay for it.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 16 2008, 10:25 PM)
Whitewalls have been out of fashion for a long time. That means something.
Most places you cant buy a set of whitewalls even if you are willing to pay for it.
Yeah, well drunken siberian mule herders don't take kindly to city folk that spit in their boots.
Most places you cant buy a set of whitewalls even if you are willing to pay for it.
Yeah, well drunken siberian mule herders don't take kindly to city folk that spit in their boots.
QUOTE (slasher1975+Apr 16 2008, 11:47 PM)
Collisions will only be June or later
Right.
Neil, I miss the connection between my post and your vague statement about human fashions.
Right.
Neil, I miss the connection between my post and your vague statement about human fashions.
It is awfully uninformative. The comments look fake as well.
QUOTE (slasher1975+Apr 17 2008, 06:33 AM)
Ok this has to be a joke
http://www.cernwatch.com/
I can understand a defense contractor employing a few people who work at CERN, but by calling it "a defense contractor" instead of simply saying he was under contract, it implies that he's working on research for defense application. A bit of a stretch for the real world, but quite hollywood-esque...
I can understand a defense contractor employing a few people who work at CERN, but by calling it "a defense contractor" instead of simply saying he was under contract, it implies that he's working on research for defense application. A bit of a stretch for the real world, but quite hollywood-esque...
One of the most unreported facts are that very very few of the scientists and engineers actually have access to all the data collected.
Ummm.... I would imagine any scientist working there would have access to all the data collected about his/her experiment, else he/she would work elsewhere.... It's kinda hard to test a theory when you must run the tests half blind...
Ok, now this is ridiculous. Does anyone actually expect me to believe that a college educated individual doesn't know what a traffic arm is???
I'll bet $50 right now that this page is viral marketing for an upcoming book or movie.
http://www.cernwatch.com/
QUOTE
I cannot actually quit here because I am under contract with a a US defense contractor.
I can understand a defense contractor employing a few people who work at CERN, but by calling it "a defense contractor" instead of simply saying he was under contract, it implies that he's working on research for defense application. A bit of a stretch for the real world, but quite hollywood-esque...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I cannot actually quit here because I am under contract with a a US defense contractor. |
I can understand a defense contractor employing a few people who work at CERN, but by calling it "a defense contractor" instead of simply saying he was under contract, it implies that he's working on research for defense application. A bit of a stretch for the real world, but quite hollywood-esque...
One of the most unreported facts are that very very few of the scientists and engineers actually have access to all the data collected.
Ummm.... I would imagine any scientist working there would have access to all the data collected about his/her experiment, else he/she would work elsewhere.... It's kinda hard to test a theory when you must run the tests half blind...
QUOTE
I noticed that recently There has been a military presence in the roads entering CERN. they have built those little guard houses and those things like at the railroad stops that knife down right now they are unoccupied. More to come.
Ok, now this is ridiculous. Does anyone actually expect me to believe that a college educated individual doesn't know what a traffic arm is???
I'll bet $50 right now that this page is viral marketing for an upcoming book or movie.
That was my instant opinion, also.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 17 2008, 10:18 AM)
Right.
Neil, I miss the connection between my post and your vague statement about human fashions.
I didn't get what you were talking about yesterday. Now I realize you meant the schedule they have.
Neil, I miss the connection between my post and your vague statement about human fashions.
I didn't get what you were talking about yesterday. Now I realize you meant the schedule they have.
Hi Folks
The technical descriptions are directly and inexpertly pasted from the Cern Press releases.
Does not quite fit the profile of the writer somehow.....?
Look forward to the film though!
Henry
QUOTE
The technical descriptions are directly and inexpertly pasted from the Cern Press releases.
Does not quite fit the profile of the writer somehow.....?
Look forward to the film though!
Henry
QUOTE
I heard about the LHC concerns about a week ago, and for a few days it gave me a lot of stress. I could not focus not reality, and I didn't care in a "what's the point?" kind of way. I was afraid of something happening to the world, and I couldn't imagine it not being here, all the things I love being gone forever.
California had some big earthquakes in the 20th century which affected me in the same way, and then there was the incidents on September 11, 2001. But unforeseen dangers are always possibilities (at least in the mind, if not the math). LHCConcerns is largely about saying trying new things are inherently dangerous, yet there is a known and proven danger in not trying new things. But one of the problems is that the LHCConcerns don't demonstrate the danger, they just say that there might be danger. It's a type of the paranoid style, where the crazies criticize the scientist for "not being scientific enough." It's like saying that you can't prove that there's not a monster in the closet, when they don't allow you to turn on the lights and look in the closet.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I heard about the LHC concerns about a week ago, and for a few days it gave me a lot of stress. I could not focus not reality, and I didn't care in a "what's the point?" kind of way. I was afraid of something happening to the world, and I couldn't imagine it not being here, all the things I love being gone forever. |
California had some big earthquakes in the 20th century which affected me in the same way, and then there was the incidents on September 11, 2001. But unforeseen dangers are always possibilities (at least in the mind, if not the math). LHCConcerns is largely about saying trying new things are inherently dangerous, yet there is a known and proven danger in not trying new things. But one of the problems is that the LHCConcerns don't demonstrate the danger, they just say that there might be danger. It's a type of the paranoid style, where the crazies criticize the scientist for "not being scientific enough." It's like saying that you can't prove that there's not a monster in the closet, when they don't allow you to turn on the lights and look in the closet.
However, I did some research, and found out it is just alarmists who are saying the LHC will end the world (JTankers over on LHCConcerns.com, Walter Wagner, LHCDefense.com).
However, I did some research, and found out it is just alarmists who are saying the LHC will end the world (JTankers over on LHCConcerns.com, Walter Wagner, LHCDefense.com).
Also Richard Wagner, Luis Sancho, James R. Blodgett, Mark Leggett, Paul W. Dixon, Rodney Skinner, and "ubavontuba" who I sometimes call Eric.
QUOTE
They claim that the risks are high and we should stop.
Notably, Wagner has said this before for the RHIC and Tevatron and was proven wrong. Also notably, not one of them has an original disaster scenario in mind. They read reports written by real physicists for other real physicists which cover the material well enough for real physicists. But this is not enough for these concern trolls. They claim to be advocating high standards, but don't do anything meaningful other than drive traffic to their websites.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They claim that the risks are high and we should stop. |
Notably, Wagner has said this before for the RHIC and Tevatron and was proven wrong. Also notably, not one of them has an original disaster scenario in mind. They read reports written by real physicists for other real physicists which cover the material well enough for real physicists. But this is not enough for these concern trolls. They claim to be advocating high standards, but don't do anything meaningful other than drive traffic to their websites.
However, I have seen people who seem very intelligent (like yourself) refute these claim
However, I have seen people who seem very intelligent (like yourself) refute these claim