QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 30 2008, 07:12 AM)
Not the geometrical cross-section, but the capture cross-section, which is why I can't have a well-known value for k. (4 pi would be value of k for the geometrical cross-section).
So k << 10^50 is sufficient to assert NO risk for this model
but if k ~ 10^50, then Earth is already captured and swallowed by the black hole at the center of the the galaxy - which is not the case.
Understood. I don't question your constants but they don't effect the behavior of the model, just the scales. Your equation is still wrong. Whether we consider only the geometric surface area of the hole or the surface area of its capture region the growth is nonetheless dependent on m^2, even in the stationary case.
But even with finite blow up time the time scales are vast, I agree.
edit: in my original model the material was assumed to be rigid, hence the capture radius of the hole is identical to the actual radius. Also, a black hole in the galaxy would have a much different growth pattern than one in earth for two reasons: first, the medium is not uniform but is essentially a punctuated vacuum, second, the galaxy is essentially flat, reducing the growth to exponential rather than asymptotic and reducing the additional effects of motion to, essentially, a constant.
So k << 10^50 is sufficient to assert NO risk for this model
but if k ~ 10^50, then Earth is already captured and swallowed by the black hole at the center of the the galaxy - which is not the case.
Understood. I don't question your constants but they don't effect the behavior of the model, just the scales. Your equation is still wrong. Whether we consider only the geometric surface area of the hole or the surface area of its capture region the growth is nonetheless dependent on m^2, even in the stationary case.
But even with finite blow up time the time scales are vast, I agree.
edit: in my original model the material was assumed to be rigid, hence the capture radius of the hole is identical to the actual radius. Also, a black hole in the galaxy would have a much different growth pattern than one in earth for two reasons: first, the medium is not uniform but is essentially a punctuated vacuum, second, the galaxy is essentially flat, reducing the growth to exponential rather than asymptotic and reducing the additional effects of motion to, essentially, a constant.
I have a formula to take a cross-section, a velocity, a density and turn them into a rate of change of mass. I don't have a formula for the stationary case. Also, the details of "solid matter" show that it is mostly empty space at the scale of the 10^-12 fm black hole.
Ski
I have been looking around a lot of the same sites as you obviously.
There are some evil people out there.
They prey on the fact that no amount of mathematical cuddles or softly explained 'it will be alrights' from educated folks can equal fear of the unknown and the bogeymen this thing throws up. The uneducated in this subject are like a child with a bogeyman in the closet, incapable of understanding and therefore easily scared.
They talk up their role and post across each others sites to bolster numbers, spouting tech talk to the uninitiated, promoting fear and nodding in sycophantic agreement after each others posts.
They dont seem to come on this board often.
The front page for one website goes so far as to warn off those who may have an understanding of the subject.
Ubavontuba seems to be the only one who does not have a visible motive for talking this thing up, he is not as far as I know selling a book, running a website or looking for his 15 minutes. He seems genuinely concerned.
There is a lifetimes study in human behaviour on here, but the worst offenders really need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are on the net getting their kicks scaring children.
People with a genuine concern and a rational reason behind it should always be heard, even if its the child asking the same question every night for comfort, they force the educated to question their own thoughts and dig deeper for answers, not a bad thing.
The rest are best ignored. You will know who I mean.
Henry
I have been looking around a lot of the same sites as you obviously.
There are some evil people out there.
They prey on the fact that no amount of mathematical cuddles or softly explained 'it will be alrights' from educated folks can equal fear of the unknown and the bogeymen this thing throws up. The uneducated in this subject are like a child with a bogeyman in the closet, incapable of understanding and therefore easily scared.
They talk up their role and post across each others sites to bolster numbers, spouting tech talk to the uninitiated, promoting fear and nodding in sycophantic agreement after each others posts.
They dont seem to come on this board often.
The front page for one website goes so far as to warn off those who may have an understanding of the subject.
Ubavontuba seems to be the only one who does not have a visible motive for talking this thing up, he is not as far as I know selling a book, running a website or looking for his 15 minutes. He seems genuinely concerned.
There is a lifetimes study in human behaviour on here, but the worst offenders really need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are on the net getting their kicks scaring children.
People with a genuine concern and a rational reason behind it should always be heard, even if its the child asking the same question every night for comfort, they force the educated to question their own thoughts and dig deeper for answers, not a bad thing.
The rest are best ignored. You will know who I mean.
Henry
Thank you for that reassuring post, Henry. One of the things that scared me was all of these fear mongerers. I didn't know if they'd be right, and of course the end of the world will cause me to worry. Even when I heard that nothing would happen, fear of the unknown still made me worry.
I'm just concerned that we MIGHT make something unexpected that poses a threat to the world. I know that the odds of anything happening are infinitesimally small, and that cosmic rays are a good argument, but still.
These fear mongerers, I have concluded, are conspiracy theorists. They don't trust the scientists at Cern, they ignore the 3 safety reports that have been written, they ignore the fact that these scientists have family and friends and would never work on something dangerous to the world. They think that "mad scientists" are working on the LHC.
I guess it's time to quit worrying though, although I may have questions later. Thank you, Henry and rpenner, for putting my worries almost completely to rest.
I'm just concerned that we MIGHT make something unexpected that poses a threat to the world. I know that the odds of anything happening are infinitesimally small, and that cosmic rays are a good argument, but still.
These fear mongerers, I have concluded, are conspiracy theorists. They don't trust the scientists at Cern, they ignore the 3 safety reports that have been written, they ignore the fact that these scientists have family and friends and would never work on something dangerous to the world. They think that "mad scientists" are working on the LHC.
I guess it's time to quit worrying though, although I may have questions later. Thank you, Henry and rpenner, for putting my worries almost completely to rest.
Hey everyone.
I want to share an article that describes the history of previous particle accelerators and doomday fears that surrounded these colliders. He concludes that scientists should communicate with the public better about the risk, and
"I know of no professional physicist who is truly worried that a nuclear or
particle-physics experiment could go so disastrously wrong that it could cause
the end of the world."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4806
I want to share an article that describes the history of previous particle accelerators and doomday fears that surrounded these colliders. He concludes that scientists should communicate with the public better about the risk, and
"I know of no professional physicist who is truly worried that a nuclear or
particle-physics experiment could go so disastrously wrong that it could cause
the end of the world."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4806
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Apr 26 2008, 07:33 AM)
You obviously don't understand the risk, nor do you understand how to evaluate the risk. As I stated earlier, your own risk management references clearly indicated that something must be done to modify the experiment, or prevent this experiment from proceeding at all.
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
The following is a quote from a post from JTankers at GracefulFlavor written on April 28 2008:
'CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.
However, cosmic rays strike relatively stationary objects and results travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, while colliders smash particles head on, may focus all energy to a single point and can be captured by Earths gravity. Einsteins relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay but instead only grow, and Hawking Radiation contradicts relativity, is unproven and is disputed by at least 3 peer reviewed studies that find no basis in science to support it.
The LHC Safety Assessment Group has been trying for months to prove safety without success.'
And later:
'Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler (winner University of Liège Chaos Award and René Descartes Award), Dr. Raj Baldev (Director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research) and others are warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider. Dr. Rössler predicts that a single microblackhole could destroy the planet in as little and 50 months. His calculations have been released for peer review.'
And later:
'If this experiment is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?'
And:
'Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).'
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch[B][/B]
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
The following is a quote from a post from JTankers at GracefulFlavor written on April 28 2008:
'CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.
However, cosmic rays strike relatively stationary objects and results travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, while colliders smash particles head on, may focus all energy to a single point and can be captured by Earths gravity. Einsteins relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay but instead only grow, and Hawking Radiation contradicts relativity, is unproven and is disputed by at least 3 peer reviewed studies that find no basis in science to support it.
The LHC Safety Assessment Group has been trying for months to prove safety without success.'
And later:
'Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler (winner University of Liège Chaos Award and René Descartes Award), Dr. Raj Baldev (Director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research) and others are warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider. Dr. Rössler predicts that a single microblackhole could destroy the planet in as little and 50 months. His calculations have been released for peer review.'
And later:
'If this experiment is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?'
And:
'Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).'
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch[B][/B]
Lord, why are the cute ones so dumb?
Activ8 has broken the rules of the forum by posting no original content.
It's not a quote -- it's just stolen. It also does nothing to rebut or support ubavontuba's point.
http://www.notepad.ch/blogs/index.php/2008...ers-on-cern-lhc
Which is stolen from here:
http://gracefulflavor.net/2008/04/27/hadron/#comment-47823
Which does nothing to address the topic.
ubavontuba has not presented us with alternate risk calculations.
JTankers performs a fast barrage of both basic and long rebutted untruths at a rate of more than one per sentence -- a tactic called the Gish Gallop.
Cosmic rays may move fast, but cosmic rays can also hit other cosmic rays for "slow" moving products and further, the only dangerous items are those with long lifetimes -- if cosmic rays can produce dangerous, stable products then those alleged dangerous things must fill space. Earth's gravity or density are irrelevant to safety arguments when we have a cosmos to observe. Since we have never observed the alleged dangerous effects, they must not be both dangerous and stable.
Einstein's gravity theory (General Relativity) is known to be incomplete, and specifically hasn't been tested for black holes of less than a solar mass or gravitational attraction at less than 10^-4 meters. Furthermore, JTankers cannot praise the many experimental successes of General Relativity without needing to mention that GR predicts that 2 TeV black holes have a cross-section which is too small to ever be made at the LHC so in fact JTankers has two rely on one specific Quantum Gravity hypothesis called XLD to even get a possibility of something resembling a black hole at the LHC. Quantum theory has been tested from 10^-16 meters to 10^27 meters, and has co-existed with Relativity well since 1930. Every GR textbook considers quantum particles in a GR-curved space-time and every quantum theory of gravity agrees that Hawking radiation exists as a theorem based on the postulates. Therefore all GR physicists agree that Hawking radiation is entirely expected as the signature of small black holes -- even though most GR physicists have zero expectation of seeing a black hole far below the milligram scale. JTankers reading of scientific papers is widely disputed and 3 papers on a subject are approaching insignificance. The fact that he did not cite the papers is evidence that he would rather blow smoke than conduct a meaningful factual debate.
The LHC Safety Assessment group is not charged with proving anything, including safety. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a physics concept. Newton's and GR's success is not proof that apples fall down, but merely a model of their expected behavior.
O.E. Rössler has zero GR expertise, and regardless of his (rather ancient) past contributions to math, has very little to recommend him nowadays. He hasn't been able to publish his results in a math journal that lists him on their "Honorary Editor Board" because his math is unsound. (To friends, I am sorry I have to say this, but we have all known great minds that have not aged well.)
Mr. Jos Engelen's statement was about CERN officials -- not CERN workers.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05...fa_fact_kolbert
Which is a sensible precaution given that exactly the same no-nothing loonies are pushing anti-LHC as pushed anti-RHIC and anti-Bevatron.
More typical probabilities are like 10^-71, 10^-4000 and 10^-BB(10) and zero -- there is not one calculation which shows the probability of a disaster scenario is 1% or even 0.00001%. If JTankers had such a valid calculation of 1% that would immediately stop LHC, but he doesn't so the point is moot.
But while calculations which actual indicate that even the assumptions that the anti-LHC forces make us make show that even 50 billion 2 TeV black holes are harmless to real estate values, the anti-LHC forces don't make any calculations. That is why they are ignored, because they ask questions and outright reject any answer that doesn't meet their preconceptions -- they are not working in reality but in a fantasy universe where God has built evil jack-in-a-boxes (apologies, Foodmaker) behind every not-yet-opened door.
Activ8 has broken the rules of the forum by posting no original content.
It's not a quote -- it's just stolen. It also does nothing to rebut or support ubavontuba's point.
http://www.notepad.ch/blogs/index.php/2008...ers-on-cern-lhc
Which is stolen from here:
http://gracefulflavor.net/2008/04/27/hadron/#comment-47823
Which does nothing to address the topic.
ubavontuba has not presented us with alternate risk calculations.
JTankers performs a fast barrage of both basic and long rebutted untruths at a rate of more than one per sentence -- a tactic called the Gish Gallop.
Cosmic rays may move fast, but cosmic rays can also hit other cosmic rays for "slow" moving products and further, the only dangerous items are those with long lifetimes -- if cosmic rays can produce dangerous, stable products then those alleged dangerous things must fill space. Earth's gravity or density are irrelevant to safety arguments when we have a cosmos to observe. Since we have never observed the alleged dangerous effects, they must not be both dangerous and stable.
Einstein's gravity theory (General Relativity) is known to be incomplete, and specifically hasn't been tested for black holes of less than a solar mass or gravitational attraction at less than 10^-4 meters. Furthermore, JTankers cannot praise the many experimental successes of General Relativity without needing to mention that GR predicts that 2 TeV black holes have a cross-section which is too small to ever be made at the LHC so in fact JTankers has two rely on one specific Quantum Gravity hypothesis called XLD to even get a possibility of something resembling a black hole at the LHC. Quantum theory has been tested from 10^-16 meters to 10^27 meters, and has co-existed with Relativity well since 1930. Every GR textbook considers quantum particles in a GR-curved space-time and every quantum theory of gravity agrees that Hawking radiation exists as a theorem based on the postulates. Therefore all GR physicists agree that Hawking radiation is entirely expected as the signature of small black holes -- even though most GR physicists have zero expectation of seeing a black hole far below the milligram scale. JTankers reading of scientific papers is widely disputed and 3 papers on a subject are approaching insignificance. The fact that he did not cite the papers is evidence that he would rather blow smoke than conduct a meaningful factual debate.
The LHC Safety Assessment group is not charged with proving anything, including safety. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a physics concept. Newton's and GR's success is not proof that apples fall down, but merely a model of their expected behavior.
O.E. Rössler has zero GR expertise, and regardless of his (rather ancient) past contributions to math, has very little to recommend him nowadays. He hasn't been able to publish his results in a math journal that lists him on their "Honorary Editor Board" because his math is unsound. (To friends, I am sorry I have to say this, but we have all known great minds that have not aged well.)
Mr. Jos Engelen's statement was about CERN officials -- not CERN workers.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05...fa_fact_kolbert
Which is a sensible precaution given that exactly the same no-nothing loonies are pushing anti-LHC as pushed anti-RHIC and anti-Bevatron.
QUOTE
Among his responsibilities is dealing with the frequent calls and letters CERN receives about the possibility that the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world. When I asked about this, Engelen picked up a Bic pen and placed it in front of me.
“In quantum mechanics, there is a probability that this pen will fall through the table,” he said. “All of a sudden, it will be on the floor. Because it can behave as a wave, it can go through; we call that the ‘tunnel effect.’ If you calculate the probability that this happens, it is not identical to zero. It is a very small probability. But it never happens. I’ve never seen it happen. You have never seen it happen. But to the general public you make a casual remark, ‘It is not identical to zero, it is very small,’ and . . . ” He shrugged.
Worries about the end of the planet have shadowed nearly every high-energy experiment. Such concerns were given a boost by Scientific American—presumably inadvertently—in 1999. That summer, the magazine ran a letter [written by the very same Walter Wagner who thinks a Hawaiian court is appropriate to stop LHC] to the editor about Brookhaven’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, then nearing completion. The letter suggested that the Brookhaven collider might produce a “mini black hole” that would be drawn toward the center of the earth, thus “devouring the entire planet within minutes.” Frank Wilczek, a physicist who would later win a Nobel Prize, wrote a response for the magazine. Wilczek dismissed the idea of mini black holes devouring the earth, but went on to raise a new possibility: the collider could produce strangelets, a form of matter that some think might exist at the center of neutron stars. In that case, he observed, “one might be concerned about an ‘ice-9’-type transition,” wherein all surrounding matter could be converted into strangelets and the world as we know it would vanish. Wilczek labelled his own suggestion “not plausible,” but the damage had been done. “BIG BANG MACHINE COULD DESTROY EARTH” ran the headline in the London Times. Brookhaven was forced to appoint a committee to look into this and other disaster scenarios. (The committee concluded that “we are safe from a strangelet initiated catastrophe.”)
“I know Frank Wilczek,” Engelen told me. “He is an order of magnitude smarter than I am. But he was perhaps a bit naïve.” Engelen said that CERN officials are now instructed, with respect to the L.H.C.’s world-destroying potential, “not to say that the probability is very small but that the probability is zero.”
“In quantum mechanics, there is a probability that this pen will fall through the table,” he said. “All of a sudden, it will be on the floor. Because it can behave as a wave, it can go through; we call that the ‘tunnel effect.’ If you calculate the probability that this happens, it is not identical to zero. It is a very small probability. But it never happens. I’ve never seen it happen. You have never seen it happen. But to the general public you make a casual remark, ‘It is not identical to zero, it is very small,’ and . . . ” He shrugged.
Worries about the end of the planet have shadowed nearly every high-energy experiment. Such concerns were given a boost by Scientific American—presumably inadvertently—in 1999. That summer, the magazine ran a letter [written by the very same Walter Wagner who thinks a Hawaiian court is appropriate to stop LHC] to the editor about Brookhaven’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, then nearing completion. The letter suggested that the Brookhaven collider might produce a “mini black hole” that would be drawn toward the center of the earth, thus “devouring the entire planet within minutes.” Frank Wilczek, a physicist who would later win a Nobel Prize, wrote a response for the magazine. Wilczek dismissed the idea of mini black holes devouring the earth, but went on to raise a new possibility: the collider could produce strangelets, a form of matter that some think might exist at the center of neutron stars. In that case, he observed, “one might be concerned about an ‘ice-9’-type transition,” wherein all surrounding matter could be converted into strangelets and the world as we know it would vanish. Wilczek labelled his own suggestion “not plausible,” but the damage had been done. “BIG BANG MACHINE COULD DESTROY EARTH” ran the headline in the London Times. Brookhaven was forced to appoint a committee to look into this and other disaster scenarios. (The committee concluded that “we are safe from a strangelet initiated catastrophe.”)
“I know Frank Wilczek,” Engelen told me. “He is an order of magnitude smarter than I am. But he was perhaps a bit naïve.” Engelen said that CERN officials are now instructed, with respect to the L.H.C.’s world-destroying potential, “not to say that the probability is very small but that the probability is zero.”
More typical probabilities are like 10^-71, 10^-4000 and 10^-BB(10) and zero -- there is not one calculation which shows the probability of a disaster scenario is 1% or even 0.00001%. If JTankers had such a valid calculation of 1% that would immediately stop LHC, but he doesn't so the point is moot.
But while calculations which actual indicate that even the assumptions that the anti-LHC forces make us make show that even 50 billion 2 TeV black holes are harmless to real estate values, the anti-LHC forces don't make any calculations. That is why they are ignored, because they ask questions and outright reject any answer that doesn't meet their preconceptions -- they are not working in reality but in a fantasy universe where God has built evil jack-in-a-boxes (apologies, Foodmaker) behind every not-yet-opened door.
What does 10^-BB(10) mean? I'm assuming a really low number?
Regarding JTankers, I've seen him post at several places. I think he runs lhcconcerns.com. If you really want to see him get thrashed, check out:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11690
Regarding JTankers, I've seen him post at several places. I think he runs lhcconcerns.com. If you really want to see him get thrashed, check out:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11690
QUOTE (Ski+May 3 2008, 08:03 AM)
What does 10^-BB(10) mean? I'm assuming a really low number?
My guess would be 10^-(10^19)
My guess would be 10^-(10^19)
Yup, it's a pretty small number, because BB(10) is a pretty large number.
BB(x) is Rado's Busy Beaver function -- the maximum finite run time for a Turing machine with x rules. http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
BB(1)= 1 = 10^0
BB(2)= 6 ≈ 10^0.77
BB(3)= 21 ≈ 10^1.32
BB(4)= 107 ≈ 10^2.03
BB(5) >= 4.7 × 10^7 ≈ 10^(10^0.88)
BB(6) >= 2.584 × 10^2879 ≈ 10^(10^(10^0.54))
B(10) is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/~michel/bbc.html
BB(x) is Rado's Busy Beaver function -- the maximum finite run time for a Turing machine with x rules. http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
BB(1)= 1 = 10^0
BB(2)= 6 ≈ 10^0.77
BB(3)= 21 ≈ 10^1.32
BB(4)= 107 ≈ 10^2.03
BB(5) >= 4.7 × 10^7 ≈ 10^(10^0.88)
BB(6) >= 2.584 × 10^2879 ≈ 10^(10^(10^0.54))
B(10) is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/~michel/bbc.html
Wow, that article made my head spin.
Give me 100mgms Chloropromazine STAT!
This is a great debate.
So it really hinges on weather Hawking radiation actually exists?
This is a great debate.
So it really hinges on weather Hawking radiation actually exists?
Viral marketing?
I do not think so.
It's the only one of over 3000 scientists working at this (your) place that actually cares to inform the 6.6 billion that are not in on this game.
No, it's not high quality. But still ...
admin
http://www.notepad.ch
Over 100 articles on CERN LHC - make your own opinion.
notepad. take note.
I do not think so.
It's the only one of over 3000 scientists working at this (your) place that actually cares to inform the 6.6 billion that are not in on this game.
No, it's not high quality. But still ...
admin
http://www.notepad.ch
Over 100 articles on CERN LHC - make your own opinion.
notepad. take note.
QUOTE (Chromodynamix+May 3 2008, 11:13 AM)
Give me 100mgms Chloropromazine STAT!
This is a great debate.
So it really hinges on weather Hawking radiation actually exists?
Ofcourse, there is doubt about Black holes bigger mass than sun...
My opinion: for LHC producing black hole probability is the same as producing God.
This is a great debate.
So it really hinges on weather Hawking radiation actually exists?
Ofcourse, there is doubt about Black holes bigger mass than sun...
My opinion: for LHC producing black hole probability is the same as producing God.
QUOTE (DavidD+May 3 2008, 12:42 PM)
Ofcourse, there is doubt about Black holes bigger mass than sun...
My opinion: for LHC producing black hole probability is the same as producing God.
Doubt, about BH's with more mass than our sun ?
My opinion: The probability of DavidD of possessing a heathly functioning brain is around 1 in 7.348 x 10^386758284748938 - based on the fact; that even stupendously retarded algae think he's stupid.
My opinion: for LHC producing black hole probability is the same as producing God.
Doubt, about BH's with more mass than our sun ?
My opinion: The probability of DavidD of possessing a heathly functioning brain is around 1 in 7.348 x 10^386758284748938 - based on the fact; that even stupendously retarded algae think he's stupid.
I'm curious to know more about the lead (Pb) collisions at the LHC. Even if we couldn't make a MBH with 14 TEV, lead collisions get up to 1150 TEV. If we made a MBH with that energy, wouldn't it take longer to evaporate?
1150 TeV is still a lot lower than the Planck mass, which is ~10^16 TeV. Below the Planck mass, black holes cannot form unless there are some unseen and unforeseen physical effects going on.
For a black hole below the planck mass, it's not clear what will happen. Hawking radiation predicts the temperature gets higher the lower the mass, so such a black hole would be extremely hot. It would certainly evaporate very quickly, by which I mean a few nanoseconds at most. All this is prefixed with a big if, however, because the Planck mass is the limit at which what we know about quantum field theory holds, especially when there is appreciable gravity.
I should say that any new effect is likely to be a very small modification to our current predictions. A black hole will still emit Hawking radiation, although the rate at which it disappears may be different. There's no new effect that will magically make a black hole stable.
For a black hole below the planck mass, it's not clear what will happen. Hawking radiation predicts the temperature gets higher the lower the mass, so such a black hole would be extremely hot. It would certainly evaporate very quickly, by which I mean a few nanoseconds at most. All this is prefixed with a big if, however, because the Planck mass is the limit at which what we know about quantum field theory holds, especially when there is appreciable gravity.
I should say that any new effect is likely to be a very small modification to our current predictions. A black hole will still emit Hawking radiation, although the rate at which it disappears may be different. There's no new effect that will magically make a black hole stable.
Thanks.
Also, I heard that even if Hawking Radiation doesn't work, the theory the predicts black holes also predicts something called quantum mechanical decay of black hole. What exactly is QMD?
Also, I heard that even if Hawking Radiation doesn't work, the theory the predicts black holes also predicts something called quantum mechanical decay of black hole. What exactly is QMD?
Ski, you appear to lack (by about 2 years of physics instruction) the fundamental education to understand detailed responses. You appear to lack the communication skills to ask questions within a referenced context. But an cluster analysis of your posts and PMs seems to group you with the label "deceptive concern troll." So please quit with the spoon-fed "questions" and rumors about what "some people say" and grow up. Either take an advocacy position or link to where your anxiety comes from and in either case stop abusing the PM system.
No one who answers questions on this board is paid to figure out the demented ramblings of the anti-LHC forces -- none of us is their psychiatric doctor. Some of us are paid to do physics, and when questions arise at the level of "what if the model is wrong in a specific way that makes X dangerous?" the people who do know physics mean that the question involves a Newtonian or Einsteinian rewriting of all the laws of physics so that the outcome of every experiment which has been done comes out the same but that the outcome of undone experiments suddenly and inexplicably kill us all. We scratch our heads and try to figure out what possible physical postulates could lead to such a hypothetically physical model, and fail to come up with anything. We have looked at modified relativity and modified quantum theory and every mish-mash of them together, and we get the same answers -- physics is local to our ability to observe it, conservation of angular momentum is absolute, quantum mechanics is valid, and any quantum theory of gravity is going to have Hawking radiation. Most of these theories predict that black holes won't be formed at the LHC. None predict that the LHC will put mankind at risk.
We have told you that "having questions" is not the same thing as having a physics model. Only a physics model can tell you "what will happen" and all the physics models say nothing bad will. So intentionally or not, you are just parroting the metaphysical "what if you are wrong" paranoia common to evangelical religious groups and anti-LHC forces. These people have no shame, and the fact that they were clearly wrong about Bevatron and RHIC doesn't even slow them down in their fear-mongering about LHC. To them, the fact that Bevatron and RHIC worked perfectly to expand human knowledge is viewed as a opportunity for more sterile rhetoric, because the frontiers of ignorance are also wider due to those successes. They subscribe, as did ancient cartographers and nervous children, to the irrational belief that monsters lie beyond the threshold of knowledge. By definition, there is no way to prove them wrong other than to open the bedroom closet door and turn on the light -- but shamelessly, they claim that past proofs are not proofs that their identical fears are not irrational this night as well.
Further, the costs of not expanding human knowledge is never accounted for by these groups. What if there is something that we need to know on a timely basis and that the LHC is the first tool capable of giving evidence for this secret of the universe? This too is an irrational fear -- while it is clear that humans need to know more about the universe if we are going to solve some of species survival problems that do face us, there is no way to know that what we need to know is or isn't related to particle physics. That's why it is called basic research and not applied research, since we don't know what we will do with the knowledge we will gain, yet. Fortunately, we can make an rational choice here, and that is to expand human knowledge into all accessible areas of ignorance. That's why there will always be a cutting edge of science or exploration, and always a few map-makers who feel smugly free to pencil in "Here be monsters" in the blank areas of their maps.
Chromodynamix, the existence of Hawking radiation is the most commonly cited factor since it says that any 2 TeV black hole will have a lifetime of a small fraction of 10^-20 second. Even if the lifetime of a 2 TeV black hole is greater than 10 billion years, which would be the case if Hawking radiation were suppressed by a huge factor or wrong, the conservation of angular momentum prevents black holes from growing to 10^-15 meters radius (or 1 ng) before the sun turns red giant and boils Earth to lifelessness. But all physics assumptions which allow black holes to be created at LHC specifically predict as a theorem that Hawking radiation exists pretty much as Hawking first calculated.
No one who answers questions on this board is paid to figure out the demented ramblings of the anti-LHC forces -- none of us is their psychiatric doctor. Some of us are paid to do physics, and when questions arise at the level of "what if the model is wrong in a specific way that makes X dangerous?" the people who do know physics mean that the question involves a Newtonian or Einsteinian rewriting of all the laws of physics so that the outcome of every experiment which has been done comes out the same but that the outcome of undone experiments suddenly and inexplicably kill us all. We scratch our heads and try to figure out what possible physical postulates could lead to such a hypothetically physical model, and fail to come up with anything. We have looked at modified relativity and modified quantum theory and every mish-mash of them together, and we get the same answers -- physics is local to our ability to observe it, conservation of angular momentum is absolute, quantum mechanics is valid, and any quantum theory of gravity is going to have Hawking radiation. Most of these theories predict that black holes won't be formed at the LHC. None predict that the LHC will put mankind at risk.
We have told you that "having questions" is not the same thing as having a physics model. Only a physics model can tell you "what will happen" and all the physics models say nothing bad will. So intentionally or not, you are just parroting the metaphysical "what if you are wrong" paranoia common to evangelical religious groups and anti-LHC forces. These people have no shame, and the fact that they were clearly wrong about Bevatron and RHIC doesn't even slow them down in their fear-mongering about LHC. To them, the fact that Bevatron and RHIC worked perfectly to expand human knowledge is viewed as a opportunity for more sterile rhetoric, because the frontiers of ignorance are also wider due to those successes. They subscribe, as did ancient cartographers and nervous children, to the irrational belief that monsters lie beyond the threshold of knowledge. By definition, there is no way to prove them wrong other than to open the bedroom closet door and turn on the light -- but shamelessly, they claim that past proofs are not proofs that their identical fears are not irrational this night as well.
Further, the costs of not expanding human knowledge is never accounted for by these groups. What if there is something that we need to know on a timely basis and that the LHC is the first tool capable of giving evidence for this secret of the universe? This too is an irrational fear -- while it is clear that humans need to know more about the universe if we are going to solve some of species survival problems that do face us, there is no way to know that what we need to know is or isn't related to particle physics. That's why it is called basic research and not applied research, since we don't know what we will do with the knowledge we will gain, yet. Fortunately, we can make an rational choice here, and that is to expand human knowledge into all accessible areas of ignorance. That's why there will always be a cutting edge of science or exploration, and always a few map-makers who feel smugly free to pencil in "Here be monsters" in the blank areas of their maps.
Chromodynamix, the existence of Hawking radiation is the most commonly cited factor since it says that any 2 TeV black hole will have a lifetime of a small fraction of 10^-20 second. Even if the lifetime of a 2 TeV black hole is greater than 10 billion years, which would be the case if Hawking radiation were suppressed by a huge factor or wrong, the conservation of angular momentum prevents black holes from growing to 10^-15 meters radius (or 1 ng) before the sun turns red giant and boils Earth to lifelessness. But all physics assumptions which allow black holes to be created at LHC specifically predict as a theorem that Hawking radiation exists pretty much as Hawking first calculated.
QUOTE (Lizzy Frog+May 3 2008, 02:04 PM)
Doubt, about BH's with more mass than our sun ?
My opinion: The probability of DavidD of possessing a heathly functioning brain is around 1 in 7.348 x 10^386758284748938 - based on the fact; that even stupendously retarded algae think he's stupid.
I still think he's a Markov chained chat bot with the rare human input.
My opinion: The probability of DavidD of possessing a heathly functioning brain is around 1 in 7.348 x 10^386758284748938 - based on the fact; that even stupendously retarded algae think he's stupid.
I still think he's a Markov chained chat bot with the rare human input.
Maybe this experiment will confirm Bekenstein–Hawking entropy of non-supersymmetric spacetimes during BH formation. Goodbye SUSY theories.
.
It would not surprise me if some posters - and why not you - are getting their salary from the LHC pro believer pack.
You post here that no one is being paid to discredit us (apart from the 10000 scientists working on this of course)
One of our main demands is a new truly independent security assessment report, would just take a year or so, before this machine is turned on.
And please elaborate for us why people that do
It would not surprise me if some posters - and why not you - are getting their salary from the LHC pro believer pack.
You post here that no one is being paid to discredit us (apart from the 10000 scientists working on this of course)
One of our main demands is a new truly independent security assessment report, would just take a year or so, before this machine is turned on.
And please elaborate for us why people that do demented ramblings
QUOTE
No one who answers questions on this board is paid to figure out the demented ramblings of the anti-LHC forces -- none of us is their psychiatric doctor.
It would not surprise me if some posters - and why not you - are getting their salary from the LHC pro believer pack.
You post here that no one is being paid to discredit us (apart from the 10000 scientists working on this of course)
One of our main demands is a new truly independent security assessment report, would just take a year or so, before this machine is turned on.
And please elaborate for us why people that do
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one who answers questions on this board is paid to figure out the demented ramblings of the anti-LHC forces -- none of us is their psychiatric doctor. |
It would not surprise me if some posters - and why not you - are getting their salary from the LHC pro believer pack.
You post here that no one is being paid to discredit us (apart from the 10000 scientists working on this of course)
One of our main demands is a new truly independent security assessment report, would just take a year or so, before this machine is turned on.
And please elaborate for us why people that do demented ramblings
(so you call us retarded, right?) - like you call it - would be in need of psychiatric doctor?
Please don't forget we live in democratic countries and we have a citizens right to express our opinion - like you.
Sorry to be as blunt - I find your attitude quite condescending frankly.
Is that the usual attitude from the LHC supporters? Hmhh....
Regards
admin
http://www.notepad.ch
PS: The quote I posted is not stolen. My blog is mostly quotes from publications where the author and the link to the full article are ALWAYS present. The simple idea is to represent the full spectrum of ideas about this THING..[B]
Please don't forget we live in democratic countries and we have a citizens right to express our opinion - like you.
Sorry to be as blunt - I find your attitude quite condescending frankly.
Is that the usual attitude from the LHC supporters? Hmhh....
Regards
admin
http://www.notepad.ch
PS: The quote I posted is not stolen. My blog is mostly quotes from publications where the author and the link to the full article are ALWAYS present. The simple idea is to represent the full spectrum of ideas about this THING..[B]
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+ May 4 2008, 10:09 AM)
No one who answers questions on this board is paid to figure out the demented ramblings of the anti-LHC forces -- none of us is their psychiatric doctor.
It would not surprise me if some posters - and why not you - are getting their salary from the LHC pro believer pack.
Well, that's just uncivil. I certainly know I am not collecting payment for posting on this board or even for doing or teaching physics, maths or other LHC fields. I am not a "LHC pro" in any sense of the term. On the other hand, you seem to claim that you are the admin of http://www.notepad.ch a site that you direct traffic to. Doesn't that mean you have a stake in stirring up "controversy" if that controversy results in web clicks?
I'm only pro-LHC because that is the default position: a multi-governmental organization that spends billions of dollars on basic research should get to benefit from that investment. I need one tiny factual basis to flip-flop to the anti-LHC basis, which is a calculation from physical postulates which are not inconsistent with experimental observation that those postulates lead to the destruction of human lives.
I'm only pro-LHC because that is the default position: a multi-governmental organization that spends billions of dollars on basic research should get to benefit from that investment. I need one tiny factual basis to flip-flop to the anti-LHC basis, which is a calculation from physical postulates which are not inconsistent with experimental observation that those postulates lead to the destruction of human lives.
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
You post here that no one is being paid to discredit us (apart from the 10000 scientists working on this of course)
No, I said that no one on this non-LHC board is being paid to tear apart your delusions of asking relevant questions. You're "questions" use "black holes" and "strange matter" not as the specifically modeled physical phenomena that they are, but as bugaboos. When you ask physicists to prove that X won't destroy the world, the question has the same relevance asking a biologist to prove that birds won't unionize and destroy humanity. The biological definition of bird makes them local with their cooperation divided alone species lines and their planning limited to small goals. The physics definition of X rests on well-tested postulates that limit their behavior so that the death of the Earth can't be accomplished. But your side doesn't understand X, and feels free to substitute any imaginary monster.
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
One of our main demands is a new truly independent security assessment report, would just take a year or so, before this machine is turned on.
How would it be "independent?" Your demand is couched in terms of paranoia so how could it ever be "independent" enough to satisfy you? Here's an idea -- why doesn't your side learn enough physics to make an anti-safety report that isn't based on empty speculation, bad math, and abuse of physics terms?
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
And please elaborate for us why people that do
QUOTE (rpenner+ May 4 2008, 10:09 AM)
demented ramblings
(so you call us retarded, right?) - like you call it - would be in need of psychiatric doctor?
I don't recall calling you retarded. I believe some of you are senile, but I haven't said so until now. But there has not been a lot of coherent argument on your side, so to think that was passed for content on those sites will influence decision makers does seem a bit retarded, to use your word. I recall that I used the word "demented" to emphasize the lack of reason or rationality. And you do have fears. So since the most common and successful treatment for irrational fears is at the hands of a psychiatric doctor.
As I am not your psychiatric doctor, I have no way to tell if anti-LHC forces are actually demented or if their writing deliberately takes the form of "demented ramblings" because they have a financial or other stake to drive more traffic to their site.
Likewise it is demented to quote me as saying "demented" and then trying to claim I said "retarded." If the author were merely retarded then the author would still be capable of correctly using cut-and-paste. Instead, we have made-up-insults and a record which does not support that.
As I am not your psychiatric doctor, I have no way to tell if anti-LHC forces are actually demented or if their writing deliberately takes the form of "demented ramblings" because they have a financial or other stake to drive more traffic to their site.
Likewise it is demented to quote me as saying "demented" and then trying to claim I said "retarded." If the author were merely retarded then the author would still be capable of correctly using cut-and-paste. Instead, we have made-up-insults and a record which does not support that.
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
Please don't forget we live in democratic countries and we have a citizens right to express our opinion - like you.
But an uninformed opinion is an invitation to criticism. What have I done but criticize and offer better alternatives? I don't even know what country you are a citizen in, but some of them don't have any such rights.
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
Sorry to be as blunt - I find your attitude quite condescending frankly.
But a publicly distributed uninformed opinion is an invitation to condescending criticism. I'm blunt all of the time, because I don't care to worry about the feelings of people who have an emotional stake in misinformation.
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
Is that the usual attitude from the LHC supporters? Hmhh....
How would I know? I speak only for myself.
For money? Please. NO. I'm not in this for money. I am in this because it is my civil duty as a Swiss citizen living in Geneva. I hope you understand.
For money? Please. NO. I'm not in this for money. I am in this because it is my civil duty as a Swiss citizen living in Geneva. I hope you understand.
Here's an idea -- why doesn't your side learn enough physics to make an anti-safety report that isn't based on empty speculation, bad math, and abuse of physics terms?
Read please: http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For....php?f=10&t=132
(see the links concerning Professor Otto E. Rössler from the University of Tubingen, Germany). We already have a very respected scientist who knows a LOT about physics - and more.
What please makes YOU think I am in need of a psychiatrist. Hmmh. Nice strategy. Send all of us to the psychiatrist. Sorry, but I do not think that bluff of yours will work. Too many, to established, to determined and no, not senile at all, sorry. Just watch the news - you will understand soon.
Demented ramblings? My posts. Haha. And your posts? Hmhh.
admin
notepad.ch
QUOTE (activ8+May 5 2008, 03:19 PM)
PS: The quote I posted is not stolen. My blog is mostly quotes from publications where the author and the link to the full article are ALWAYS present. The simple idea is to represent the full spectrum of ideas about this THING..
Unless you are JTankers, or JTankers gave you permission to copy, or the comment policy on the board puts the comments in the freely-licensed for any purpose or public domain, then yes you did copy copyrighted material from http://gracefulflavor.net/2008/04/27/hadron/#comment-47823 for no fair use when you put that copy on this board here: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=337077
The fact that you first copied it to your website http://www.notepad.ch/blogs/index.php/2008...ers-on-cern-lhc is not the issue. You aren't being a reporter -- "JTankers feels that ..." and you aren't satirizing it or commenting on it in another way.
Are you the owner of notepad.ch or just the paid admin? Either way, it is negligent to not have a basic understanding of copyright.
The fact that you first copied it to your website http://www.notepad.ch/blogs/index.php/2008...ers-on-cern-lhc is not the issue. You aren't being a reporter -- "JTankers feels that ..." and you aren't satirizing it or commenting on it in another way.
Are you the owner of notepad.ch or just the paid admin? Either way, it is negligent to not have a basic understanding of copyright.
To my mind, this is how ridiculous many of the arguments are.
Should I not eat, because I don't understand the process of digestion? Keeping all that acid sitting around in a bag of flesh doesn't sound very safe, after all, acid burns my skin.
Should I not drive because I don't understand internal combustion engines? Designing something that uses explosions to move doesn't sound very safe to me. What if the explosions are larger then expected, and tear the engine apart?
Should I not eat, because I don't understand the process of digestion? Keeping all that acid sitting around in a bag of flesh doesn't sound very safe, after all, acid burns my skin.
Should I not drive because I don't understand internal combustion engines? Designing something that uses explosions to move doesn't sound very safe to me. What if the explosions are larger then expected, and tear the engine apart?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 5 2008, 06:08 PM)
To my mind, this is how ridiculous many of the arguments are.
Should I not eat, because I don't understand the process of digestion? Keeping all that acid sitting around in a bag of flesh doesn't sound very safe, after all, acid burns my skin.
Should I not drive because I don't understand internal combustion engines? Designing something that uses explosions to move doesn't sound very safe to me. What if the explosions are larger then expected, and tear the engine apart?
Excellent examples of the poor logic that comes from the scaremongers.
Should I not eat, because I don't understand the process of digestion? Keeping all that acid sitting around in a bag of flesh doesn't sound very safe, after all, acid burns my skin.
Should I not drive because I don't understand internal combustion engines? Designing something that uses explosions to move doesn't sound very safe to me. What if the explosions are larger then expected, and tear the engine apart?
Excellent examples of the poor logic that comes from the scaremongers.
JTankers over at LHCConcerns is offering a $500 reward to anyone who can prove less than 1% risk:
http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/...topic.php?t=133I encourage the intelligent people of this forum to join this forum and try to bring some science debunking the doomsayers.
http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/...topic.php?t=133I encourage the intelligent people of this forum to join this forum and try to bring some science debunking the doomsayers.
Anti-creationist forces have seen this anti-science tactic before.
Rpenner, I am sincerely sorry if you view me as a "concern troll." I do not claim the LHC is unsafe, I just want to learn more about this to quell my fears. I am not trying to spread doomday BS. I truly do believe that the LHC is safe now, after asking questions. Had I not asked questions and researched my fears, I would still be worrying right now. I am not very knowledgeable in physics, so all I can do is find simplified answers. Again, I am sorry if you think I am a concern troll, I am just trying to quell my own fears (and I have done so successfully, and I thank you for helping me quell those fears).
QUOTE (Ski+May 6 2008, 12:51 AM)
Rpenner, I am sincerely sorry if you view me as a "concern troll." I do not claim the LHC is unsafe, I just want to learn more about this to quell my fears. I am not trying to spread doomday BS. I truly do believe that the LHC is safe now, after asking questions. Had I not asked questions and researched my fears, I would still be worrying right now. I am not very knowledgeable in physics, so all I can do is find simplified answers. Again, I am sorry if you think I am a concern troll, I am just trying to quell my own fears (and I have done so successfully, and I thank you for helping me quell those fears).
Hello ski,
Nice to talk here. We are having interesting discussions at:
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For...c.php?f=2&t=129
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For....php?f=10&t=132
And why would Rpenner think that you are a concern troll. Actually from this post it looks like you indeed have open questions concerning the CERN safety. I am quite surprised because at LHCConcerns you seem very confident the LHC is safe.
As to my quote of jtankers in this forum I'm sure he is absolutely fine with me quoting him. But I ask him tomorrow.
Kind regards from Geneva.
admin
notepad.ch
Hello ski,
Nice to talk here. We are having interesting discussions at:
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For...c.php?f=2&t=129
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For....php?f=10&t=132
And why would Rpenner think that you are a concern troll. Actually from this post it looks like you indeed have open questions concerning the CERN safety. I am quite surprised because at LHCConcerns you seem very confident the LHC is safe.
As to my quote of jtankers in this forum I'm sure he is absolutely fine with me quoting him. But I ask him tomorrow.
Kind regards from Geneva.
admin
notepad.ch
QUOTE
Doesn't that mean you have a stake in stirring up "controversy" if that controversy results in web clicks?
How would it be "independent?"
How would it be "independent?"
For money? Please. NO. I'm not in this for money. I am in this because it is my civil duty as a Swiss citizen living in Geneva. I hope you understand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doesn't that mean you have a stake in stirring up "controversy" if that controversy results in web clicks? How would it be "independent?" |
For money? Please. NO. I'm not in this for money. I am in this because it is my civil duty as a Swiss citizen living in Geneva. I hope you understand.
Here's an idea -- why doesn't your side learn enough physics to make an anti-safety report that isn't based on empty speculation, bad math, and abuse of physics terms?
Read please: http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/For....php?f=10&t=132
(see the links concerning Professor Otto E. Rössler from the University of Tubingen, Germany). We already have a very respected scientist who knows a LOT about physics - and more.
QUOTE
As I am not your psychiatric doctor, I have no way to tell if anti-LHC forces are actually demented or if their writing deliberately takes the form of "demented ramblings" because they have a financial or other stake to drive more traffic to their site.
What please makes YOU think I am in need of a psychiatrist. Hmmh. Nice strategy. Send all of us to the psychiatrist. Sorry, but I do not think that bluff of yours will work. Too many, to established, to determined and no, not senile at all, sorry. Just watch the news - you will understand soon.
Demented ramblings? My posts. Haha. And your posts? Hmhh.
admin
notepad.ch
Dr Rössler, who is not a GR physicist, does not even seem capable of GR maths that a first year GR student is expected to do. Thanks you your link, activ8, that is not just my evaluation. The fact that he is not a GR physicist will mean he won't be able to give expert testimony in court, because he is not a expert in the relevant domain. (This is also the problem with Walter Wagner.)
Neither courts nor science allow you to just guess at the answer, and Dr Rössler's math can't hide that he's guessing about elementary physics.
Neither courts nor science allow you to just guess at the answer, and Dr Rössler's math can't hide that he's guessing about elementary physics.
On another note, here's a 16-minute video about why the LHC was funded in the first place.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/...lly_goes_on.php
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/...lly_goes_on.php
QUOTE (rpenner+May 16 2008, 08:20 PM)
On another note, here's a 16-minute video about why the LHC was funded in the first place.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/...lly_goes_on.php
Thanks!
Good Speaker!
Am looking forward to these next few of years as LHC gets results!
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/...lly_goes_on.php
Thanks!
Good Speaker!
Am looking forward to these next few of years as LHC gets results!
Hey nutters!
Sorry for the absence. It seems the world needs lots of saving from lots of fronts lately. What a month!
I see the place just falls apart without me. I also see rpenner has resorted to blatant lying to support his contentions. All of a sudden black holes are impossible at CERN? Gee, he better go back and read the literature from CERN itself then, oughtn't he?
Anyway, I still haven't received the new safety report from CERN. I sent another e-mail. So far, no response. And, they were so quick to say it's coming soon back in January! They said it'd only be a few weeks! Where is it?
I wonder why they don't just lift rpenner's safety evaluation? Maybe... could it be... because they know it's bogus? Hmm.
Sorry for the absence. It seems the world needs lots of saving from lots of fronts lately. What a month!
I see the place just falls apart without me. I also see rpenner has resorted to blatant lying to support his contentions. All of a sudden black holes are impossible at CERN? Gee, he better go back and read the literature from CERN itself then, oughtn't he?
Anyway, I still haven't received the new safety report from CERN. I sent another e-mail. So far, no response. And, they were so quick to say it's coming soon back in January! They said it'd only be a few weeks! Where is it?
I wonder why they don't just lift rpenner's safety evaluation? Maybe... could it be... because they know it's bogus? Hmm.
Foolish Uba. Come and play where you cannot be harmed.
Even the Dhrerxzovv can play at the Joint...
Amazingly, he has an honest invitation from me. I am amazed at myself for that, in fact. Not so much as with you, though.
Cook something besides BS, and have more fun!
Even the Dhrerxzovv can play at the Joint...
Amazingly, he has an honest invitation from me. I am amazed at myself for that, in fact. Not so much as with you, though.
Cook something besides BS, and have more fun!
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 9 2008, 05:21 PM)
ROFLMAO
That's all you can come up with? "Irrelevant?"
It is what it is.
Einstein described the universe, he didn't invent it.
Einstein described the universe, he didn't invent it.
It doesn't matter HOW you interpret something, it is what it is, I suppose. So jokes making fun of black people are perfectly acceptable, because the offensive interpretation so many people make of them is irrelevant.
Don't be a bigot.
Actually, most of your rantings are irrelevant.
Actually, most of your rantings are irrelevant.
And of course, subsequent theories re-establishing the notion of gravity as a force is completely irrelevant, because of the well-known force/effect duality, similar to the particle/wave duality.
See? Irrelevant gibberish is all you have. This isn't science.
It's a description, not a blueprint.
It's a description, not a blueprint.
So in short, a physicists ideas are irrelevant to his work, his peer's interpretation of his work is irrelevant, subsequent theories which make better predictions under certain circumstances are irrelevant.. Basically the whole concept of physics is irrelevant.
You're irrelevant.
No, just you.
No, just you.
Oh wait, I know. Because all of it IS relevant. Every assumption I showed you must have in order to hold to your idea that gravity isn't a fundamental force in GR is relevant. Why? Because without making those assumptions, you idea doesn't make sense.
So making irrelevant assumptions makes sense? How does that work?
That's true, but it's obvious you don't understand it.
That's true, but it's obvious you don't understand it.
Your claim that they are irrelevant is so far beyond ridiculous that I can't even laugh at it.
That's just because you don't understand it well enough to know how irrelevant you're being.
You're logic is flawed.
You're logic is flawed.
And for the record, I AM an Aspie, and I (or anyone else, IMHO) can use that word as a compliment, an insult, or however they see fit. Asking you if you are one as well was not an insult, as I honestly see an incredible inability to communicate with others in you, and I honestly wondered if -by some horribly distasteful coincidence- it happened to have been caused by a similar neurological function as that which caused me to have had so much difficulty in understanding others for much of my childhood and teen years. I TRULY HONESTLY hope to god you aren't an Aspie, because I would hate to think I share that in common with you.
Ah, so that explains it then. Your illogic, your irrelevance, your inability to stay on topic. Now it makes sense.
That's all you can come up with? "Irrelevant?"
It is what it is.
QUOTE
[SARCASM]So Einstein's intentions are irrelevant when it comes to his papers...
So I can write a paper all about how Farsight's theory is correct, and STILL be able to complain that I never dismissed mainstream physics, because my intentions in writing were irrelevant.
The mainstream interpretation of Einstein's work is also irrelevant too, I see.
So I can write a paper all about how Farsight's theory is correct, and STILL be able to complain that I never dismissed mainstream physics, because my intentions in writing were irrelevant.
The mainstream interpretation of Einstein's work is also irrelevant too, I see.
Einstein described the universe, he didn't invent it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [SARCASM]So Einstein's intentions are irrelevant when it comes to his papers... So I can write a paper all about how Farsight's theory is correct, and STILL be able to complain that I never dismissed mainstream physics, because my intentions in writing were irrelevant. The mainstream interpretation of Einstein's work is also irrelevant too, I see. |
Einstein described the universe, he didn't invent it.
It doesn't matter HOW you interpret something, it is what it is, I suppose. So jokes making fun of black people are perfectly acceptable, because the offensive interpretation so many people make of them is irrelevant.
Don't be a bigot.
QUOTE
A physicists interpretation of a theory needs no justification, either. So I can read QM and validly assume it means that the universe is a sadistic being who's intentionally trying to f**k with our heads, and thus we'll never learn any more physics than we already have, because my justification for the way I interpret it is completely irrelevant.
Actually, most of your rantings are irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A physicists interpretation of a theory needs no justification, either. So I can read QM and validly assume it means that the universe is a sadistic being who's intentionally trying to f**k with our heads, and thus we'll never learn any more physics than we already have, because my justification for the way I interpret it is completely irrelevant. |
Actually, most of your rantings are irrelevant.
And of course, subsequent theories re-establishing the notion of gravity as a force is completely irrelevant, because of the well-known force/effect duality, similar to the particle/wave duality.
See? Irrelevant gibberish is all you have. This isn't science.
QUOTE
And of course, no theory has ever managed to make accurate predictions that GR can't make, so we all know GR is the way the universe ACTUALLY works, and not just a useful approximation.[/SARCASM]
It's a description, not a blueprint.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And of course, no theory has ever managed to make accurate predictions that GR can't make, so we all know GR is the way the universe ACTUALLY works, and not just a useful approximation.[/SARCASM] |
It's a description, not a blueprint.
So in short, a physicists ideas are irrelevant to his work, his peer's interpretation of his work is irrelevant, subsequent theories which make better predictions under certain circumstances are irrelevant.. Basically the whole concept of physics is irrelevant.
You're irrelevant.
QUOTE
So why are you even bothering to argue? It's all irrelevant....
No, just you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So why are you even bothering to argue? It's all irrelevant.... |
No, just you.
Oh wait, I know. Because all of it IS relevant. Every assumption I showed you must have in order to hold to your idea that gravity isn't a fundamental force in GR is relevant. Why? Because without making those assumptions, you idea doesn't make sense.
So making irrelevant assumptions makes sense? How does that work?
QUOTE
All of those concepts you describes as irrelevant are very relevant. Why? Because what a physicist MEANS TO SAY in a paper is the whole foundation upon which his theory is built! ESPECIALLY IN GR! GR was a revolutionary new way of thinking about reality. Einstein's intentions, those ideas he wanted to convey are FUNDAMENTAL to GR. There IS NO GR without those ideas.
That's true, but it's obvious you don't understand it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All of those concepts you describes as irrelevant are very relevant. Why? Because what a physicist MEANS TO SAY in a paper is the whole foundation upon which his theory is built! ESPECIALLY IN GR! GR was a revolutionary new way of thinking about reality. Einstein's intentions, those ideas he wanted to convey are FUNDAMENTAL to GR. There IS NO GR without those ideas. |
That's true, but it's obvious you don't understand it.
Your claim that they are irrelevant is so far beyond ridiculous that I can't even laugh at it.
That's just because you don't understand it well enough to know how irrelevant you're being.
QUOTE
So we find ourselves RIGHT back where we started. YOU MUST SHOW THOSE ASSUMTIONS TO BE VALID IN ORDER FOR YOUR POSITION TO MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE. If you can't do it... Well, that pretty much decides the argument for us. Claiming they're irrelevant when we both know they aren't is just a cop-out.
You're logic is flawed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we find ourselves RIGHT back where we started. YOU MUST SHOW THOSE ASSUMTIONS TO BE VALID IN ORDER FOR YOUR POSITION TO MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE. If you can't do it... Well, that pretty much decides the argument for us. Claiming they're irrelevant when we both know they aren't is just a cop-out. |
You're logic is flawed.
And for the record, I AM an Aspie, and I (or anyone else, IMHO) can use that word as a compliment, an insult, or however they see fit. Asking you if you are one as well was not an insult, as I honestly see an incredible inability to communicate with others in you, and I honestly wondered if -by some horribly distasteful coincidence- it happened to have been caused by a similar neurological function as that which caused me to have had so much difficulty in understanding others for much of my childhood and teen years. I TRULY HONESTLY hope to god you aren't an Aspie, because I would hate to think I share that in common with you.
Ah, so that explains it then. Your illogic, your irrelevance, your inability to stay on topic. Now it makes sense.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 05:03 AM)
I see the place just falls apart without me. I also see rpenner has resorted to blatant lying to support his contentions. All of a sudden black holes are impossible at CERN? Gee, he better go back and read the literature from CERN itself then, oughtn't he?
I don't believe I said that, anywhere.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.
But as long as we are going back to Early April to comment on posts, let me repeat:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=330566
I don't believe I said that, anywhere.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.
But as long as we are going back to Early April to comment on posts, let me repeat:
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.)
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
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 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.
GR can't be the end-all to black hole physics, since GR has no quantum effects.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Eric has uncritically accepted 2 TeV = 0.0001 fm, which begs the question about growth. 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. 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 -- 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.)
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.)
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.
(Yet another post I lost in mid-flight and had to start over from scratch.)
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
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 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.
GR can't be the end-all to black hole physics, since GR has no quantum effects.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Eric has uncritically accepted 2 TeV = 0.0001 fm, which begs the question about growth. 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. 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 -- 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.)
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.)
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.
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
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=330566
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 9 2008, 04:40 PM)
I think you almost have it.
When I said that the risk is zero, I am not saying that the risk is almost zero, but actually zero. Since the probability that Eric is right is almost zero, but the cost of Eric being by accident right about both the 2 TeV black hole radius and the non-existance of Hawking radiation is zero, since the Sun's expansion to Red Giant phase ("The Sun is expected to become a red giant no later than 7.5 billion years.") will return real estate values to zero before the total mass of LHC-generated black holes grows to be even 19 grams.
Thus I calculate: risk = chance * cost = almost-zero * zero = zero
Mudane risks, including Eric, Walter and Luis starting a riot, or power systems blowing up, injuring LHC staff, have almost-zero chances but non-zero costs, so their risks are merely almost-zero. These are simple calculations, but Eric's hypotheses are simple beyond the point of being physical models.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=331570
When I said that the risk is zero, I am not saying that the risk is almost zero, but actually zero. Since the probability that Eric is right is almost zero, but the cost of Eric being by accident right about both the 2 TeV black hole radius and the non-existance of Hawking radiation is zero, since the Sun's expansion to Red Giant phase ("The Sun is expected to become a red giant no later than 7.5 billion years.") will return real estate values to zero before the total mass of LHC-generated black holes grows to be even 19 grams.
Thus I calculate: risk = chance * cost = almost-zero * zero = zero
Mudane risks, including Eric, Walter and Luis starting a riot, or power systems blowing up, injuring LHC staff, have almost-zero chances but non-zero costs, so their risks are merely almost-zero. These are simple calculations, but Eric's hypotheses are simple beyond the point of being physical models.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=331570
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 12 2008, 03:44 PM)
(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.)
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=332440
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=332440
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 16 2008, 04:45 PM)
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.
QUOTE (Sapo+May 20 2008, 05:15 AM)
Foolish Uba. Come and play where you cannot be harmed.
Even the Dhrerxzovv can play at the Joint...
Amazingly, he has an honest invitation from me. I am amazed at myself for that, in fact. Not so much as with you, though.
Cook something besides BS, and have more fun!
"Cannot be harmed?" Really.
Anyway, I don't know where the link is anymore. Can you post it again?
Even the Dhrerxzovv can play at the Joint...
Amazingly, he has an honest invitation from me. I am amazed at myself for that, in fact. Not so much as with you, though.
Cook something besides BS, and have more fun!
"Cannot be harmed?" Really.
Anyway, I don't know where the link is anymore. Can you post it again?
QUOTE (rpenner+May 20 2008, 05:25 AM)
I don't believe I said that, anywhere.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.
You strongly imply it.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.
You strongly imply it.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 18 2008, 03:03 AM)
It is simply not true that the papers predict that black holes will be formed. They papers have as-yet untested hypotheses, so they cannot predict what happens in this universe, only what happens in their hypothetical universe.
You're implying this work is fantasy, on the order of magic and fairies. It isn't.
It may turn out to be a more accurate description of the real universe.
You're implying this work is fantasy, on the order of magic and fairies. It isn't.
It may turn out to be a more accurate description of the real universe.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 18 2008, 03:03 AM)
If XLD is true then Hawking radiation is true. It's a theorem -- a proven result in the rules of the XLD hypothesis.
Not so. If the calculation is fundamentally flawed, the error pervades all the results.
Not so. If the calculation is fundamentally flawed, the error pervades all the results.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 18 2008, 03:03 AM)
(Note: I strongly believe that 10^-19 meters was a free choice by the authors of XLD, and 10^-30 meters is just as likely given the XLD axioms and would mean that LHC would not made even one black hole. )
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 26 2008, 10:32 PM)
...we learn that my point that XLD is highly speculative physics with no factual support is widely held.
XLD has many backers.
XLD has many backers.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 2 2008, 03:11 AM)
GR predicts that 2 TeV black holes have a cross-section which is too small to ever be made at the LHC
Is that sufficient evidence?
Is that sufficient evidence?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 06:05 AM)
Is that sufficient evidence?
It is sufficient to demonstrate that you are unable to parse statements about theoretical and experimental physics.
In the GR model, 2 TeV black holes cannot be made in something like the LHC. In the XLD model, 2 TeV black holes can be made if a certain adjustable parameter is in the LHC range. But in the XLD model, Hawking radiation exists. In neither model does even billions of 2 TeV black holes orbiting inside the Earth pose any risk to real estate or human life over billions of years.
Until the XLD people show that their tunable parameter is actually at a specific value, the XLD prediction is speculative. If black holes are formed at CERN, the XLD people will try to use the data of the resulting Hawking radiation to measure the parameter. If no black holes are formed, the XLD people will claim that the parameter is larger (in units of Energy) than LHC can probe. If black holes are formed and no Hawking radiation, then the XLD model is proven wrong.
The "prediction" of 1 black hole per second is the physics publishing equivalent of "magic and fairies" since it is predicated on the untested model having it's unmeasured tunable parameter just so for maximum popular appeal.
It is sufficient to demonstrate that you are unable to parse statements about theoretical and experimental physics.
In the GR model, 2 TeV black holes cannot be made in something like the LHC. In the XLD model, 2 TeV black holes can be made if a certain adjustable parameter is in the LHC range. But in the XLD model, Hawking radiation exists. In neither model does even billions of 2 TeV black holes orbiting inside the Earth pose any risk to real estate or human life over billions of years.
Until the XLD people show that their tunable parameter is actually at a specific value, the XLD prediction is speculative. If black holes are formed at CERN, the XLD people will try to use the data of the resulting Hawking radiation to measure the parameter. If no black holes are formed, the XLD people will claim that the parameter is larger (in units of Energy) than LHC can probe. If black holes are formed and no Hawking radiation, then the XLD model is proven wrong.
The "prediction" of 1 black hole per second is the physics publishing equivalent of "magic and fairies" since it is predicated on the untested model having it's unmeasured tunable parameter just so for maximum popular appeal.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 05:25 AM)
You're logic is flawed.
Can an admin please change "BigDumbWeirdo" to "logic is flawed"? Since ubavontuba declares it, it must be true.
Can an admin please change "BigDumbWeirdo" to "logic is flawed"? Since ubavontuba declares it, it must be true.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 12 2008, 06:41 AM)
Source?
Oh, come on. You claim to know something of physics, yet you haven't heard of micro black holes?
Again, 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?
Again, 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?
There's a difference between 'black' and 'transparent in the darkness of space'. You don't seem to understand the difference.
No, you don't understand. Where is the light from all the stars that should be forming in, and inhabiting that space? Are you suggesting gravity works differently for dark matter?
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to justify your claims does you no favours.
So now you won't back up the model you insisted was superior to the one I presented?
No it's not. The conservation of angular momentum prevents them from doing anything but changing one another's directions (if only minutely). Don't you know how any of this stuff works? Besides the improbable collision, there's no interactive braking mechanism.
No it's not. The conservation of angular momentum prevents them from doing anything but changing one another's directions (if only minutely). Don't you know how any of this stuff works? Besides the improbable collision, there's no interactive braking mechanism.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Yeah, well, I have to try.
You shant presume to know to whom I'm talking and what I'm doing.
You shant presume to know to whom I'm talking and what I'm doing.
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?
So you think physical proximity will result in access? What century were you born in?
Don't you watch Star Trek? Remember the story of Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru simulation?
Don't you watch Star Trek? Remember the story of Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru simulation?
Evidence?
Ha! Like I'm going to tell you.
Oh, come on. You claim to know something of physics, yet you haven't heard of micro black holes?
QUOTE
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.
Again, 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?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Again, 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?
There's a difference between 'black' and 'transparent in the darkness of space'. You don't seem to understand the difference.
No, you don't understand. Where is the light from all the stars that should be forming in, and inhabiting that space? Are you suggesting gravity works differently for dark matter?
QUOTE
[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
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [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 |
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to justify your claims does you no favours.
So now you won't back up the model you insisted was superior to the one I presented?
QUOTE
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.
No it's not. The conservation of angular momentum prevents them from doing anything but changing one another's directions (if only minutely). Don't you know how any of this stuff works? Besides the improbable collision, there's no interactive braking mechanism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
No it's not. The conservation of angular momentum prevents them from doing anything but changing one another's directions (if only minutely). Don't you know how any of this stuff works? Besides the improbable collision, there's no interactive braking mechanism.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Yeah, well, I have to try.
QUOTE
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?
You shant presume to know to whom I'm talking and what I'm doing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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? |
You shant presume to know to whom I'm talking and what I'm doing.
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?
So you think physical proximity will result in access? What century were you born in?
QUOTE
You struggle with analogies, don't you?
Don't you watch Star Trek? Remember the story of Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru simulation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You struggle with analogies, don't you? |
Don't you watch Star Trek? Remember the story of Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru simulation?
Evidence?
Ha! Like I'm going to tell you.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 20 2008, 06:33 AM)
It is sufficient to demonstrate that you are unable to parse statements about theoretical and experimental physics.
In the GR model, 2 TeV black holes cannot be made in something like the LHC. In the XLD model, 2 TeV black holes can be made if a certain adjustable parameter is in the LHC range. But in the XLD model, Hawking radiation exists. In neither model does even billions of 2 TeV black holes orbiting inside the Earth pose any risk to real estate or human life over billions of years.
Until the XLD people show that their tunable parameter is actually at a specific value, the XLD prediction is speculative. If black holes are formed at CERN, the XLD people will try to use the data of the resulting Hawking radiation to measure the parameter. If no black holes are formed, the XLD people will claim that the parameter is larger (in units of Energy) than LHC can probe. If black holes are formed and no Hawking radiation, then the XLD model is proven wrong.
The "prediction" of 1 black hole per second is the physics publishing equivalent of "magic and fairies" since it is predicated on the untested model having it's unmeasured tunable parameter just so for maximum popular appeal.
See? There you go again, spreading the same blatant lies to support your contentions. All of a sudden again, black holes are impossible at CERN!
Give
Me
A
Break!
In the GR model, 2 TeV black holes cannot be made in something like the LHC. In the XLD model, 2 TeV black holes can be made if a certain adjustable parameter is in the LHC range. But in the XLD model, Hawking radiation exists. In neither model does even billions of 2 TeV black holes orbiting inside the Earth pose any risk to real estate or human life over billions of years.
Until the XLD people show that their tunable parameter is actually at a specific value, the XLD prediction is speculative. If black holes are formed at CERN, the XLD people will try to use the data of the resulting Hawking radiation to measure the parameter. If no black holes are formed, the XLD people will claim that the parameter is larger (in units of Energy) than LHC can probe. If black holes are formed and no Hawking radiation, then the XLD model is proven wrong.
The "prediction" of 1 black hole per second is the physics publishing equivalent of "magic and fairies" since it is predicated on the untested model having it's unmeasured tunable parameter just so for maximum popular appeal.
See? There you go again, spreading the same blatant lies to support your contentions. All of a sudden again, black holes are impossible at CERN!
Give
Me
A
Break!
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.
Ignoring the obvious black hole gas jokes...
What are you talking about? I've provided the reason.
Ignoring the obvious black hole gas jokes...
What are you talking about? I've provided the reason.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 12 2008, 07:19 AM)
Trippy canoe and Tyler too!
Ah, who canned Neil? He was always good for an amusing assertion or two. Oh well. Good luck to him and his prolific inventing!
Ah, who canned Neil? He was always good for an amusing assertion or two. Oh well. Good luck to him and his prolific inventing!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 06:43 PM)
Again, 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?
You've had this explained to you already.
There's dozens of reasons why this might not be the case.
Has your time away caused memory loss?
You've had this explained to you already.
There's dozens of reasons why this might not be the case.
Has your time away caused memory loss?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2008, 07:16 AM)
You've had this explained to you already.
There's dozens of reasons why this might not be the case.
Has your time away caused memory loss?
AlphaNumeric states in one breath that dark matter densities cause star formation, and then in another breath he states it prevents star formation. I detect an inconsistency.
There's dozens of reasons why this might not be the case.
Has your time away caused memory loss?
AlphaNumeric states in one breath that dark matter densities cause star formation, and then in another breath he states it prevents star formation. I detect an inconsistency.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 06:43 PM)
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
This statement goes beyond moronic, even for you.
Congratulations Ubavontuba, you're plumbing new depths of stupidity.
This statement goes beyond moronic, even for you.
Congratulations Ubavontuba, you're plumbing new depths of stupidity.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:21 PM)
AlphaNumeric states in one breath that dark matter densities cause star formation, and then in another breath he states it prevents star formation. I detect an inconsistency.
In your enfeebled mind, maybe.
But cast your mind back to when you were bugging me about why dark matter galaxies were so dark?
One of the possible explanations is that if the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter gets to high, then the interactions between dark matter particles can actually inhibit the formation of stars, the mechanism, if I recall correctly, has even lead to the theorizing of a new form of stellar object - so called dark matter stars, stars that have begun forming in a dark matter rich environment, partially collapsed, and then the dark matter interactions have provided enough energy to halt the collapse (I believe specifically, it involves dark matter decay).
It's like LPG, CNG, or even AvGas - too much fuel, and the fire wont go.
So it's not a contradiction in the theory, or in Alphanumeric's words, but a flaw in your understanding of Darkmatter theory.
In your enfeebled mind, maybe.
But cast your mind back to when you were bugging me about why dark matter galaxies were so dark?
One of the possible explanations is that if the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter gets to high, then the interactions between dark matter particles can actually inhibit the formation of stars, the mechanism, if I recall correctly, has even lead to the theorizing of a new form of stellar object - so called dark matter stars, stars that have begun forming in a dark matter rich environment, partially collapsed, and then the dark matter interactions have provided enough energy to halt the collapse (I believe specifically, it involves dark matter decay).
It's like LPG, CNG, or even AvGas - too much fuel, and the fire wont go.
So it's not a contradiction in the theory, or in Alphanumeric's words, but a flaw in your understanding of Darkmatter theory.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2008, 07:22 AM)
This statement goes beyond moronic, even for you.
Congratulations Ubavontuba, you're plumbing new depths of stupidity.
How so?
Congratulations Ubavontuba, you're plumbing new depths of stupidity.
How so?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2008, 07:29 AM)
In your enfeebled mind, maybe.
But cast your mind back to when you were bugging me about why dark matter galaxies were so dark?
One of the possible explanations is that if the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter gets to high, then the interactions between dark matter particles can actually inhibit the formation of stars, the mechanism, if I recall correctly, has even lead to the theorizing of a new form of stellar object - so called dark matter stars, stars that have begun forming in a dark matter rich environment, partially collapsed, and then the dark matter interactions have provided enough energy to halt the collapse (I believe specifically, it involves dark matter decay).
It's like LPG, CNG, or even AvGas - too much fuel, and the fire wont go.
So it's not a contradiction in the theory, or in Alphanumeric's words, but a flaw in your understanding of Darkmatter theory.
This is just dumb.
First, you're implying that dark matter isn't weakly interacting, after all.
Then, you're implying that dark matter in dark matter galaxies is perfectly and evenly distributed such that there are absolutely no pockets where the density required to form stars exist, even along the boundaries!
Also, fuel is always combustible at the boundaries in an oxygenated atmosphere. Some fuel is self-oxygenated and will always be combustible, at whatever density.
Again, you fail to understand the rammifications of your own words.
But cast your mind back to when you were bugging me about why dark matter galaxies were so dark?
One of the possible explanations is that if the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter gets to high, then the interactions between dark matter particles can actually inhibit the formation of stars, the mechanism, if I recall correctly, has even lead to the theorizing of a new form of stellar object - so called dark matter stars, stars that have begun forming in a dark matter rich environment, partially collapsed, and then the dark matter interactions have provided enough energy to halt the collapse (I believe specifically, it involves dark matter decay).
It's like LPG, CNG, or even AvGas - too much fuel, and the fire wont go.
So it's not a contradiction in the theory, or in Alphanumeric's words, but a flaw in your understanding of Darkmatter theory.
This is just dumb.
First, you're implying that dark matter isn't weakly interacting, after all.
Then, you're implying that dark matter in dark matter galaxies is perfectly and evenly distributed such that there are absolutely no pockets where the density required to form stars exist, even along the boundaries!
Also, fuel is always combustible at the boundaries in an oxygenated atmosphere. Some fuel is self-oxygenated and will always be combustible, at whatever density.
Again, you fail to understand the rammifications of your own words.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:30 PM)
How so?
Neutrinos are weakly interacting.
Neutrinos can be emitted with thermalized velocities.
A sample of neutrinos in a 'bottle', given enough time, will have thermalized velocities.
They are after all, weakly interacting, not non interacting.
Neutrinos are weakly interacting.
Neutrinos can be emitted with thermalized velocities.
A sample of neutrinos in a 'bottle', given enough time, will have thermalized velocities.
They are after all, weakly interacting, not non interacting.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
This is just dumb.
You would know, having long ago mastered the art of making dumb statements (take the post that this is replying to, for example.
You would know, having long ago mastered the art of making dumb statements (take the post that this is replying to, for example.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
First, you're implying that dark matter isn't weakly interacting, after all.
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing. I am simply implying that the matter is weakly interacting, which, by definition it is. You however, are confusing weakly interacting with non interacting, an error you demonstrably make on a regular basis.
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing. I am simply implying that the matter is weakly interacting, which, by definition it is. You however, are confusing weakly interacting with non interacting, an error you demonstrably make on a regular basis.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
Then, you're implying that dark matter in dark matter galaxies is perfectly and evenly distributed such that there are absolutely no pockets where the density required to form stars exist, even along the boundaries!
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing, I am simply implying that the amount of dark matter so significantly outweighs the amount of baryonic matter, and that the amount of baryonic matter is sufficiently small, that even at the edge of the colume of space where the baryonic matter has sufficient density to spawn stellar nurseries, that the amount of dark matter, although less then in the center of the galaxy, is still above the 'threshold' level. You see? It really is that simple - the only requirement my statement requires is that the spatial extent of the zone where the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter is too great for stars to form is greater then the spatial extent of the zone where baryonic matter is sufficiently dense for stars to form.
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing, I am simply implying that the amount of dark matter so significantly outweighs the amount of baryonic matter, and that the amount of baryonic matter is sufficiently small, that even at the edge of the colume of space where the baryonic matter has sufficient density to spawn stellar nurseries, that the amount of dark matter, although less then in the center of the galaxy, is still above the 'threshold' level. You see? It really is that simple - the only requirement my statement requires is that the spatial extent of the zone where the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter is too great for stars to form is greater then the spatial extent of the zone where baryonic matter is sufficiently dense for stars to form.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
Also, fuel is always combustible at the boundaries in an oxygenated atmosphere.
Not if there is insufficient oxygen in the atmosphere. Your objection is irrelevant. It was an analogy.
Not if there is insufficient oxygen in the atmosphere. Your objection is irrelevant. It was an analogy.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
Some fuel is self-oxygenated and will always be combustible, at whatever density.
Irrelevant. None of the examples I gave are self oxidizing.
Irrelevant. None of the examples I gave are self oxidizing.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)
Again, you fail to understand the rammifications of your own words.
Au contraire mon amie. It is you who have failed to consider all of the possibilities, and ramifications (please note, the word only has one m in it).
Au contraire mon amie. It is you who have failed to consider all of the possibilities, and ramifications (please note, the word only has one m in it).
Hey Uba!!!!
Really glad to see you back.
Could you please set out your concerns about the LHC in laymans terms?
I see the same arguments above about weakly interacting dark matter etc.etc. your arguments always start and stay at a very high level of technical understanding.
Just a simple explanation of your concerns, if you like the other side of the laymans explanation from RPenner.
Thanks
Henry
Really glad to see you back.
Could you please set out your concerns about the LHC in laymans terms?
I see the same arguments above about weakly interacting dark matter etc.etc. your arguments always start and stay at a very high level of technical understanding.
Just a simple explanation of your concerns, if you like the other side of the laymans explanation from RPenner.
Thanks
Henry
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
Oh, come on. You claim to know something of physics, yet you haven't heard of micro black holes?
So no source then...
So no source then...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
Again, 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?
Dark matter galaxies have no hydrogen. Otherwise they wouldn't be dark matter.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
No, you don't understand. Where is the light from all the stars that should be forming in, and inhabiting that space? Are you suggesting gravity works differently for dark matter?
No, I'm suggesting yuou don't understand even the basic properties of dark matter.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
But it's weakly interacting! It isn't thermal.
So things which interact cannot exchange energy now? Sounds like you're rewriting physics.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
So now you won't back up the model you insisted was superior to the one I presented?
Where's your model?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
No it's not. The conservation of angular momentum prevents them from doing anything but changing one another's directions (if only minutely). Don't you know how any of this stuff works? Besides the improbable collision, there's no interactive braking mechanism.
Wow, someone should tell NASA that because they use gravitational interactions to sling shot (ie speed up) space probes all the time. Quick, ring NASA and tell them all the space probes they've sent into the solar system don't obey your laws of physics!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
So you think physical proximity will result in access? What century were you born in?
And you think whining anonymously on a forum where none of the members have anything to do with CERN will result in action? How naive are you?
On these forums, I'm the one with the closest links to the LHC. I'm in the theoretical physics community and I have absolutely zero control/say/voice on the matter.
On these forums, I'm the one with the closest links to the LHC. I'm in the theoretical physics community and I have absolutely zero control/say/voice on the matter.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
Ha! Like I'm going to tell you.
So you don't have any.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2008, 07:49 AM)
Neutrinos are weakly interacting.
Neutrinos can be emitted with thermalized velocities.
A sample of neutrinos in a 'bottle', given enough time, will have thermalized velocities.
They are after all, weakly interacting, not non interacting.
This is a physics forum, not a wishful thinking/fantasy forum.
Neutrinos can't be held in a bottle.
Neutrinos can be emitted with thermalized velocities.
A sample of neutrinos in a 'bottle', given enough time, will have thermalized velocities.
They are after all, weakly interacting, not non interacting.
This is a physics forum, not a wishful thinking/fantasy forum.
Neutrinos can't be held in a bottle.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2008, 08:04 AM)
You would know, having long ago mastered the art of making dumb statements (take the post that this is replying to, for example.
...says the guy who couldn't describe the results of a simple, two-particle collision.
You obviously don't know what "weakly interacting" means. The weak interaction is so weak that they essentially have to collide to have any interaction, at all.
You obviously don't know what "weakly interacting" means. The weak interaction is so weak that they essentially have to collide to have any interaction, at all.
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing, I am simply implying that the amount of dark matter so significantly outweighs the amount of baryonic matter, and that the amount of baryonic matter is sufficiently small, that even at the edge of the colume of space where the baryonic matter has sufficient density to spawn stellar nurseries, that the amount of dark matter, although less then in the center of the galaxy, is still above the 'threshold' level. You see? It really is that simple - the only requirement my statement requires is that the spatial extent of the zone where the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter is too great for stars to form is greater then the spatial extent of the zone where baryonic matter is sufficiently dense for stars to form.
Again, you're implying an impossible uniformity.
Uh, duh. Didn't you see where I stated, "in an oxygenated atmosphere?"
Uh, duh. Didn't you see where I stated, "in an oxygenated atmosphere?"
Irrelevant. None of the examples I gave are self oxidizing.
But you tried to imply that lots of fuel always leads to squelching.
Whatever dude.
...says the guy who couldn't describe the results of a simple, two-particle collision.
QUOTE
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing. I am simply implying that the matter is weakly interacting, which, by definition it is. You however, are confusing weakly interacting with non interacting, an error you demonstrably make on a regular basis.
You obviously don't know what "weakly interacting" means. The weak interaction is so weak that they essentially have to collide to have any interaction, at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing. I am simply implying that the matter is weakly interacting, which, by definition it is. You however, are confusing weakly interacting with non interacting, an error you demonstrably make on a regular basis. |
You obviously don't know what "weakly interacting" means. The weak interaction is so weak that they essentially have to collide to have any interaction, at all.
Nonsense, I'm implying no such thing, I am simply implying that the amount of dark matter so significantly outweighs the amount of baryonic matter, and that the amount of baryonic matter is sufficiently small, that even at the edge of the colume of space where the baryonic matter has sufficient density to spawn stellar nurseries, that the amount of dark matter, although less then in the center of the galaxy, is still above the 'threshold' level. You see? It really is that simple - the only requirement my statement requires is that the spatial extent of the zone where the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter is too great for stars to form is greater then the spatial extent of the zone where baryonic matter is sufficiently dense for stars to form.
Again, you're implying an impossible uniformity.
QUOTE
Not if there is insufficient oxygen in the atmosphere. Your objection is irrelevant. It was an analogy.
Uh, duh. Didn't you see where I stated, "in an oxygenated atmosphere?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not if there is insufficient oxygen in the atmosphere. Your objection is irrelevant. It was an analogy. |
Uh, duh. Didn't you see where I stated, "in an oxygenated atmosphere?"
Irrelevant. None of the examples I gave are self oxidizing.
But you tried to imply that lots of fuel always leads to squelching.
QUOTE
Au contraire mon amie. It is you who have failed to consider all of the possibilities, and ramifications (please note, the word only has one m in it).
Whatever dude.
Isn't 'au contraire' like, whatever, dude? 
Too fun.
Too fun.
QUOTE (Sapo+May 21 2008, 03:25 AM)
Isn't 'au contraire' like, whatever, dude?
Too fun.
It means, "on the contrary."
Too fun.
It means, "on the contrary."
QUOTE (Henry Clerval+May 20 2008, 09:07 AM)
Hey Uba!!!!
Really glad to see you back.
Could you please set out your concerns about the LHC in laymans terms?
I see the same arguments above about weakly interacting dark matter etc.etc. your arguments always start and stay at a very high level of technical understanding.
Just a simple explanation of your concerns, if you like the other side of the laymans explanation from RPenner.
Thanks
Henry
Are you being genuine, or sarcastic? I can't tell. If the former, thanks. If the latter...
Either way, you can learn more here: Discussion of issues in laymans terms.
I'll try to put something of my own together in the next few days.
Really glad to see you back.
Could you please set out your concerns about the LHC in laymans terms?
I see the same arguments above about weakly interacting dark matter etc.etc. your arguments always start and stay at a very high level of technical understanding.
Just a simple explanation of your concerns, if you like the other side of the laymans explanation from RPenner.
Thanks
Henry
Are you being genuine, or sarcastic? I can't tell. If the former, thanks. If the latter...
Either way, you can learn more here: Discussion of issues in laymans terms.
I'll try to put something of my own together in the next few days.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+May 21 2008, 03:46 AM)
I'll try to put something of my own together in the next few days.
Yes, I was wondering when you'd get around to solving that 2-piece Noddy and Big Ears jigsaw puzzle I sent you.
Yes, I was wondering when you'd get around to solving that 2-piece Noddy and Big Ears jigsaw puzzle I sent you.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 20 2008, 09:10 AM)
So no source then...
So, no basic physics knowledge then...
Here's an easy one for you: Micro black hole.
How do you think they detect them?
How do you think they detect them?
No, I'm suggesting yuou don't understand even the basic properties of dark matter.
Says the guy that doesn't know dark matter galaxies contain hydrogen (even though he strangely referenced their hydrogen in earlier posts).
Now you've forgotten all about the SUSY LSP model?
Now you'
So, no basic physics knowledge then...
Here's an easy one for you: Micro black hole.
QUOTE
Dark matter galaxies have no hydrogen. Otherwise they wouldn't be dark matter.
How do you think they detect them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dark matter galaxies have no hydrogen. Otherwise they wouldn't be dark matter. |
How do you think they detect them?
No, I'm suggesting yuou don't understand even the basic properties of dark matter.
Says the guy that doesn't know dark matter galaxies contain hydrogen (even though he strangely referenced their hydrogen in earlier posts).
QUOTE
So things which interact cannot exchange energy now? Sounds like you're rewriting physics.
Now you've forgotten all about the SUSY LSP model?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So things which interact cannot exchange energy now? Sounds like you're rewriting physics. |
Now you'