I have some concerns [Moderator: Oh ho! An anti-science Concern Troll announces himself.] regarding the safety of the Large Hadron Collider. [Moderator: If poster is serious, then poster should either outline a reasoned argument or bring honest questions to authorities. Instead we get a whispering campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_par...Hadron_Collider ]
My concerns are based on the following considerations:
1) The production of dangerous [Moderator: Poster has assumed all black holes are dangerous, but not demonstrated this from any evidence or reasoning.] black holes at the LHC has not been definitively ruled out theoretically [Moderator: Only all published theoretical models of danger resulting from things called black holes have been ruled out, along with a large class of related models. But the "theory" that black holes are magic, intelligent doomsday machines which rape nuns and cause statues to bleed has not been ruled out because that crazy-pants statement is not physics. What has been definitively ruled out theoretically are non-quantum GR black holes -- the only type of black hole that does not evaporate. ], which is why Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano published their a posteriori [Moderator: All physics arguments are a posteriori which merely means they are based on the evidence of how the universe actually works.] astronomical argument. (see "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes") [Moderator: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 ]
2) The astronomical argument is subject to error, [Moderator: Duh! If you read the paper, everything is subject to error. But any interpretation of that paper is wrong when it purports to be able to calculate that error. An argument from ignorance has never been an advance of knowlege.] not only unintended miscalculations [Moderator: The above paper has been out for almost one year at this time, and neither the trained physicists, nor astronomers, nor anti-LHC concern trolls have pointed at a meaningful miscalculation. Instead we get an untimely attempt to shift the burden of proof that if accepted would beggar the ability to make even basic claims like 2 + 2 = 4 without invoking similar "concerns."] but also fundamental gaps in our knowledge of astronomical bodies [Moderator: The above paper has been out for almost one year at this time and neither the trained physicists, nor astronomers, nor anti-LHC concern trolls have pointed at a meaningful gap in knowledge of astronomical objects.] and particle physics [Moderator: The above paper has been out for almost one year at this time and neither the trained physicists, nor astronomers, nor anti-LHC concern trolls have pointed at a meaningful gap in particle physics.]. (see also "Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes") [Unpublished argument from ignorance: http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5515 ] And 99 % of physicists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past (for instance, who thought in the 80s that the universe was actually expanding at an accelerating pace?). [Moderator: The rhetorical foul of misleading vividness strikes. While trying to taint the astronomy of white dwarfs and neutron stars in our own galaxy, the poster talks about cosmology and the observation of supernovas billions of years in the past. Actually 100% of physicists have been wrong when you are willing to count trivia and non-physics as this poster is. On the other hand, 100% of physicists since Galileo were and are correct when it come to the theory of Jove casting thunderbolts, so you can see that in the absence of specifics such a percentage is meaningless in evaluating credibility.] Given the catastrophic consequences of creating dangerous black holes at the LHC, [Moderator: Note that this is still a purely imaginary concern in the absence of physical modelling.] the astronomical argument is not good enough. [Moderator: The purely imaginary concern that if we don't use the LHC to hunt for the Higgs boson, aliens will eliminate us as unworthy suggests that no argument to stop the LHC is "good enough." If the concern trolls brought something other than ignorance and rhetoric to the table, then perhaps we would have something to talk about.]
3) What is required is a controlled experiment. [Moderator: This is inconsistent given the poster's previous derision of a posteriori evidence-based knowledge.] But, of coarse, we wouldn't want to do that experiment on our home plant because that would defeat the purpose. Since no controlled experiment has been done, the LHC project should not be undertaken. [Moderator: There we have it, an argument from ignorance for eternally continued ignorance.]
Note: I am aware of a counterpoint here: The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it. [Moderator: If physics means anything, the fact that physics modelling says the LHC is completely safe with respect to the continuation of Earth and the solar system should be more heavily weighted than the converse which is a simple denial of the claim and has no physics modelling.] One could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC. [Moderator: I believe that argument first came to my attention from Scott Aaronson, now of MIT. See his post "Better Safe Than Sorry" Since the poster refuses to rebut the argument and yet I can as a simple argument from ignorance, I win.] -- I am not at all impressed by this counterargument. The comparison doesn't seem fair. What do you think? Can you pinpoint where the comparison fails? [Moderator: The honesty and reasonableness of the proponents. The arguments are entirely symmetrically based on no evidence. But the "aliens will kill us" counter-argument is pushed only as an example of what abandoning evidence when making arguments leads to. But since the pro-LHC argument is based on physics, it wins over an argument from ignorance.]
Do you share my concerns? Thanks.
Moderator: User is a concern troll and denialist. User is required to prove user is not a child rapist before we will listen to him.
Moderator: Poster complained via PM that I should removed my above comment. Clearly, poster has as much trouble understanding the terms of service as he does physics. I have a serious concern that the user might be a child rapist and since he is scornful of a posteriori knowledge, I have challenged him to prove his own "safety" for our children.
There have been a number of threads on this topic already.
Perhaps you may want to consider moving your discussion to one of them.
LHC Saftey Concerns
LHC Saftey Report Released
LHC Danger
LHC Danger Revisited!
LHC Danger
Blackholes at CERN
Say No to Freaking Colliders and Reactors
Micro Blackholes - A Pandoras Box
Concern over CERN's attempts at Blackhole Creation
Perhaps you may want to consider moving your discussion to one of them.
LHC Saftey Concerns
LHC Saftey Report Released
LHC Danger
LHC Danger Revisited!
LHC Danger
Blackholes at CERN
Say No to Freaking Colliders and Reactors
Micro Blackholes - A Pandoras Box
Concern over CERN's attempts at Blackhole Creation
I have pretty well bowed out of this kind of argument but I will answer a bit just because I have some time and I am bored.
1. The production of -dangerous- micro black holes is ruled out by theory. If you want to argue that the theories might be wrong, that is a different argument but your statement is wrong. The safety report specifically states this but adds the astrophysical argument as an extra.
2. If the physics describing how black holes work are wrong.. and 99% of physicists are wrong.... why are you assuming that the physics that posit the creation of micro black holes are right?
3. The LHC is a controlled experiment.
1. The production of -dangerous- micro black holes is ruled out by theory. If you want to argue that the theories might be wrong, that is a different argument but your statement is wrong. The safety report specifically states this but adds the astrophysical argument as an extra.
2. If the physics describing how black holes work are wrong.. and 99% of physicists are wrong.... why are you assuming that the physics that posit the creation of micro black holes are right?
3. The LHC is a controlled experiment.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
1) The production of dangerous black holes at the LHC has not been definitively ruled out theoretically, which is why Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano published their a posteriori astronomical argument. (see "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes")
And? It's never been ruled out that the chemical reactions occuring in your body right now won't result, via the Uncertainty Principle, in the production of a black hole. Therefore I demand you stop breathing.
And? It's never been ruled out that the chemical reactions occuring in your body right now won't result, via the Uncertainty Principle, in the production of a black hole. Therefore I demand you stop breathing.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
2) The astronomical argument is subject to error, not only unintended miscalculations but also fundamental gaps in our knowledge of astronomical bodies and particle physics. (see also "Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes") And 99 % of physicists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past (for instance, who thought in the 80s that the universe was actually expanding at an accelerating pace?). Given the catastrophic consequences of creating dangerous black holes at the LHC, the astronomical argument is not good enough.
Firstly you support nothing you say with specifics. Crossing the road is dangerous but enough of us consider it relatively safe to do it many times a day. Yet if I were to use your inflammatory language I'd proclaim "Crossing the road is not proven safe, confirmed deaths occur so often one just happened while you were reading this sentence. How dare the government build such deadly things outside our schools and homes. I, and others, demand they be removed!"
And I'm sure you don't understand the specifics of the theories enough to be able to tell the difference between actual science and someone just making up numbers to please the braying mob. The man who is trying to sue CERN can't even do high school physics.
eh...we needn't worry anyway....
This topic sparked some interest and I did some looking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
eh...we needn't worry anyway....
This topic sparked some interest and I did some looking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
A stellar black hole of 5 solar masses has a Hawking temperature of about 12 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K produced by the cosmic microwave background. Stellar mass (and larger) black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and will thus grow instead of shrink. In order to have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate) a black hole needs to be lighter than the Moon (and therefore a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter).
On the other hand if a black hole is very small, the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car (~10e-24 m) would only take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun. Lighter black holes are expected to evaporate even faster, for example a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10e-88 seconds to evaporate completely. Of course, for such a small black hole quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could even – although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so – hypothetically make such a small black hole stable.
I personally think that there needs to be a minimum mass obtained for a stable black hole to be formed. Even if one did form stable that small, I think the sun's life would have run out before it did any damage to the Earth. Assuming it even stuck around.
Though there is something I don't understand. The site states that....
Now the radiation they speak of is Electromagnetic and is therefore photons. Now the real equation is...
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Unless....I did find this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Which has...
Now the radiation they speak of is Electromagnetic and is therefore photons. Now the real equation is...
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Unless....I did find this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Which has...
The photon might not be a strictly massless particle, in which case, it would not move at the exact speed of light. Then the "speed of light", c, would not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain. It would still be the speed of gravitons, but it would not be the speed of photons.
The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless, like the graviton, but this is an experimental question. The current bound on the photon mass is that it is no greater than 10e-51 g, or 10e-32 eV.
I also found out that supposedly the speed of light may have decreased since the formation of the known universe.
Now relativistic mass did come to mind but the equation for that is...
m0(1 - v2/c2)-1/2 thus requiring the existence of a rest mass. That means if the photon is indeed without mass then it is without it period. However how would one explain how photons are influenced by gravity (the very reason black holes are black)? Since mass (as far as I know) is only attracted to other bodies of mass.
So are you saying that the radiation refers to particles other than photons? And that some of these have mass as well?
So are you saying that the radiation refers to particles other than photons? And that some of these have mass as well?
Secondly, flash lights do get lighter when they emit light
Cool. Although I am curious...I did do some reading of the feedback of people and it led me to some interesting threads (though threads I think that should remain dead).
I found these...
QUOTE (buttershug @ May 26 2008, 07:00 AM)
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
Precisely one of my points.
And I'm damn sure that Electrons don't get lighter every time they emit a photon.
Somehow, I don't think that Precursor has looked up the concept of Total Energy on the Wiki yet.
You were a part of that thread too but never corrected this discrepancy.
Precursor was wrong on a lot of things in those posts but looking at what the wiki site said, the possibility is there that he was correct on saying photons have mass.
Alpha radiation consists of a helium nucleus (two protons, two neutrons).
Beta radiation consists of electrons.
Gamma and X-ray radiation consists of highly energetic photons.
Alpha and beta have mass. While photons are massless, they do carry energy away from the emitting source.
It seems to me that measuring exactly zero is akin to proving a negative.
And I'm sure you don't understand the specifics of the theories enough to be able to tell the difference between actual science and someone just making up numbers to please the braying mob. The man who is trying to sue CERN can't even do high school physics.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
3) What is required is a controlled experiment. But, of coarse, we wouldn't want to do that experiment on our home plant because that would defeat the purpose. Since no controlled experiment has been done, the LHC project should not be undertaken.
See my post here.
Further more, you're basically saying "If it might not go as planned, we shouldn't do it." . Then we should stop all science right now. Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole.
Further more, you're basically saying "If it might not go as planned, we shouldn't do it." . Then we should stop all science right now. Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole.
how far did they get when they did turn it on?
QUOTE
Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole.
eh...we needn't worry anyway....
This topic sparked some interest and I did some looking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole. |
eh...we needn't worry anyway....
This topic sparked some interest and I did some looking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
A stellar black hole of 5 solar masses has a Hawking temperature of about 12 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K produced by the cosmic microwave background. Stellar mass (and larger) black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and will thus grow instead of shrink. In order to have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate) a black hole needs to be lighter than the Moon (and therefore a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter).
On the other hand if a black hole is very small, the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car (~10e-24 m) would only take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun. Lighter black holes are expected to evaporate even faster, for example a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10e-88 seconds to evaporate completely. Of course, for such a small black hole quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could even – although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so – hypothetically make such a small black hole stable.
I personally think that there needs to be a minimum mass obtained for a stable black hole to be formed. Even if one did form stable that small, I think the sun's life would have run out before it did any damage to the Earth. Assuming it even stuck around.
Though there is something I don't understand. The site states that....
QUOTE
If his theory of black hole radiation is correct then black holes are expected to emit a thermal spectrum of radiation, and thereby lose mass, because according to the theory of relativity mass is just highly condensed energy (E = mc2)
Now the radiation they speak of is Electromagnetic and is therefore photons. Now the real equation is...
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Unless....I did find this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Which has...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If his theory of black hole radiation is correct then black holes are expected to emit a thermal spectrum of radiation, and thereby lose mass, because according to the theory of relativity mass is just highly condensed energy (E = mc2) |
Now the radiation they speak of is Electromagnetic and is therefore photons. Now the real equation is...
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Unless....I did find this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Which has...
The photon might not be a strictly massless particle, in which case, it would not move at the exact speed of light. Then the "speed of light", c, would not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain. It would still be the speed of gravitons, but it would not be the speed of photons.
The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless, like the graviton, but this is an experimental question. The current bound on the photon mass is that it is no greater than 10e-51 g, or 10e-32 eV.
I also found out that supposedly the speed of light may have decreased since the formation of the known universe.
Now relativistic mass did come to mind but the equation for that is...
m0(1 - v2/c2)-1/2 thus requiring the existence of a rest mass. That means if the photon is indeed without mass then it is without it period. However how would one explain how photons are influenced by gravity (the very reason black holes are black)? Since mass (as far as I know) is only attracted to other bodies of mass.
Some updates to the OP to reflect our current state of knowledge.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/ lists a large number of observed hadrons (mesons and baryons) with their measured electric charges, masses, and names which are usually based on a quark model. But the LHC is primarily going to collide protons with protons.
QUOTE (H2O+Apr 28 2009, 06:53 PM)
Now the radiation they speak of is Electromagnetic and is therefore photons. Now the real equation is...
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Firstly, Hawking radiation is all kinds of particles as all quantum fields are affected in the same way. Secondly, flash lights do get lighter when they emit light, you just can't tell the difference and flash lights don't radiate at a temperature of a trillion degrees.
The Sun losses 4 million tons of mass a second.
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where m = 0 for a photon and so you are left with E^2 = (pc)^2 or just E = pc. With p being momentum and c a constant then the energy of a photon is purely its momentum. How is it then that the release of this radiation can cause a black hole to lose mass? After all, flashlights don't get lighter with use do they?
Firstly, Hawking radiation is all kinds of particles as all quantum fields are affected in the same way. Secondly, flash lights do get lighter when they emit light, you just can't tell the difference and flash lights don't radiate at a temperature of a trillion degrees.
The Sun losses 4 million tons of mass a second.
QUOTE
Firstly, Hawking radiation is all kinds of particles as all quantum fields are affected in the same way.
So are you saying that the radiation refers to particles other than photons? And that some of these have mass as well?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firstly, Hawking radiation is all kinds of particles as all quantum fields are affected in the same way. |
So are you saying that the radiation refers to particles other than photons? And that some of these have mass as well?
Secondly, flash lights do get lighter when they emit light
Cool. Although I am curious...I did do some reading of the feedback of people and it led me to some interesting threads (though threads I think that should remain dead).
I found these...
QUOTE (buttershug @ May 26 2008, 07:00 AM)
QUOTE
Do flashlights get lighter the more you use them.
I mean because of all that mass leaving them.
I mean less heavy. Not emit more light.
I mean because of all that mass leaving them.
I mean less heavy. Not emit more light.
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do flashlights get lighter the more you use them. I mean because of all that mass leaving them. I mean less heavy. Not emit more light. |
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
Precisely one of my points.
And I'm damn sure that Electrons don't get lighter every time they emit a photon.
Somehow, I don't think that Precursor has looked up the concept of Total Energy on the Wiki yet.
You were a part of that thread too but never corrected this discrepancy.
Precursor was wrong on a lot of things in those posts but looking at what the wiki site said, the possibility is there that he was correct on saying photons have mass.
QUOTE
So are you saying that the radiation refers to particles other than photons? And that some of these have mass as well?
Alpha radiation consists of a helium nucleus (two protons, two neutrons).
Beta radiation consists of electrons.
Gamma and X-ray radiation consists of highly energetic photons.
Alpha and beta have mass. While photons are massless, they do carry energy away from the emitting source.
QUOTE (H2O+Apr 29 2009, 12:34 PM)
Cool. Although I am curious...I did do some reading of the feedback of people and it led me to some interesting threads (though threads I think that should remain dead).
I found these...
QUOTE (buttershug @ May 26 2008, 07:00 AM)
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
You were a part of that thread too but never corrected this discrepancy.
Precursor was wrong on a lot of things in those posts but looking at what the wiki site said, the possibility is there that he was correct on saying photons have mass.
:Sigh:
That's what quote mining gets you - The discussion was (IIRC) about whether or not photons have rest-mass.
Yes, being a chem major, and having actually studied undergad physics, I realize that every chemical reaction destroys a little bit of mass, but the numbers are immeasurably small (to the point IIRC that they get lost in uncertainty).
The point that you're missing, or ignoring, and the point that I was making was that Photons carry away energy, not mass, but that energy is equivalent to a tiny bit of mass, but within the bounds of experimental error, or, to the best of our ability to measure it, photons have zero mass. Unfortunately, the Hesienberg uncertainty principle pretty much says we may never be able to measure a photon as having exactly zero mass.
I found these...
QUOTE (buttershug @ May 26 2008, 07:00 AM)
Which was immediately followed with...
QUOTE (Trippy @ May 26 2008, 07:06 PM)
You were a part of that thread too but never corrected this discrepancy.
Precursor was wrong on a lot of things in those posts but looking at what the wiki site said, the possibility is there that he was correct on saying photons have mass.
:Sigh:
That's what quote mining gets you - The discussion was (IIRC) about whether or not photons have rest-mass.
Yes, being a chem major, and having actually studied undergad physics, I realize that every chemical reaction destroys a little bit of mass, but the numbers are immeasurably small (to the point IIRC that they get lost in uncertainty).
The point that you're missing, or ignoring, and the point that I was making was that Photons carry away energy, not mass, but that energy is equivalent to a tiny bit of mass, but within the bounds of experimental error, or, to the best of our ability to measure it, photons have zero mass. Unfortunately, the Hesienberg uncertainty principle pretty much says we may never be able to measure a photon as having exactly zero mass.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, the Hesienberg uncertainty principle pretty much says we may never be able to measure a photon as having exactly zero mass
It seems to me that measuring exactly zero is akin to proving a negative.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Apr 28 2009, 06:38 AM)
I have pretty well bowed out of this kind of argument but I will answer a bit just because I have some time and I am bored.
1. The production of -dangerous- micro black holes is ruled out by theory. If you want to argue that the theories might be wrong, that is a different argument but your statement is wrong. The safety report specifically states this but adds the astrophysical argument as an extra.
1. The production of -dangerous- micro black holes is ruled out by theory. If you want to argue that the theories might be wrong, that is a different argument but your statement is wrong. The safety report specifically states this but adds the astrophysical argument as an extra.
1. No, it is not ruled out by theory.
[Moderator: But you have not demonstrated that exclusively quickly neutralized, stable TeV-scale black holes as discussed in the above cited paper are dangerous. In theory, (take your pick of GR, QFT, string theory, etc) all such objects have been rejected as impossible, and so to even consider them, Giddings and Mangano start by assuming their existence and providing additional empirical evidence that they don't exist or are not dangerous. You assume that they could exist and such existence automatically makes them dangerous which continues to let your brain wallow in an argument from ignorance.]
[Moderator: But you have not demonstrated that exclusively quickly neutralized, stable TeV-scale black holes as discussed in the above cited paper are dangerous. In theory, (take your pick of GR, QFT, string theory, etc) all such objects have been rejected as impossible, and so to even consider them, Giddings and Mangano start by assuming their existence and providing additional empirical evidence that they don't exist or are not dangerous. You assume that they could exist and such existence automatically makes them dangerous which continues to let your brain wallow in an argument from ignorance.]
2. If the physics describing how black holes work are wrong.. and 99% of physicists are wrong.... why are you assuming that the physics that posit the creation of micro black holes are right?
QUOTE
We have no concrete example of a consistent microphysics
such that black holes neutralize via Schwinger discharge
but do not Hawking radiate, but our present state of knowledge
of quantum black hole processes does not strictly
rule out such a possibility. Thus, we will seek alternative
bounds on such a scenario, which will also serve the
purpose of improving the stringency of the bounds for
charged black holes.
"Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"
such that black holes neutralize via Schwinger discharge
but do not Hawking radiate, but our present state of knowledge
of quantum black hole processes does not strictly
rule out such a possibility. Thus, we will seek alternative
bounds on such a scenario, which will also serve the
purpose of improving the stringency of the bounds for
charged black holes.
"Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"
[Moderator: But you have not demonstrated that exclusively quickly neutralized, stable TeV-scale black holes as discussed in the above cited paper are dangerous. In theory, (take your pick of GR, QFT, string theory, etc) all such objects have been rejected as impossible, and so to even consider them, Giddings and Mangano start by assuming their existence and providing additional empirical evidence that they don't exist or are not dangerous. You assume that they could exist and such existence automatically makes them dangerous which continues to let your brain wallow in an argument from ignorance.]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have no concrete example of a consistent microphysics such that black holes neutralize via Schwinger discharge but do not Hawking radiate, but our present state of knowledge of quantum black hole processes does not strictly rule out such a possibility. Thus, we will seek alternative bounds on such a scenario, which will also serve the purpose of improving the stringency of the bounds for charged black holes. "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" |
[Moderator: But you have not demonstrated that exclusively quickly neutralized, stable TeV-scale black holes as discussed in the above cited paper are dangerous. In theory, (take your pick of GR, QFT, string theory, etc) all such objects have been rejected as impossible, and so to even consider them, Giddings and Mangano start by assuming their existence and providing additional empirical evidence that they don't exist or are not dangerous. You assume that they could exist and such existence automatically makes them dangerous which continues to let your brain wallow in an argument from ignorance.]
2. If the physics describing how black holes work are wrong.. and 99% of physicists are wrong.... why are you assuming that the physics that posit the creation of micro black holes are right?
2. I am not assuming that the physics that posit the creation of micro black holes are right. I'm merely pointing out the possibility.
[Moderator: Likewise, Giddings and Mangano considered what that possibility would mean for physics. The evidence points to any physics which allows dangerous black holes to form at TeV energies are not the physics of our universe. Instead of arguing the point, you merely deny it.]
[Moderator: Likewise, Giddings and Mangano considered what that possibility would mean for physics. The evidence points to any physics which allows dangerous black holes to form at TeV energies are not the physics of our universe. Instead of arguing the point, you merely deny it.]
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Apr 28 2009, 06:38 AM)
3. The LHC is a controlled experiment.
3. We could also try to determine if micro black holes exist using cosmic ray detectors.
[Moderator: Likewise, Giddings and Mangano considered what the billion-year-old cosmic ray detectors called the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, white dwarfs and and neutron stars would imply for the safety of the LHC. That you would bring this up suggests that you haven't read (and understood) Giddings and Mangano. Fortunately, I have linked to the paper in your first post.]
[Moderator: Likewise, Giddings and Mangano considered what the billion-year-old cosmic ray detectors called the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, white dwarfs and and neutron stars would imply for the safety of the LHC. That you would bring this up suggests that you haven't read (and understood) Giddings and Mangano. Fortunately, I have linked to the paper in your first post.]
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 28 2009, 07:40 AM)
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
1) The production of dangerous black holes at the LHC has not been definitively ruled out theoretically, which is why Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano published their a posteriori astronomical argument. (see "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes")
And? It's never been ruled out that the chemical reactions occuring in your body right now won't result, via the Uncertainty Principle, in the production of a black hole. Therefore I demand you stop breathing.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
2) The astronomical argument is subject to error, not only unintended miscalculations but also fundamental gaps in our knowledge of astronomical bodies and particle physics. (see also "Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes") And 99 % of physicists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past (for instance, who thought in the 80s that the universe was actually expanding at an accelerating pace?). Given the catastrophic consequences of creating dangerous black holes at the LHC, the astronomical argument is not good enough.
Firstly you support nothing you say with specifics. Crossing the road is dangerous but enough of us consider it relatively safe to do it many times a day. Yet if I were to use your inflammatory language I'd proclaim "Crossing the road is not proven safe, confirmed deaths occur so often one just happened while you were reading this sentence. How dare the government build such deadly things outside our schools and homes. I, and others, demand they be removed!"
And I'm sure you don't understand the specifics of the theories enough to be able to tell the difference between actual science and someone just making up numbers to please the braying mob. The man who is trying to sue CERN can't even do high school physics.
And I'm sure you don't understand the specifics of the theories enough to be able to tell the difference between actual science and someone just making up numbers to please the braying mob. The man who is trying to sue CERN can't even do high school physics.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
3) What is required is a controlled experiment. But, of coarse, we wouldn't want to do that experiment on our home plant because that would defeat the purpose. Since no controlled experiment has been done, the LHC project should not be undertaken.
On the other hand, if you ask me whether we should run the LHC, I have some reasons (see my first post) to believe the LHC might create a dangerous black hole, but I have no reason to believe that not turning on the LHC would create a black hole.
But your reasons are based on ignorance and the assumption that that ignorance is shared by everyone.
See my post here.
Further more, you're basically saying "If it might not go as planned, we shouldn't do it." . Then we should stop all science right now. Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole.
Further more, you're basically saying "If it might not go as planned, we shouldn't do it." . Then we should stop all science right now. Further more, I repeat my demand you stop breathing as we cannot be sure you won't form a black hole.
My response to your arguments is that some risks are both necessary and unavoidable, and the LHC is not one of them. [Moderator: Correct. For some reason you are using the language of risk management even though using risk management depends on you doing actual physics. The operation of the LHC is not a risk according to theory. Your breathing is not a risk according to theory. The probability of forming a black hole from quantum mechanics, according to theory, exists whether the objects are "on" or "off" but since you mass less than the LHC, the chance that you turn into a human-mass black hole is far less than that of the LHC turning into a LHC-mass black hole, and both are small compared to parts of the Earth turning into a human-mass black hole. But you argue that theory could be wrong, and there might be something specific that you are doing wrong which would lead to you turning into a black hole at much higher probability. Even so, that is not "risk."]
Also, I could cause a black hole by breathing, but I could also cause a black hole by attempting to not breath. I have no reason to prefer one alternative over the other. [Moderator: Your "no reason to prefer" is an statement of ignorance. But then you also embrace ignorance when you reject a posteriori arguments as quoted.]
Similarly, if not turning on the LHC creates a dangerous black hole, I have no reason to believe that turning it on will not also create one. [Moderator: Likewise embracing ignorance. But you are far from the topic of actual risk management.]
On the other hand, if you ask me whether we should run the LHC, I have some reasons (see my first post) [Moderator: Trash from beginning to end which actually lists no reason to believe that the LHC might be a bad thing. Instead you tried to throw doubt on a physics-based report without actually finding fault or doing physics.] to believe the LHC might create a dangerous black hole, but I have no reason to believe that not turning on the LHC would create a black hole.
[Moderator: Since poster chose to remove context and edit out AlphaNumeric's reference, context has been restored.]
Also, I could cause a black hole by breathing, but I could also cause a black hole by attempting to not breath. I have no reason to prefer one alternative over the other. [Moderator: Your "no reason to prefer" is an statement of ignorance. But then you also embrace ignorance when you reject a posteriori arguments as quoted.]
Similarly, if not turning on the LHC creates a dangerous black hole, I have no reason to believe that turning it on will not also create one. [Moderator: Likewise embracing ignorance. But you are far from the topic of actual risk management.]
On the other hand, if you ask me whether we should run the LHC, I have some reasons (see my first post) [Moderator: Trash from beginning to end which actually lists no reason to believe that the LHC might be a bad thing. Instead you tried to throw doubt on a physics-based report without actually finding fault or doing physics.] to believe the LHC might create a dangerous black hole, but I have no reason to believe that not turning on the LHC would create a black hole.
[Moderator: Since poster chose to remove context and edit out AlphaNumeric's reference, context has been restored.]
It's kind of irritating to have to discuss this here as well. I won't be continuing since I gave it up a while ago.. but just to clear up your massive misunderstanding.
You selectively quoted a very small portion of the report that had to do ONLY with Schwinger discharge. This has nothing to do with the fact that DANGEROUS black holes are indeed ruled out by theory.
If you don't understand the science, try not to interpret it. I am amused by Warren and Eric on the other forum who are bashing about with math they barely understand trying to outdo people who do this for a living. It's like monkeys trying to work a nuclear accelerator and thinking they are smart because they can push the buttons at random. Hubris of a ridiculous sort.
QUOTE
Independently of the reasoning based on Hawking radiation, if microscopic
black holes were to be singly produced by colliding the quarks and gluons
inside protons, they would also be able to decay into the same types of
particles that produced them [10]. The reason being that in this case they
could not carry any conserved quantum number that is not already carried by
the original quarks and gluons, and their decay back to the initial state
partons would be allowed. For this reason, a microscopic black hole cannot be
completely black. In standard quantum physics, the decay rate would be
directly related to the production rate, and the expected lifetime would be
very short. The case of pair production of black holes carrying new and
opposite conserved quantum numbers leads to similar conclusions: only their
ground state is guaranteed to be stable, and any further accretion of normal
matter in the form of quarks, gluons or leptons would immediately be
radiated away. Both this and the existence of Hawking radiation are valid in
the extra-dimensional scenarios used to suggest the possible production of
microscopic black holes.
One might nevertheless wonder what would happen if a stable microscopic
black hole could be produced at the LHC [2]. However, we reiterate that this
would require a violation of some of the basic principles of quantum
mechanics – which is a cornerstone of the laws of Nature – in order for the
black hole decay rate to be suppressed relative to its production rate, and/or
of general relativity – in order to suppress Hawking radiation.
black holes were to be singly produced by colliding the quarks and gluons
inside protons, they would also be able to decay into the same types of
particles that produced them [10]. The reason being that in this case they
could not carry any conserved quantum number that is not already carried by
the original quarks and gluons, and their decay back to the initial state
partons would be allowed. For this reason, a microscopic black hole cannot be
completely black. In standard quantum physics, the decay rate would be
directly related to the production rate, and the expected lifetime would be
very short. The case of pair production of black holes carrying new and
opposite conserved quantum numbers leads to similar conclusions: only their
ground state is guaranteed to be stable, and any further accretion of normal
matter in the form of quarks, gluons or leptons would immediately be
radiated away. Both this and the existence of Hawking radiation are valid in
the extra-dimensional scenarios used to suggest the possible production of
microscopic black holes.
One might nevertheless wonder what would happen if a stable microscopic
black hole could be produced at the LHC [2]. However, we reiterate that this
would require a violation of some of the basic principles of quantum
mechanics – which is a cornerstone of the laws of Nature – in order for the
black hole decay rate to be suppressed relative to its production rate, and/or
of general relativity – in order to suppress Hawking radiation.
You selectively quoted a very small portion of the report that had to do ONLY with Schwinger discharge. This has nothing to do with the fact that DANGEROUS black holes are indeed ruled out by theory.
If you don't understand the science, try not to interpret it. I am amused by Warren and Eric on the other forum who are bashing about with math they barely understand trying to outdo people who do this for a living. It's like monkeys trying to work a nuclear accelerator and thinking they are smart because they can push the buttons at random. Hubris of a ridiculous sort.
QUOTE (User45+Apr 29 2009, 03:27 AM)
On the other hand, if you ask me whether we should run the LHC, I have some reasons (see my first post) to believe the LHC might create a dangerous black hole, but I have no reason to believe that not turning on the LHC would create a black hole.
But your reasons are based on ignorance and the assumption that that ignorance is shared by everyone.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Apr 29 2009, 04:09 AM)
If you don't understand the science, try not to interpret it. I am amused by Warren and Eric on the other forum who are bashing about with math they barely understand trying to outdo people who do this for a living. It's like monkeys trying to work a nuclear accelerator and thinking they are smart because they can push the buttons at random. Hubris of a ridiculous sort.
Could you provide a link to said forum please?
Could you provide a link to said forum please?
Here is the link to the forum in general.
Scientific Concern
Here is a link to some of the discussions in particular.
Overview of the arguments
The next one was a post specifically to attack me in particular since I was the last one there to present any argument that was pro lhc.
The fundamental problem
And this one where Warren and Eric decided that they were more apt to do the math than people actually trained in that field.
The black hole argument
I have since bowed out of the argument entirely since it had devolved into ad hominems, stupidity and sometimes sheer insanity. It is too bad since it used to have a number of excellent posters and is generally well run. Sadly the nuts have overrun the asylum and I can't spare the time to deal with it.
I hope I have not broken any posting rules by linking to another forum. If I have please delete this.
Scientific Concern
Here is a link to some of the discussions in particular.
Overview of the arguments
The next one was a post specifically to attack me in particular since I was the last one there to present any argument that was pro lhc.
The fundamental problem
And this one where Warren and Eric decided that they were more apt to do the math than people actually trained in that field.
The black hole argument
I have since bowed out of the argument entirely since it had devolved into ad hominems, stupidity and sometimes sheer insanity. It is too bad since it used to have a number of excellent posters and is generally well run. Sadly the nuts have overrun the asylum and I can't spare the time to deal with it.
I hope I have not broken any posting rules by linking to another forum. If I have please delete this.
Cheers. I've joined up. Could make for some interesting discussions if this Eric is who I think it is.
I don't know who Eric is, but Warren joined that forum after being banned from the Bad Astronomy forum. Ever since then it's been non stop attacks. Get a hold of me if you have problems joining in.
Rob, according to Luboš Motl,
This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
After further consideration, I think I am now able to articulate the reason why this argument must fail:
To be reasonable, the argument must state that the specific set of hypothesized unknown factors (for example, unknown properties of particles) could potentially lead to the hypothesized event (Earth destruction) by a similar mechanism (rapid growth of black holes) whether or not we take a specific coarse of action (whether or not we turn on the LHC). [Moderator: Easy. Case One: Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, willful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed. Case Two: Earth is already doomed due to an unique cusp of inbound neutrinos prearranged to converge on Nebraska, and only a greater knowledge of TeV-scale physics will allow us to avert total catastrophe, and so the universe punishes ignorance independently of conscious volition. But milder versions of case two are certainly true. Ignorance is automatically punished by the universe, because wrong choices are statistically more likely in ignorance than in knowledge.] If the comparison fails in any of these respects, the argument fails, because then, one can respond to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC, by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If this does not work, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk. [Moderator: Note that both punishment based on lack of ignorance and knowledge leading to worse choices than ignorance are unreasonable. An argument from ignorance for continued ignorance is not symmetric with an argument from ignorance for relief of that ignorance.]
Here is the problem with that statement.
We can say that the LHC can produce dangerous black holes if.. and only if...
1. All theories currently and generally held to be correct about micro black holes and their quantum mechanical behavior are wrong.
2. All the current and generally held to be correct theories about neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc are wrong.
3. The one string theory, based on quantum mechanics, is completely correct down to exact measurements.
If you say that this is a possibility.. how many other things are equally possible?
Aliens?
Ghosts?
Britney Spears as a Mensa member?
I would really love to know why User45 thought the above quote supported his position rather than detracts from it.
QUOTE
"nothing is "a priori" excluded theoretically, unless it violates a conservation law or another consistency or symmetry principle." (personal communication on his blog)
[Moderator: Thus, according to this principle, one cannot exclude black holes formed at a collider from decaying with the same ease in which they are formed. No conservation principle has been established which would result in long-lived TeV-scale black holes. This also indicates that a posteriori arguments, like actual physics and actual conservation laws are required to make progress in a physics discussion.]This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "nothing is "a priori" excluded theoretically, unless it violates a conservation law or another consistency or symmetry principle." (personal communication on his blog) |
[Moderator: Thus, according to this principle, one cannot exclude black holes formed at a collider from decaying with the same ease in which they are formed. No conservation principle has been established which would result in long-lived TeV-scale black holes. This also indicates that a posteriori arguments, like actual physics and actual conservation laws are required to make progress in a physics discussion.]
This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
"There is therefore no concrete framework where neutralization occurs without Hawking decay taking place as well, leading to a likely contradiction in assuming that stable black holes must be neutral. We nonetheless make the hypothesis that this odd situation could occur, and analyze the possible effects of such neutral and stable black holes"
[Moderator: My physics training allows me to read that as a clear statement that such super-stealthy and yet dangerous, neutral, stable black holes as contemplated in the paper are rejected by every proposed theory and principle of physics and that not even the invention of new conservation laws allows for their existance.]
This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
"There is therefore no concrete framework where neutralization occurs without Hawking decay taking place as well, leading to a likely contradiction in assuming that stable black holes must be neutral. We nonetheless make the hypothesis that this odd situation could occur, and analyze the possible effects of such neutral and stable black holes"
[Moderator: My physics training allows me to read that as a clear statement that such super-stealthy and yet dangerous, neutral, stable black holes as contemplated in the paper are rejected by every proposed theory and principle of physics and that not even the invention of new conservation laws allows for their existance.]
QUOTE
"Despite these very strong arguments for black hole decay, the possibility of manufacturing microscopic black holes on Earth suggests that one conduct an independent check of their benign nature."
[Moderator: Read as: Because the layman doesn't understand quantum mechanics and could be made to panic by fearmongers, lets look at the evidence all around us which shows that TeV-scale black holes could never hurt us.]
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 29 2009, 04:01 PM)
But your reasons are based on ignorance and the assumption that that ignorance is shared by everyone.
My reasons are based on a framework that allows the production of black holes at the LHC, and on the hypothesis, not ruled out by first principles, that they are stable and grow at a fast rate. [Moderator: But this is ruled out by the first principles of physicists. Your first principles come from the land of smoke and fairies and are readily seen as not being consistent with the evidence of the universe around us.] My hypothesis assumes that the framework does not prevent, contrary to most physicists' expectations, their catastrophic growth, because of a number of, as of yet, unknown factors. [Moderator: Giddings and Mangano did indeed consider such magic black holes.] Such a scenario, where most physicists turn out to be wrong, occurred in the 90s with the realization that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. [Moderator: And yet physics models of the expansion of the universe did not change. What changed was the measured values of the parameters of the GR isotropic model were greatly improved from a state of near ignorance. Further, the GR isotropic model may not reflect reality. Further, no fundamental principles of physics were involved. Further, the confidence "most physicists" in 1930-1980 put in the picky details of cosmology is far less than than confidence physicists put in basic relativistic quantum mechanics, so you are making an argument from a misleadingly vivid example. Stating that someone might be wrong is not comparable to pointing out how they are wrong, and that is what you have failed to do.]
My reasons are based on a framework that allows the production of black holes at the LHC, and on the hypothesis, not ruled out by first principles, that they are stable and grow at a fast rate. [Moderator: But this is ruled out by the first principles of physicists. Your first principles come from the land of smoke and fairies and are readily seen as not being consistent with the evidence of the universe around us.] My hypothesis assumes that the framework does not prevent, contrary to most physicists' expectations, their catastrophic growth, because of a number of, as of yet, unknown factors. [Moderator: Giddings and Mangano did indeed consider such magic black holes.] Such a scenario, where most physicists turn out to be wrong, occurred in the 90s with the realization that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. [Moderator: And yet physics models of the expansion of the universe did not change. What changed was the measured values of the parameters of the GR isotropic model were greatly improved from a state of near ignorance. Further, the GR isotropic model may not reflect reality. Further, no fundamental principles of physics were involved. Further, the confidence "most physicists" in 1930-1980 put in the picky details of cosmology is far less than than confidence physicists put in basic relativistic quantum mechanics, so you are making an argument from a misleadingly vivid example. Stating that someone might be wrong is not comparable to pointing out how they are wrong, and that is what you have failed to do.]
You refuse to see the obvious.
Your quote...
is about charge neutralization... not about micro black holes in general.
Lastly... considering what Lubos had to say about your arguments, I am amused that you chose to use his words to back your statement. Did he not say he would perma ban you if you brought such garbage to his blog again? (his words I believe were stronger than that).
Your quote...
QUOTE
"There is therefore no concrete framework where neutralization occurs without Hawking decay taking place as well, leading to a likely contradiction in assuming that stable black holes must be neutral. We nonetheless make the hypothesis that this odd situation could occur, and analyze the possible effects of such neutral and stable black holes"
is about charge neutralization... not about micro black holes in general.
Lastly... considering what Lubos had to say about your arguments, I am amused that you chose to use his words to back your statement. Did he not say he would perma ban you if you brought such garbage to his blog again? (his words I believe were stronger than that).
According to Mangano (ASTRONOMICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STABLE, QUANTUM BLACK HOLES, Michelangelo Mangano):
In the above quotes that I provided, G & M state that while there are strong reasons to believe that 3 & 4 are incorrect, they nevertheless consider what would happen if they were correct, therefore, tacitly confirming that 3 & 4 are not ruled out by first principles. [Moderator: To the extent that physics has first principles, Luboš Motl would say that quantum physics and conservation laws (tested and hypothetical) rule out stability of collider-formed black holes entirely or that the first principle is to look at the universe about us. In both cases you fail.]
QUOTE
In order for this study to be of any
relevance, several independently - unlikely
things must happen
1. Large extra-dimensions
2. BHs within the reach of the LHC
3. Hawking radiation not at work, and BH absolutely stable
for all masses
4. Black hole cannot maintain an electric charge (Schwinger
discharge)
relevance, several independently - unlikely
things must happen
1. Large extra-dimensions
2. BHs within the reach of the LHC
3. Hawking radiation not at work, and BH absolutely stable
for all masses
4. Black hole cannot maintain an electric charge (Schwinger
discharge)
In the above quotes that I provided, G & M state that while there are strong reasons to believe that 3 & 4 are incorrect, they nevertheless consider what would happen if they were correct, therefore, tacitly confirming that 3 & 4 are not ruled out by first principles. [Moderator: To the extent that physics has first principles, Luboš Motl would say that quantum physics and conservation laws (tested and hypothetical) rule out stability of collider-formed black holes entirely or that the first principle is to look at the universe about us. In both cases you fail.]
Principles..not theory. Besides the fact that it's an artificial point without any actual content. The theories that predict micro black hole production at the LHC are based on the same theories that predict their evaporation. One cannot be right without the other.
QUOTE
Note: I am aware of a counterpoint here: The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it. One could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC. -- I am not at all impressed by this counterargument. The comparison doesn't seem fair. What do you think? Can you pinpoint where the comparison fails?
After further consideration, I think I am now able to articulate the reason why this argument must fail:
To be reasonable, the argument must state that the specific set of hypothesized unknown factors (for example, unknown properties of particles) could potentially lead to the hypothesized event (Earth destruction) by a similar mechanism (rapid growth of black holes) whether or not we take a specific coarse of action (whether or not we turn on the LHC). [Moderator: Easy. Case One: Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, willful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed. Case Two: Earth is already doomed due to an unique cusp of inbound neutrinos prearranged to converge on Nebraska, and only a greater knowledge of TeV-scale physics will allow us to avert total catastrophe, and so the universe punishes ignorance independently of conscious volition. But milder versions of case two are certainly true. Ignorance is automatically punished by the universe, because wrong choices are statistically more likely in ignorance than in knowledge.] If the comparison fails in any of these respects, the argument fails, because then, one can respond to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC, by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If this does not work, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk. [Moderator: Note that both punishment based on lack of ignorance and knowledge leading to worse choices than ignorance are unreasonable. An argument from ignorance for continued ignorance is not symmetric with an argument from ignorance for relief of that ignorance.]
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Apr 30 2009, 12:48 AM)
The theories that predict micro black hole production at the LHC are based on the same theories that predict their evaporation. One cannot be right without the other.
This is invalidated by the G&M quotes that I posted above. [Moderator: Context restored to quote. Also, G&M ignore theory (since no theory predicts the required dangerous objects) and examine the universe to show that the dangerous objects don't even exist.] Also:
Look, I'm not saying that the LHC will create dangerous black holes. On the contrary, I think it almost certainly will not. But, there's still a possibility that it will, if we're very wrong and very unlucky, and given the consequences, I think it's worth considering the risk. [Moderator: G&M examine the universe to show that the dangerous black holes don't even exist at the TeV-scale accessible to the LHC.] But that's just my opinion. [Moderator: Maybe you should go away and get an informed opinion.]
This is invalidated by the G&M quotes that I posted above. [Moderator: Context restored to quote. Also, G&M ignore theory (since no theory predicts the required dangerous objects) and examine the universe to show that the dangerous objects don't even exist.] Also:
QUOTE
In order for this study to be of any
relevance, several independently - unlikely
things must happen
1. Large extra-dimensions
2. BHs within the reach of the LHC
3. Hawking radiation not at work, and BH absolutely stable
for all masses
4. Black hole cannot maintain an electric charge (Schwinger
discharge)
relevance, several independently - unlikely
things must happen
1. Large extra-dimensions
2. BHs within the reach of the LHC
3. Hawking radiation not at work, and BH absolutely stable
for all masses
4. Black hole cannot maintain an electric charge (Schwinger
discharge)
Look, I'm not saying that the LHC will create dangerous black holes. On the contrary, I think it almost certainly will not. But, there's still a possibility that it will, if we're very wrong and very unlucky, and given the consequences, I think it's worth considering the risk. [Moderator: G&M examine the universe to show that the dangerous black holes don't even exist at the TeV-scale accessible to the LHC.] But that's just my opinion. [Moderator: Maybe you should go away and get an informed opinion.]
QUOTE
But, there's still a possibility that it will, if we're very wrong and very unlucky, and given the consequences, I think it's worth considering the risk. But that's just my opinion.
Here is the problem with that statement.
We can say that the LHC can produce dangerous black holes if.. and only if...
1. All theories currently and generally held to be correct about micro black holes and their quantum mechanical behavior are wrong.
2. All the current and generally held to be correct theories about neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc are wrong.
3. The one string theory, based on quantum mechanics, is completely correct down to exact measurements.
If you say that this is a possibility.. how many other things are equally possible?
Aliens?
Ghosts?
Britney Spears as a Mensa member?
QUOTE
2. All the current and generally held to be correct theories about neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc are wrong.
I disagree. All it takes is one incorrect assumption, or theory, to invalidate the entire astronomical argument. [Moderator: Yes, but you have to already discard physical theory to allow such dangerous objects to exist causing absurdity to pile up upon absurdity. You don't like the way the experts do physics. So please demonstrate a way that all of physics could be right except with regard to this one statement of impossibility which you don't like.]QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. All the current and generally held to be correct theories about neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc are wrong. |
I disagree. All it takes is one incorrect assumption, or theory, to invalidate the entire astronomical argument. [Moderator: Yes, but you have to already discard physical theory to allow such dangerous objects to exist causing absurdity to pile up upon absurdity. You don't like the way the experts do physics. So please demonstrate a way that all of physics could be right except with regard to this one statement of impossibility which you don't like.]
If you say that this is a possibility.. how many other things are equally possible?
Aliens?
Ghosts?
Britney Spears as a Mensa member?
If you say that this is a possibility.. how many other things are equally possible?
Aliens?
Ghosts?
Britney Spears as a Mensa member?
There is no scientific reason to expect ghosts to exist and there is no known physical framework which allows ghosts to be produced, [Moderator: Luboš Motl (as quoted by you above) questions what reason you have to exclude them?] let alone evaporate, in certain conditions, contrary to mbh, and aliens almost certainly exist. [Moderator: Rob probably meant to say extraterrestrials abducting people and inserting metal probes. And if you deny the existance of those aliens, Luboš Motl (above) questions what reason you have to exclude them?] As for the last scenario... Again, how many people expected in the early 90s to discover that the universe is actually expanding at an accelerating pace. 99% of scientists have been wrong before. [Moderator: You seem to have a list of talking points rather than a sound or even valid argument.]
QUOTE (User45+Apr 29 2009, 11:30 PM)
Rob, according to Luboš Motl,
This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
The quote you gave is at the heart of your problem. ( and many others)
Just because something is not ruled out "a priori" does not mean it's ruled out later.
And you are ignorant of the mechanisms of it being ruled in a non "a priori" way.
You won't accept that you don't have the knowledge or understanding to understand why it was ruled out later.
Your quote simply says it wasn't ruled out at the start. (that's a good thing) Too bad in this case you don't have the ability to understand why it was later ruled out.
Yes you have a framework but as I said it is based on ignorance not on knowledge.
And is a backwards built hypothesis. You reached a conclusion then looked for ways to show it's true.
This is implicitly confirmed by Giddings and Mangano in their paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes" when they state:
The quote you gave is at the heart of your problem. ( and many others)
Just because something is not ruled out "a priori" does not mean it's ruled out later.
And you are ignorant of the mechanisms of it being ruled in a non "a priori" way.
You won't accept that you don't have the knowledge or understanding to understand why it was ruled out later.
Your quote simply says it wasn't ruled out at the start. (that's a good thing) Too bad in this case you don't have the ability to understand why it was later ruled out.
Yes you have a framework but as I said it is based on ignorance not on knowledge.
And is a backwards built hypothesis. You reached a conclusion then looked for ways to show it's true.
The problem is he is using witch-hunt logic.
Like the boy who cried wolf.
Like the charges of witchcraft in Salem.
Like the charges of Communism in the 1950's.
Like the charges of satanic child-sacrifice in the 1980's.
Like my concern that User45 may be a child rapist -- a charge he has not rebutted.
Having invented an imaginary threat, the concern troll, relying on nothing but utter ignorance and rhetoric, says it is the job of others to prove it doesn't exist when the rules of evidence (Walter Wagner would have run into this if he had standing) and common sense require that the person making the claim some threat may exist must prove his case first.
Like the boy who cried wolf.
Like the charges of witchcraft in Salem.
Like the charges of Communism in the 1950's.
Like the charges of satanic child-sacrifice in the 1980's.
Like my concern that User45 may be a child rapist -- a charge he has not rebutted.
Having invented an imaginary threat, the concern troll, relying on nothing but utter ignorance and rhetoric, says it is the job of others to prove it doesn't exist when the rules of evidence (Walter Wagner would have run into this if he had standing) and common sense require that the person making the claim some threat may exist must prove his case first.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 30 2009, 12:02 PM)
Just because something is not ruled out "a priori" does not mean it's ruled out later.
oops I meant to say "does not mean it's not ruled out later."
(of course it doesn't mean "it is" or "it is not" ruled out.)
It only means they were going into it with an open mind.
In fact the quote he gave supports the view opposite of his.
The quote is saying that nothing was ruled out from consideration ahead of time.
If he found a quote saying that black hole creation and growth was ruled out from consideration, then he would have a point.
oops I meant to say "does not mean it's not ruled out later."
(of course it doesn't mean "it is" or "it is not" ruled out.)
It only means they were going into it with an open mind.
In fact the quote he gave supports the view opposite of his.
The quote is saying that nothing was ruled out from consideration ahead of time.
If he found a quote saying that black hole creation and growth was ruled out from consideration, then he would have a point.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=...137#post2242137
News from Walter L. Wagner.
1) His appeal of the dismissed Hawaiian lawsuit against LHC funders has been fully briefed and is ready for a hearing to be scheduled.
2) His request that all funding for LHC be halted has been denied.
3) He appeared on the May 30, 2009 episode of the Daily Show. (see above)
4) His anti-LHC lawsuit website has been shutdown.
5) Although he indicated that there was a reply brief to be filed, it still looks like none was.
News from Walter L. Wagner.
1) His appeal of the dismissed Hawaiian lawsuit against LHC funders has been fully briefed and is ready for a hearing to be scheduled.
2) His request that all funding for LHC be halted has been denied.
3) He appeared on the May 30, 2009 episode of the Daily Show. (see above)
4) His anti-LHC lawsuit website has been shutdown.
5) Although he indicated that there was a reply brief to be filed, it still looks like none was.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 1 2009, 10:12 AM)
3) He appeared on the May 30, 2009 episode of the Daily Show. (see above
He did?! Awesome.
/edit
Just seen it. Even the stoner audience of the Daily Show laughed at his "It's 50/50 because its either going to happen or not, and that's how probability works!". Quick, buy a lottery ticket!
/edit again
John Oliver's closing line is brilliant, "Well there's a 50% chance it'll work, whadda ya say?"
He did?! Awesome.
/edit
Just seen it. Even the stoner audience of the Daily Show laughed at his "It's 50/50 because its either going to happen or not, and that's how probability works!". Quick, buy a lottery ticket!
/edit again
John Oliver's closing line is brilliant, "Well there's a 50% chance it'll work, whadda ya say?"
QUOTE
"nothing is "a priori" excluded theoretically, unless it violates a conservation law or another consistency or symmetry principle." (personal communication on his blog)
I would really love to know why User45 thought the above quote supported his position rather than detracts from it.
And yet, what is missing is the likelihood that if the LHC does create a black hole (which why would this one suddenly create a black hole when all the other colliders in the world have never shown anything even vaguely similar to the theoretical black hole?) And assuming this black hole maintains stability and mass to destroy our solar system, you won't have to worry about it, because you'll die before you figure out we made a mistake, and then you won't care. I say go for it, because history is written by the victor and if we are all dead, there will be no one left to say "I told you so"
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 1 2009, 09:26 PM)
He did?! Awesome.
/edit
Just seen it. Even the stoner audience of the Daily Show laughed at his "It's 50/50 because its either going to happen or not, and that's how probability works!". Quick, buy a lottery ticket!
/edit again
John Oliver's closing line is brilliant, "Well there's a 50% chance it'll work, whadda ya say?"
But by my calculations it's more like 1 in 4 :snicker:
1. It destroys the earth.
2. There is no black hole formed.
3. There is a short lived black hole formed that evaporates before it reaches the edge of the collision chamber.
4. A persistent black hole is generated that poses no risk to the earth in the life time of the sun (or the universe, or maybe that should be a 5th option).
/edit
Just seen it. Even the stoner audience of the Daily Show laughed at his "It's 50/50 because its either going to happen or not, and that's how probability works!". Quick, buy a lottery ticket!
/edit again
John Oliver's closing line is brilliant, "Well there's a 50% chance it'll work, whadda ya say?"
But by my calculations it's more like 1 in 4 :snicker:
1. It destroys the earth.
2. There is no black hole formed.
3. There is a short lived black hole formed that evaporates before it reaches the edge of the collision chamber.
4. A persistent black hole is generated that poses no risk to the earth in the life time of the sun (or the universe, or maybe that should be a 5th option).
It's actually quite a bit different from that.
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
If anyone is interested, someone I mentioned before, Eric from the other forum, says he intends to publish the following if he can get sponsored. Any comments or sponsorship offers?
Argument against LHC safety appraisal
Just curious as to what you all think.
Argument against LHC safety appraisal
Just curious as to what you all think.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 4 2009, 04:46 PM)
It's actually quite a bit different from that.
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
Hence the vaguely derisive tone, and the barely muffled snicker.
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
Hence the vaguely derisive tone, and the barely muffled snicker.
OK. So User45 said a lot of crazy stuff. Sorry it took so long to annotate it. Am I missing any major points?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 1 2009, 09:26 AM)
Just seen it. Even the stoner audience of the Daily Show laughed at his "It's 50/50 because its either going to happen or not, and that's how probability works!". Quick, buy a lottery ticket!
No, silly! Buy two. That way, you've a 100% chance of winning!!!
No, silly! Buy two. That way, you've a 100% chance of winning!!!
Rpenner
I would like your opinion on the bit that I linked a couple of posts above this one if you have a few minutes.
I hope I am not presuming too much but I am curious.
I would like your opinion on the bit that I linked a couple of posts above this one if you have a few minutes.
I hope I am not presuming too much but I am curious.
Ah -- I wondered where I saw that link. I'll get back to it when I can.
Thank you.
OK. That was nearly impossible to read through since I am educated in physics and logical arguments. Rather than actually argue any point, they simply assert any thing they choose, even when it is irrelevant or hurts their position. To actually contradict http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 they would have to do physics, but to the the extent where they discuss physics they wish to replace physics with doomsday magic.
For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.)
Giddings and Mangano is not a easy read for a non-physicist. But, if it is to be refuted, the fact-free assertions of some Gish Gallop is not going to be successful. And I can think of nowhere where this could be published other than a vanity press.
For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.)
Giddings and Mangano is not a easy read for a non-physicist. But, if it is to be refuted, the fact-free assertions of some Gish Gallop is not going to be successful. And I can think of nowhere where this could be published other than a vanity press.
^ Aside from the many spelling mistakes, even in something like famous physicists' names, Eric can't even convey the impression he knows what he's talking about. He mentions things like warped metrics but the way in which he says it implies he hasn't got a clue precisely what that is.
Anyone who can't spell properly or work out how to upload a pdf file is hardly going to be a top notch voice of physics...
Anyone who can't spell properly or work out how to upload a pdf file is hardly going to be a top notch voice of physics...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 4 2009, 04:46 AM)
It's actually quite a bit different from that.
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
Rob, my concern that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC does not hinge on the idea that "all of our physical models might be wrong", the point is that the theory which implies that mBHs can be produced at the LHC (large extra-dimensions exist), the theory which implies that mBHs radiate (Hawking radiation), the theory which implies that mBHs neutralize through the Schwinger mechanism (which proceeds according to quantum principles like those underlying Hawking radiation) and the theory which implies that mBHs are able to decay into the same types of particles that produced them (arXiv:grqc/9607022) might be correct, [Moderator: As a non-physicist, poster uses the term theory in many non-scientific ways here. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/02/fact_vs_theory.php GR and The Standard Model are theories -- tested frameworks for predicting all phenomena in a large field of study. These fields even overlap to an extent and experiments have been done on the overlap between GR and particle physics. Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism are theorems based on these theories, so to deny them you have to point to GR and The Standard Model being wrong within the fields in which they have been long thought to apply. The theorem that any black hole created in a collider will decay is incredibly basic and is true of any quantum description of the universe. Finally, extra large dimensions such that black holes could be formed at the LHC is an untested hypothetical extension to the Standard Model which has zero empirical support. It appears compatible with what we know, but is considered highly unlikely since where the Tevatron results are hard to reconcile with the standard model the results don't seem to point at large extra dimensions. But even assuming all of the above is broken in some (currently unspecified way) such that stable, uncharged black holes are the result of TeV-scale collisions, no physics demonstrates that said black holes are dangerous.] but because our present state of knowledge of quantum black hole processes is incomplete (because of unknown theoretical factors that may not have been considered, i.e. erroneous interpretations of the underlying theories), [Moderator: Our present state of knowlege of [insert any subject here] is always incomplete. No finite amount of work will render it complete. Therefore, as a practical matter, this is sterile rhetoric and not a reason to not to do anything of itself.] it may not strictly rule out the possibility that Hawking radiation does not work, that mBHs cannot maintain an electric charge and that mBHs are unable to decay into the same types of particles that produced them, and therefore [Moderator: Non sequitur! It does not follow that catatrophe is the result of the assumption of the above.] that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC, if Giddings & Mangano's a posteriori astronomical argument and Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's a posteriori astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) are incorrect (either because of miscalculations [see Toby Ord's paper arXiv:0810.5515v1] or because of our limited understanding of astronomical bodies and the particle interactions within them). [Moderator: Despite repeated correction, poster thinks he is making some important pejorative criticism by labeling the use of evidence from the universe as a posteriori when all physics back to Galileo is built on such evidence. We convict murderers on a posteriori arguments built on evidence like dead bodies, guns with fingerprints, empty shells still emitting volatiles and time-stamped videotape, why can we not use similar a posteriori arguments built on the results of TeV-scale collisions? It is not sufficient to point out that a particular human might have made a mistake -- Lord knows we have told you that you are definitely mistaken and you have not accepted that and walked away -- you must be able to demonstrate the mistake (as we do for you). One of the biggest mistakes is that you don't do physics, but just carp at the physics of others as "not good enough" when the only way to do better is to turn the LHC on.]
If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong... then the odds are actually...
1:infinity
1 = the possibility that the LHC will produce a dangerous black hole.
Infinity = the infinite number of possible events that might occur based on alternative physical models and other even less likely events.
Take for example the idea that the LHC might produce a naked singularity. Most of the laws of physics that we know of no longer apply when you go into a naked singularity. So... maybe dragons.. maybe an explosion.. maybe we all turn into Britney Spears.
The fact is that there is no reason to select a dangerous black hole if your entire basis for invalidating the safety report is that anything or everything that scientists hold to be true is wrong.
An additional fact... the theory that black holes can be created by the LHC depends on a very narrow band of physics to be exactly correct. If it's not.. no black holes at all.
Rob, my concern that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC does not hinge on the idea that "all of our physical models might be wrong", the point is that the theory which implies that mBHs can be produced at the LHC (large extra-dimensions exist), the theory which implies that mBHs radiate (Hawking radiation), the theory which implies that mBHs neutralize through the Schwinger mechanism (which proceeds according to quantum principles like those underlying Hawking radiation) and the theory which implies that mBHs are able to decay into the same types of particles that produced them (arXiv:grqc/9607022) might be correct, [Moderator: As a non-physicist, poster uses the term theory in many non-scientific ways here. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/02/fact_vs_theory.php GR and The Standard Model are theories -- tested frameworks for predicting all phenomena in a large field of study. These fields even overlap to an extent and experiments have been done on the overlap between GR and particle physics. Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism are theorems based on these theories, so to deny them you have to point to GR and The Standard Model being wrong within the fields in which they have been long thought to apply. The theorem that any black hole created in a collider will decay is incredibly basic and is true of any quantum description of the universe. Finally, extra large dimensions such that black holes could be formed at the LHC is an untested hypothetical extension to the Standard Model which has zero empirical support. It appears compatible with what we know, but is considered highly unlikely since where the Tevatron results are hard to reconcile with the standard model the results don't seem to point at large extra dimensions. But even assuming all of the above is broken in some (currently unspecified way) such that stable, uncharged black holes are the result of TeV-scale collisions, no physics demonstrates that said black holes are dangerous.] but because our present state of knowledge of quantum black hole processes is incomplete (because of unknown theoretical factors that may not have been considered, i.e. erroneous interpretations of the underlying theories), [Moderator: Our present state of knowlege of [insert any subject here] is always incomplete. No finite amount of work will render it complete. Therefore, as a practical matter, this is sterile rhetoric and not a reason to not to do anything of itself.] it may not strictly rule out the possibility that Hawking radiation does not work, that mBHs cannot maintain an electric charge and that mBHs are unable to decay into the same types of particles that produced them, and therefore [Moderator: Non sequitur! It does not follow that catatrophe is the result of the assumption of the above.] that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC, if Giddings & Mangano's a posteriori astronomical argument and Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's a posteriori astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) are incorrect (either because of miscalculations [see Toby Ord's paper arXiv:0810.5515v1] or because of our limited understanding of astronomical bodies and the particle interactions within them). [Moderator: Despite repeated correction, poster thinks he is making some important pejorative criticism by labeling the use of evidence from the universe as a posteriori when all physics back to Galileo is built on such evidence. We convict murderers on a posteriori arguments built on evidence like dead bodies, guns with fingerprints, empty shells still emitting volatiles and time-stamped videotape, why can we not use similar a posteriori arguments built on the results of TeV-scale collisions? It is not sufficient to point out that a particular human might have made a mistake -- Lord knows we have told you that you are definitely mistaken and you have not accepted that and walked away -- you must be able to demonstrate the mistake (as we do for you). One of the biggest mistakes is that you don't do physics, but just carp at the physics of others as "not good enough" when the only way to do better is to turn the LHC on.]
1.
If Hawking Radiation does not work, the large extra dimension theory is unlikely, since they are both based on the same theoretical basis. Keep in mind that Relativity holds that such micro black holes are impossible. In order to get some you have to believe that quantum mechanics is exactly correct.
2.
If Hawking Radiation does not work, the large extra dimension theory is unlikely, since they are both based on the same theoretical basis. Keep in mind that Relativity holds that such micro black holes are impossible. In order to get some you have to believe that quantum mechanics is exactly correct.
2. he theory which implies that mBHs neutralize through the Schwinger mechanism (which proceeds according to quantum principles like those underlying Hawking radiation)
Same as above. In addition, if MBH's are not neutral, they would have never gotten passed the Earth and cosmic rays would have killed us eons ago.
3.
Again, same argument as above.
4.
Again, same argument as above.
4. if Giddings & Mangano's a posteriori astronomical argument and Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's a posteriori astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) are incorrect (either because of miscalculations [see Toby Ord's paper arXiv:0810.5515v1] or because of our limited understanding of astronomical bodies and the particle interactions within them).
To be honest, the astronomical argument was a great deal simplified for clarity's sake. There are a huge host of stellar bodies that should be gone if cosmic rays could produce dangerous micro black holes. There are suns that are 200 thousand times the size of ours, massive bodies of every conceivable size and density, etc. not to mention events so powerful that we could not even conceive of recreating them here. Cosmic rays are ubiquitous in the universe and generally isotropic. If they could create dangerous micro black holes there would be a heck of a lot of those and a lot less regular matter.... I doubt anything would exist at all by now.
Lastly, you have shown no reason why the astronomical evidence is wrong other than saying "We can't be 100% sure."
We can be a lot more certain of the astronomical argument that we are that micro black holes can be created in the first place.
You are not 100% sure of anything. You can't even prove that I exist.
Let's put it this way, the possibility that you exist does not pose more of risk to the Earth than the possibility that you do not exist. I can imagine any number of scenarios where your existence causes the destruction of the Planet, and an equal number of scenarios where your non-existence leads to the destruction of the Planet. Furthermore, whether you exist or not is not something under my control. So how is this relevant to my point? If I can respond to your alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC), the alternative scenario is not relevant to my argument.
Let's put it this way, the possibility that you exist does not pose more of risk to the Earth than the possibility that you do not exist. I can imagine any number of scenarios where your existence causes the destruction of the Planet, and an equal number of scenarios where your non-existence leads to the destruction of the Planet. Furthermore, whether you exist or not is not something under my control. So how is this relevant to my point? If I can respond to your alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC), the alternative scenario is not relevant to my argument.
Your argument is philosophy... not science.
That's right. My argument is based on the notion that the underlying theories may be essentially correct, but nevertheless lead to catastrophic mBH production, because of unknown theoretical factors, which lead to erroneous interpretations of those theories and erroneous theory-laden astronomical arguments.
I tend to agree that our present state of (*incomplete*) knowledge of quantum black hole processes rules out catastrophic mBHs a priori, but if you compare Giddings & Mangano's paper (arXiv:0806.3381v2) to the LSAG's report, you'll notice that the former paper is less categorical when it comes to the a priori theoretical safety arguments, and acknowledges that some theoretical considerations do not strictly rule out stable mBHs :
We have no concrete example of a consistent microphysics such that black holes neutralize via Schwinger discharge but do not Hawking radiate, but our present state of knowledge of quantum black hole processes does not strictly rule out such a possibility. Thus, we will seek alternative bounds on such a scenario, which will also serve the purpose of improving the stringency of the bounds for charged black holes.(arXiv:0806.3381v2)
QUOTE
it may not strictly rule out the possibility that Hawking radiation does not work,
If Hawking Radiation does not work, the large extra dimension theory is unlikely, since they are both based on the same theoretical basis. Keep in mind that Relativity holds that such micro black holes are impossible. In order to get some you have to believe that quantum mechanics is exactly correct.
2.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it may not strictly rule out the possibility that Hawking radiation does not work, |
If Hawking Radiation does not work, the large extra dimension theory is unlikely, since they are both based on the same theoretical basis. Keep in mind that Relativity holds that such micro black holes are impossible. In order to get some you have to believe that quantum mechanics is exactly correct.
2. he theory which implies that mBHs neutralize through the Schwinger mechanism (which proceeds according to quantum principles like those underlying Hawking radiation)
Same as above. In addition, if MBH's are not neutral, they would have never gotten passed the Earth and cosmic rays would have killed us eons ago.
3.
QUOTE
nd that mBHs are unable to decay into the same types of particles that produced them
Again, same argument as above.
4.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| nd that mBHs are unable to decay into the same types of particles that produced them |
Again, same argument as above.
4. if Giddings & Mangano's a posteriori astronomical argument and Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's a posteriori astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) are incorrect (either because of miscalculations [see Toby Ord's paper arXiv:0810.5515v1] or because of our limited understanding of astronomical bodies and the particle interactions within them).
To be honest, the astronomical argument was a great deal simplified for clarity's sake. There are a huge host of stellar bodies that should be gone if cosmic rays could produce dangerous micro black holes. There are suns that are 200 thousand times the size of ours, massive bodies of every conceivable size and density, etc. not to mention events so powerful that we could not even conceive of recreating them here. Cosmic rays are ubiquitous in the universe and generally isotropic. If they could create dangerous micro black holes there would be a heck of a lot of those and a lot less regular matter.... I doubt anything would exist at all by now.
Lastly, you have shown no reason why the astronomical evidence is wrong other than saying "We can't be 100% sure."
We can be a lot more certain of the astronomical argument that we are that micro black holes can be created in the first place.
Rob, my argument all along has been that we can't be 100% sure, because of our incomplete knowledge and our imperfect track record. Wouldn't you want to be 100% sure when more than 6 billion lives are on the line? [Moderator: This still does not demonstrate even if everything poster wants us to assume might be true about black holes that said black holes would be "dangerous." Even if this is merely "philosophy" the poster still needs to have his conclusions follow from his assumptions. I can prove that a birth of a zebra in captivity will result in the loss of all life on Earth within hours, if you will allow me to redefine zebra to mean supernova. But even after we let the poster redefine black hole to mean something other than the subject of GR and The Standard Model, we have no demonstration that such objects could exist or are dangerous.] And yes I know that "anything" is possible. I already addressed that counterpoint in previous posts. [Moderator: I don't think "anything" is possible. I think many things are impossible. But I don't think that the poster ever addressed the subject of rational decision making or even risk management in the face of assuming "anything" is possible. "Anything," by definition, encompasses a greater universe of possibilities than even 6 billion people could even contemplate.]
My point is...
You are not 100% sure of anything. You can't even prove that I exist.
Your argument is philosophy... not science.
You are not 100% sure of anything. You can't even prove that I exist.
Your argument is philosophy... not science.
QUOTE
You are not 100% sure of anything. You can't even prove that I exist.
Let's put it this way, the possibility that you exist does not pose more of risk to the Earth than the possibility that you do not exist. I can imagine any number of scenarios where your existence causes the destruction of the Planet, and an equal number of scenarios where your non-existence leads to the destruction of the Planet. Furthermore, whether you exist or not is not something under my control. So how is this relevant to my point? If I can respond to your alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC), the alternative scenario is not relevant to my argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You are not 100% sure of anything. You can't even prove that I exist. |
Let's put it this way, the possibility that you exist does not pose more of risk to the Earth than the possibility that you do not exist. I can imagine any number of scenarios where your existence causes the destruction of the Planet, and an equal number of scenarios where your non-existence leads to the destruction of the Planet. Furthermore, whether you exist or not is not something under my control. So how is this relevant to my point? If I can respond to your alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), by inverting it and showing that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC), the alternative scenario is not relevant to my argument.
Your argument is philosophy... not science.
That's right. My argument is based on the notion that the underlying theories may be essentially correct, but nevertheless lead to catastrophic mBH production, because of unknown theoretical factors, which lead to erroneous interpretations of those theories and erroneous theory-laden astronomical arguments.
I tend to agree that our present state of (*incomplete*) knowledge of quantum black hole processes rules out catastrophic mBHs a priori, but if you compare Giddings & Mangano's paper (arXiv:0806.3381v2) to the LSAG's report, you'll notice that the former paper is less categorical when it comes to the a priori theoretical safety arguments, and acknowledges that some theoretical considerations do not strictly rule out stable mBHs :
QUOTE
"There is therefore no concrete framework where neutralization occurs without Hawking decay taking place as well, leading to a likely contradiction in assuming that stable black holes must be neutral. We nonetheless make the hypothesis that this odd situation could occur, and analyze the possible effects of such neutral and stable black holes" (arXiv:0806.3381v2)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "There is therefore no concrete framework where neutralization occurs without Hawking decay taking place as well, leading to a likely contradiction in assuming that stable black holes must be neutral. We nonetheless make the hypothesis that this odd situation could occur, and analyze the possible effects of such neutral and stable black holes" (arXiv:0806.3381v2) |
We have no concrete example of a consistent microphysics such that black holes neutralize via Schwinger discharge but do not Hawking radiate, but our present state of knowledge of quantum black hole processes does not strictly rule out such a possibility. Thus, we will seek alternative bounds on such a scenario, which will also serve the purpose of improving the stringency of the bounds for charged black holes.(arXiv:0806.3381v2)
QUOTE
"Despite these very strong arguments for black hole decay, the possibility of manufacturing microscopic black holes on Earth suggests that one conduct an independent check of their benign nature." (arXiv:0806.3381v2)
Hmmmm.... the quotes you present argue the opposite of your point.
In addition...
The problem here is that your argument can be applied to any and all scientific experiments. You cannot prove that the Tevatron is 100% certain not to destroy the world... or that any medical experiment won't kill all life... or that any kind of new technology won't destroy us all. Your philosophy would lead to the end of all scientific progress and a new dark age.
It's just silly.
In addition...
QUOTE
That's right. My argument is based on the notion that the underlying theories may be essentially correct, but nevertheless lead to catastrophic mBH production, because of unknown theoretical factors, which lead to erroneous interpretations of those theories and erroneous theory-laden astronomical arguments.
The problem here is that your argument can be applied to any and all scientific experiments. You cannot prove that the Tevatron is 100% certain not to destroy the world... or that any medical experiment won't kill all life... or that any kind of new technology won't destroy us all. Your philosophy would lead to the end of all scientific progress and a new dark age.
It's just silly.
Thank you rpenner and Rob for your constructive criticism. I think it's important to examine such matters fairly and with an open-mind.
I am ending my participation in this discussion now.
Best.
I am ending my participation in this discussion now.
Best.
QUOTE (User45+May 9 2009, 10:20 PM)
Thank you rpenner and Rob for your constructive criticism. I think it's important to examine such matters fairly and with an open-mind.
I am ending my participation in this discussion now.
Best.
Right before I can point out that there is a greater chance that allowing herds of swine in areas where there are also migrating birds will lead to a virus that would wipe out civilization.
It would make more sense to slaughter all pigs and fowl than to stop the LHC.
edit and no matter how you slice it, your arguement is based on ignorance.
I am ending my participation in this discussion now.
Best.
Right before I can point out that there is a greater chance that allowing herds of swine in areas where there are also migrating birds will lead to a virus that would wipe out civilization.
It would make more sense to slaughter all pigs and fowl than to stop the LHC.
edit and no matter how you slice it, your arguement is based on ignorance.
Rpenner, I am willing to pursue the discussion and address the points that you and others have raised, if you agree to not edit my posts as you have done so far.
[Moderator: Even if my sense of fiduciary duty did not require it, the next-to-next-to-last sentence in this forum's Terms of Service (link below) appear to prevent me from agreeing to any such terms. Indeed, in the last 48 hours, I have deleted over 140 posts and editing your obstinate-and-ignorant-to-the-point-of-being-offensive posts is a compromise intended to improve dialog on this forum. If, as you would have it, somewhere you have an actual communicable argument for a demonstration of a failure of all of the LHC safety arguments then your logic would seem to compel you to present it to an audience of physicists. To this end you should welcome any elucidation of points where you fail to make your case. An actual empowered physicist, physics journal editor, political figure or judge would not nearly be civil in their dismissal of your failure to communicate an argument. It is only in the rough-and-tumble exposure of arguments to criticism that one can have any trust in their reliability. A point which I am certain applies to philosophers as well as physicists.]
[Moderator: Even if my sense of fiduciary duty did not require it, the next-to-next-to-last sentence in this forum's Terms of Service (link below) appear to prevent me from agreeing to any such terms. Indeed, in the last 48 hours, I have deleted over 140 posts and editing your obstinate-and-ignorant-to-the-point-of-being-offensive posts is a compromise intended to improve dialog on this forum. If, as you would have it, somewhere you have an actual communicable argument for a demonstration of a failure of all of the LHC safety arguments then your logic would seem to compel you to present it to an audience of physicists. To this end you should welcome any elucidation of points where you fail to make your case. An actual empowered physicist, physics journal editor, political figure or judge would not nearly be civil in their dismissal of your failure to communicate an argument. It is only in the rough-and-tumble exposure of arguments to criticism that one can have any trust in their reliability. A point which I am certain applies to philosophers as well as physicists.]
Your point can still be read and since the edits are in a different color we know which words are yours. Quite frankly you have failed to meet any kind of scientific criteria nor to answer any of the scientific points that have been raised.. especially where it concerns the paper that you have put together.
How about this point...
Or this...
Or this...
GR and The Standard Model are theories -- tested frameworks for predicting all phenomena in a large field of study. These fields even overlap to an extent and experiments have been done on the overlap between GR and particle physics. Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism are theorems based on these theories, so to deny them you have to point to GR and The Standard Model being wrong within the fields in which they have been long thought to apply. The theorem that any black hole created in a collider will decay is incredibly basic and is true of any quantum description of the universe. Finally, extra large dimensions such that black holes could be formed at the LHC is an untested hypothetical extension to the Standard Model which has zero empirical support. It appears compatible with what we know, but is considered highly unlikely since where the Tevatron results are hard to reconcile with the standard model the results don't seem to point at large extra dimensions. But even assuming all of the above is broken in some (currently unspecified way) such that stable, uncharged black holes are the result of TeV-scale collisions, no physics demonstrates that said black holes are dangerous.]
How about it?
It's time for some real science please.
Quite frankly you have failed to meet any kind of scientific criteria nor to answer any of the scientific points that have been raised.. especially where it concerns the paper that you have put together.
How about this point...
For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.)
Rob, I did not put together that paper. You are confusing me with someone else.
How about this point...
QUOTE
For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.)
Or this...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.) |
Or this...
GR and The Standard Model are theories -- tested frameworks for predicting all phenomena in a large field of study. These fields even overlap to an extent and experiments have been done on the overlap between GR and particle physics. Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism are theorems based on these theories, so to deny them you have to point to GR and The Standard Model being wrong within the fields in which they have been long thought to apply. The theorem that any black hole created in a collider will decay is incredibly basic and is true of any quantum description of the universe. Finally, extra large dimensions such that black holes could be formed at the LHC is an untested hypothetical extension to the Standard Model which has zero empirical support. It appears compatible with what we know, but is considered highly unlikely since where the Tevatron results are hard to reconcile with the standard model the results don't seem to point at large extra dimensions. But even assuming all of the above is broken in some (currently unspecified way) such that stable, uncharged black holes are the result of TeV-scale collisions, no physics demonstrates that said black holes are dangerous.]
How about it?
It's time for some real science please.
Discredit is the only tool you physic nuts have isnt it?
I guess time will tell what happens at the lhc if it goes badly I wouldn't be amazed if none of the credit for its fail goes to scientists. It could blow off 1/2 of the earth and people would still stand behind the current way of thinking and change nothing. Theyd probably just try to build it again and say they can do it better... Electricty is all fun and games up untill someone loses an ionisphere.
I guess time will tell what happens at the lhc if it goes badly I wouldn't be amazed if none of the credit for its fail goes to scientists. It could blow off 1/2 of the earth and people would still stand behind the current way of thinking and change nothing. Theyd probably just try to build it again and say they can do it better... Electricty is all fun and games up untill someone loses an ionisphere.
QUOTE (User45+May 9 2009, 03:31 AM)
Rob, my argument all along has been that we can't be 100% sure, because of our incomplete knowledge and our imperfect track record. Wouldn't you want to be 100% sure when more than 6 billion lives are on the line?
Everything we do puts the lives of some or all of the people on Earth 'on the line', if you do nothing but look at it in black and white terms. When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which noone worries about.
You are being black and white about this because it's the only way you can avoid acknowledging you're being irrationally paranoid.
Everything we do puts the lives of some or all of the people on Earth 'on the line', if you do nothing but look at it in black and white terms. When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which noone worries about.
You are being black and white about this because it's the only way you can avoid acknowledging you're being irrationally paranoid.
Well eventualy some science experiment is going to destroy the earth imo. Why not this one?
Actualy I just think itll blow up euroland... But im always hoping for the best
Actualy I just think itll blow up euroland... But im always hoping for the best
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 07:15 AM)
Discredit is the only tool you physic nuts have isnt it?
I guess time will tell what happens at the lhc if it goes badly I wouldn't be amazed if none of the credit for its fail goes to scientists. It could blow off 1/2 of the earth and people would still stand behind the current way of thinking and change nothing. Theyd probably just try to build it again and say they can do it better... Electricty is all fun and games up untill someone loses an ionisphere.
What is it with people and the LHC? Why aren't you waving your arms about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, you know the stuff they purposefully design to blow people up!? It should be like your holy grail of bad science, go get 'em! Do the World a favour and pick better targets (no pun) to 'warn the world about'
Sheesh
I guess time will tell what happens at the lhc if it goes badly I wouldn't be amazed if none of the credit for its fail goes to scientists. It could blow off 1/2 of the earth and people would still stand behind the current way of thinking and change nothing. Theyd probably just try to build it again and say they can do it better... Electricty is all fun and games up untill someone loses an ionisphere.
What is it with people and the LHC? Why aren't you waving your arms about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, you know the stuff they purposefully design to blow people up!? It should be like your holy grail of bad science, go get 'em! Do the World a favour and pick better targets (no pun) to 'warn the world about'
Sheesh
Well thats exactly the problem... The technologys that could come from cern if it goes "well" could easly bring about something worse then nukes to the world. And the main problem is not the research but instead the leadership. We could have all the greatest of discoverys in the universe... but with bad leadership like the kind we currently have thanks to bad social systems we will end up doing more harm with them then good. Nukes already exist letz not bring about something more advanced then nukez plz :/ You actualy brought up what I consider the strongest arguement for not doing the cern or any cern like experiments. Science needs to take a break and let the worlds philosophy get a handle on the situation. But then again science was never about anything other then control anyhow...
Its in my opinion that scientists wish to rule the world with an iron fist of facts.
Why else would you all get upset with people who try and understand the world in different terms then the ones you guys deem as acceptible?
Its in my opinion that scientists wish to rule the world with an iron fist of facts.
Why else would you all get upset with people who try and understand the world in different terms then the ones you guys deem as acceptible?
QUOTE (User45+May 10 2009, 05:27 AM)
Rpenner, I am willing to pursue the discussion and address the points that you and others have raised, if you agree to not edit my posts as you have done so far.
[Moderator: Even if my sense of fiduciary duty did not require it, the next-to-next-to-last sentence in this forum's Terms of Service (link below) appear to prevent me from agreeing to any such terms. Indeed, in the last 48 hours, I have deleted over 140 posts and editing your obstinate-and-ignorant-to-the-point-of-being-offensive posts is a compromise intended to improve dialog on this forum. If, as you would have it, somewhere you have an actual communicable argument for a demonstration of a failure of all of the LHC safety arguments then your logic would seem to compel you to present it to an audience of physicists. To this end you should welcome any elucidation of points where you fail to make your case. An actual empowered physicist, physics journal editor, political figure or judge would not nearly be civil in their dismissal of your failure to communicate an argument. It is only in the rough-and-tumble exposure of arguments to criticism that one can have any trust in their reliability. A point which I am certain applies to philosophers as well as physicists.]
Rpenner, you have edited several of my posts to the point that they are no longer easily readable, and with higly offensive comments (see first post for example), attacking me and calling me every name, including a troll. I appreciate your time and attention, but I have never see this done in any forum before. I cannot pursue discussion in such conditions.
[Moderator: Even if my sense of fiduciary duty did not require it, the next-to-next-to-last sentence in this forum's Terms of Service (link below) appear to prevent me from agreeing to any such terms. Indeed, in the last 48 hours, I have deleted over 140 posts and editing your obstinate-and-ignorant-to-the-point-of-being-offensive posts is a compromise intended to improve dialog on this forum. If, as you would have it, somewhere you have an actual communicable argument for a demonstration of a failure of all of the LHC safety arguments then your logic would seem to compel you to present it to an audience of physicists. To this end you should welcome any elucidation of points where you fail to make your case. An actual empowered physicist, physics journal editor, political figure or judge would not nearly be civil in their dismissal of your failure to communicate an argument. It is only in the rough-and-tumble exposure of arguments to criticism that one can have any trust in their reliability. A point which I am certain applies to philosophers as well as physicists.]
Rpenner, you have edited several of my posts to the point that they are no longer easily readable, and with higly offensive comments (see first post for example), attacking me and calling me every name, including a troll. I appreciate your time and attention, but I have never see this done in any forum before. I cannot pursue discussion in such conditions.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 10 2009, 06:09 AM)
Quite frankly you have failed to meet any kind of scientific criteria nor to answer any of the scientific points that have been raised.. especially where it concerns the paper that you have put together.
How about this point...
QUOTE
For example, in one place they confuse quoted figures of about 12 km/s with 12,000 km/s. (It is not true that the speed of sound in Earth exceeds 1% of the speed of light.)
Rob, I did not put together that paper. You are confusing me with someone else.
You would be David, not Eric.
However, my point still stands. Your argument is devoid of facts or any kind of science.
Would you like to try some?
However, my point still stands. Your argument is devoid of facts or any kind of science.
Would you like to try some?
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 10:37 AM)
The technologys that could come from cern if it goes "well" could easly bring about something worse then nukes to the world.
Do you even know the technologies which might come out of CERN? It has helped propel the areas of the internet, computing, nanomaterials, superconductors, things which do and have played enormous roles in the world. The energies which the colliders can produce are not something you can use for destructive purposes because you'd need to build a machine the size of the LHC to be able to combine and alter things on scales smaller (and thus higher energy) than nuclear weapons. So even if the LHC can make black holes, a black hole bomb would be 25 miles in size!
Do you even know the technologies which might come out of CERN? It has helped propel the areas of the internet, computing, nanomaterials, superconductors, things which do and have played enormous roles in the world. The energies which the colliders can produce are not something you can use for destructive purposes because you'd need to build a machine the size of the LHC to be able to combine and alter things on scales smaller (and thus higher energy) than nuclear weapons. So even if the LHC can make black holes, a black hole bomb would be 25 miles in size!
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 10:37 AM)
And the main problem is not the research but instead the leadership. We could have all the greatest of discoverys in the universe... but with bad leadership like the kind we currently have thanks to bad social systems we will end up doing more harm with them then good.
That's nothing to do with scientists. That's to do wth politicians. Further more, it's to do with people like you. The people who whine about scientific research because they don't understand it. People who base their decisions on ignorance and fear, not on information and enlightenment.
That's nothing to do with scientists. That's to do wth politicians. Further more, it's to do with people like you. The people who whine about scientific research because they don't understand it. People who base their decisions on ignorance and fear, not on information and enlightenment.
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 10:37 AM)
Science needs to take a break and let the worlds philosophy get a handle on the situation. But then again science was never about anything other then control anyhow....
Basically you want to stop ALL scientific research (since you can come up with bad applications for just about anything) till the world becomes a nicer cuddlier place? Yeah, how long do you think it'll take for anger and hatred to leave the human race?! Forever.
You're like the Church telling Galileo "Stop asking questions, it endangers us".
You're like the Church telling Galileo "Stop asking questions, it endangers us".
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 10:37 AM)
But then again science was never about anything other then control anyhow...
The radio was developed through the work of people like Marconi and Bell and Faraday. Faraday loved experiment, finding out about the universe. The fact people now use radios to listen in on one another doesn't mean Faraday wanted control. He wanted answers. I'm a physicist, I don't care about controlling people, I want to answer questions about the universe, I want to see how things work, I want others to know how things work.
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 10:37 AM)
Its in my opinion that scientists wish to rule the world with an iron fist of facts.
Paranoid delusions and just bullshit, frankly. Scientists invented the internet. CERN was a major driving factor in that, in fact. Scientists were and are one of the major user groups of the internet, putting more and more and more information about their work, their research, their ideas online, both for each other and the general public. I have more access to the work of other physicists at home via my broadband now than my father, a professor of engineering, had in his university 20 years ago. Thousands, if not millions, of textbooks are freely available via such things as Google Books. Wikipedia makes information free for all. www.arxiv.org is the freely available archive of pretty much EVERY scientific paper of the last 15 years and there isn't a physicist I know who doesn't put their work there now.
Scientists provide their work for all to see. The problem is that now science is very advanced compared to as little as 100 years ago. The front line of research has moved out of effects everyone knows about into the realms of the very small, the very cold, the very distant. Things which some people don't understand. After all the universe is very very big and probably very complicated. It's logical to expect some people can't understand some parts of it. You happen to be one of them. I happen to be one of them. Most, if not all, people are. But scientists try to make things as easy as possible by sharing work.
You are trying to find an excuse as to why you suck at maths and science. You just can't accept you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Boo sodding hoo.
Scientists provide their work for all to see. The problem is that now science is very advanced compared to as little as 100 years ago. The front line of research has moved out of effects everyone knows about into the realms of the very small, the very cold, the very distant. Things which some people don't understand. After all the universe is very very big and probably very complicated. It's logical to expect some people can't understand some parts of it. You happen to be one of them. I happen to be one of them. Most, if not all, people are. But scientists try to make things as easy as possible by sharing work.
You are trying to find an excuse as to why you suck at maths and science. You just can't accept you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Boo sodding hoo.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 10 2009, 09:20 PM)
The radio was developed through the work of people like Marconi and Bell and Faraday. Faraday loved experiment, finding out about the universe. The fact people now use radios to listen in on one another doesn't mean Faraday wanted control. He wanted answers. I'm a physicist, I don't care about controlling people, I want to answer questions about the universe, I want to see how things work, I want others to know how things work.
Why is it no one remembers the person who made the first voice transmission.
And the first music radio show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden
Now back to the regularly scheduled argument.
Maybe the LHC will teach something we need to know in order to find asteroids before they hit us.
Why is it no one remembers the person who made the first voice transmission.
And the first music radio show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden
Now back to the regularly scheduled argument.
Maybe the LHC will teach something we need to know in order to find asteroids before they hit us.
QUOTE (magpies+May 10 2009, 09:37 AM)
Its in my opinion that scientists wish to rule the world with an iron fist of facts.
No it's reality that rules.
And scientists have the best grip on it.
No it's reality that rules.
And scientists have the best grip on it.
QUOTE (User45+May 10 2009, 01:23 PM)
Rpenner, you have edited several of my posts to the point that they are no longer easily readable, and with higly offensive comments (see first post for example), attacking me and calling me every name, including a troll. I appreciate your time and attention, but I have never see this done in any forum before. I cannot pursue discussion in such conditions.
It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about your choice to use terminology identical to the morons who brought measles back to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7259338.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...ain-851584.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...m-vaccine-link/
It's about your choice to use arguments which are not just bad arguments, but formally bad arguments, the type that 18-year-olds are taught to identify before they are taught university physics or philosophy.
And it's about responsibility to our readers to not leave poisonous non-arguments unchallenged in the light of at least one death for which the media places the blame on similar ignorant fear-mongers.
I do mark up and even delete purported medical diagnoses and treatments placed on the forum for the same reason.
As to your claim that the edited posts are hard to read, this can only help your reputation as the arguments that were made were offensive tripe and your claim is contradicted by the statements and time-stamped actions of other posters.
If you are allowed to make an argument from ignorance that the billions of [pounds/euros/dollars/etc] and millions of man-hours that went into the LHC should be utterly wasted by never allowing the LHC to be turned on, then why do you dispute my much milder argument from ignorance that since no one has an a priori proof that the semi-anonymous handle User45 isn't being used by an unsavory individual requires User45 to prove his good nature? I have used exactly your tactics of using the same classic logical fallacy, unreasonably shifted the burden of proof, simply denied you access to a universe of possible evidence, and (in the first post of the thread) used a red herring of great vividness to short circuit logical thinking despite a failure to actually assert that vivid claim. And it worked. Even though the context was as an educational tool, your own tactics replayed to you elicited only an visceral response.
So when the same concern troll tactics are picked up and replayed non-stop to a teenager without the education to detect or counter them, she apparently chose to act on those fears and committed suicide.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ContentID=97345
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080911/jsp/...ory_9818032.jsp
As someone behind a semi-anonymous handle, you have no reputation on this forum other than that created by your own actions. And by your first post you labelled yourself as a concern troll. The term is hyper-linked. If you disagree with the label, write a damn argument against it for a change.
And I still am more civil than the journal editors will be.
It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about your choice to use terminology identical to the morons who brought measles back to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7259338.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...ain-851584.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...m-vaccine-link/
It's about your choice to use arguments which are not just bad arguments, but formally bad arguments, the type that 18-year-olds are taught to identify before they are taught university physics or philosophy.
And it's about responsibility to our readers to not leave poisonous non-arguments unchallenged in the light of at least one death for which the media places the blame on similar ignorant fear-mongers.
I do mark up and even delete purported medical diagnoses and treatments placed on the forum for the same reason.
As to your claim that the edited posts are hard to read, this can only help your reputation as the arguments that were made were offensive tripe and your claim is contradicted by the statements and time-stamped actions of other posters.
If you are allowed to make an argument from ignorance that the billions of [pounds/euros/dollars/etc] and millions of man-hours that went into the LHC should be utterly wasted by never allowing the LHC to be turned on, then why do you dispute my much milder argument from ignorance that since no one has an a priori proof that the semi-anonymous handle User45 isn't being used by an unsavory individual requires User45 to prove his good nature? I have used exactly your tactics of using the same classic logical fallacy, unreasonably shifted the burden of proof, simply denied you access to a universe of possible evidence, and (in the first post of the thread) used a red herring of great vividness to short circuit logical thinking despite a failure to actually assert that vivid claim. And it worked. Even though the context was as an educational tool, your own tactics replayed to you elicited only an visceral response.
So when the same concern troll tactics are picked up and replayed non-stop to a teenager without the education to detect or counter them, she apparently chose to act on those fears and committed suicide.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ContentID=97345
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080911/jsp/...ory_9818032.jsp
As someone behind a semi-anonymous handle, you have no reputation on this forum other than that created by your own actions. And by your first post you labelled yourself as a concern troll. The term is hyper-linked. If you disagree with the label, write a damn argument against it for a change.
And I still am more civil than the journal editors will be.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 8 2009, 08:19 AM)
Aside from the many spelling mistakes
QUOTE (User45+Apr 28 2009, 02:38 AM)
But, of coarse, we wouldn't want to do that experiment on our home plant because that would defeat the purpose.
Sometimes automated spell-check is your friend and sometimes your enemy.
Sometimes automated spell-check is your friend and sometimes your enemy.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 10 2009, 10:13 PM)
No it's reality that rules.
And scientists have the best grip on it.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/bacon/organum/aphorisms1.html
And scientists have the best grip on it.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/bacon/organum/aphorisms1.html
QUOTE (Francis Bacon+Novum Organum, Aphorism 3, 1620)
[K]nowledge [is] power []; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule.
Spedding, James, Robert L. Ellis, Douglas D. Heath, eds. The Works of Francis Bacon: Baron of Verulam, Viscount St. Alban, and Lord High Chancellor of England. 14 Vols. 1870. New York: Garrett Press, 1968.
or in story form:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05...hants_wings.php
Spedding, James, Robert L. Ellis, Douglas D. Heath, eds. The Works of Francis Bacon: Baron of Verulam, Viscount St. Alban, and Lord High Chancellor of England. 14 Vols. 1870. New York: Garrett Press, 1968.
or in story form:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05...hants_wings.php
QUOTE (rpenner+May 10 2009, 10:22 PM)
And it's about responsibility to our readers to not leave poisonous non-arguments unchallenged in the light of at least one death for which the media places the blame on similar ignorant fear-mongers.
I do mark up and even delete purported medical diagnoses and treatments placed on the forum for the same reason.
[...]
So when the same concern troll tactics are picked up and replayed non-stop to a teenager without the education to detect or counter them, she apparently chose to act on those fears and committed suicide.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ContentID=97345
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080911/jsp/...ory_9818032.jsp
As someone behind a semi-anonymous handle, you have no reputation on this forum other than that created by your own actions. And by your first post you labelled yourself as a concern troll. The term is hyper-linked. If you disagree with the label, write a damn argument against it for a change.
And I still am more civil than the journal editors will be.
Ok rpenner, now I see where you're coming from. You may delete this thread, in light of the above. I apologize for any needless fears that I may have caused here; I am definitely not losing sleep over the LHC. There is absolutely no evidence that the LHC poses any danger.
I do mark up and even delete purported medical diagnoses and treatments placed on the forum for the same reason.
[...]
So when the same concern troll tactics are picked up and replayed non-stop to a teenager without the education to detect or counter them, she apparently chose to act on those fears and committed suicide.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ContentID=97345
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080911/jsp/...ory_9818032.jsp
As someone behind a semi-anonymous handle, you have no reputation on this forum other than that created by your own actions. And by your first post you labelled yourself as a concern troll. The term is hyper-linked. If you disagree with the label, write a damn argument against it for a change.
And I still am more civil than the journal editors will be.
Ok rpenner, now I see where you're coming from. You may delete this thread, in light of the above. I apologize for any needless fears that I may have caused here; I am definitely not losing sleep over the LHC. There is absolutely no evidence that the LHC poses any danger.
No. It's not my function to respond to forum content via PM.
I do not understand how the user has attached ego to either the semi-anonymous handle the user chose or the content of the posts. This handle was created for the specific purpose of creating this thread and the user has not yet bothered to post on any other subject.
If the user feels the posts have been unfairly treated, the user is free to argue the case. I have reversed my decisions in the past, and I have taken no irreversible actions in this thread.
If the user feels that the posts have been fairly treated, the user is free to try again with more developed arguments.
If the user wishes to ask questions, we have multiple people here who are more than capable of following Giddings and Mangano in their sleep and can even contrast the Giddings and Mangano model of black holes with GR and every other theory of black holes which have been advanced.
Responding via PM would serve no pedagogical purpose.
I do not understand how the user has attached ego to either the semi-anonymous handle the user chose or the content of the posts. This handle was created for the specific purpose of creating this thread and the user has not yet bothered to post on any other subject.
If the user feels the posts have been unfairly treated, the user is free to argue the case. I have reversed my decisions in the past, and I have taken no irreversible actions in this thread.
If the user feels that the posts have been fairly treated, the user is free to try again with more developed arguments.
If the user wishes to ask questions, we have multiple people here who are more than capable of following Giddings and Mangano in their sleep and can even contrast the Giddings and Mangano model of black holes with GR and every other theory of black holes which have been advanced.
Responding via PM would serve no pedagogical purpose.
Rpenner
I have some technical questions about some BS raised elsewhere on this subject. Who would you suggest I address my questions to or should I make it a public post. Quite frankly this is just a personal bugaboo and I don't know if it's appropriate to bore everyone with it.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
I have some technical questions about some BS raised elsewhere on this subject. Who would you suggest I address my questions to or should I make it a public post. Quite frankly this is just a personal bugaboo and I don't know if it's appropriate to bore everyone with it.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
If it's on this topic, this thread seems appropriate.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 11 2009, 02:56 AM)
I do not understand how the user has attached ego to either the semi-anonymous handle the user chose or the content of the posts. This handle was created for the specific purpose of creating this thread and the user has not yet bothered to post on any other subject.
My purpose here was not to cause concern, but to obtain relief from concern. I am sorry if I came across as a concern troll.
My purpose here was not to cause concern, but to obtain relief from concern. I am sorry if I came across as a concern troll.
QUOTE (User45+May 11 2009, 10:37 AM)
My purpose here was not to cause concern, but to obtain relief from concern. I am sorry if I came across as a concern troll.
Then don't read about Yelowstone National Park, or flu (avian flu hasn't gone away just off the front page), or the potential solar storm in 2012, or how many asteroids have come close since they started watching for them or...
Then don't read about Yelowstone National Park, or flu (avian flu hasn't gone away just off the front page), or the potential solar storm in 2012, or how many asteroids have come close since they started watching for them or...
Thanks Rpenner
What I would like is a bit of an analysis of the following posts that are a thread on Scientific Concerns. I can spot a number of logical flaws but I am not well versed enough in math to follow some of the more pseudo technical aspects. I prefer to understand things rather than blunder about so I would like a technical response from those people here who know enough physics to follow.
These are the salient posts in order... I will leave out the personal stuff and the redundancies.
CFH in this context refers to the paper by Cassadio, Fabi and Harms.. found here... On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC
The following posts are mostly by Warren Platts, who has contacted Prof Harms and used that correspondence to suggest that his new model is correct and that the LHC will produce dangerous black holes despite the conclusions reached by Harms.
Most of the thread is found here... Cassadio et al.. Catastrophic Black hole growth
I DID IT!
I reproduced exactly Figure 2 in CFH (v2). That of course is with the helium-lithium mixture.... When the true mass figure for iron is used the M(max) increases to about 2.5 x 10^{-21}--about double what the paper says. It also bumps up the Rem 8.9 x 10^{-12} m.
So the typo that got turned into a computational error doesn't materially affect the outcome.
But I think the takehome lesson here is that errors are easy to make, and hard to find sometimes. The correction this time actually goes in favor of LHC safety (in that if the reasoning is correct that went into CFH's eq. (25), then Mcrit for an mBH shouldn't be much more than ~60-70 grams), which is good news if you care about Planet Earth, but it just goes to show that *** happens.
Like the RHIC safety report, where it was demonstrated years after it was published that they had made a 3 order of magnitude mathematical error in their estimate of pcatastrophe.
If we are going to risk the Home Planet, the safety arguments have to be airtight. And they just aren't.
The other take home lesson is that physicists don't read each other's paper's much or very carefully. It's a total pain in the *** to go through a physics paper with a fine-toothed comb. E.g., like Giddings and Mangano accusing Plaga of using a different equation than he actually used. So when Rob says that other physicists will home in on any errors--well that just doesn't happen. They don't have the time. It took an unemployed geologist to find this one.
HOLY CRAP!
Here it is folks:
Like I said, the way CFH have their system of equations set up, runaway mBH growth is logically impossible. I also pointed out they don't take into account thermal velocity. If they did, then the logical result is a balance of forces such that you get an mBH that is totally stable: that is, it is in a dynamic equilibrium where it neither grows nor shrinks.
So what I do is take that formula from G&M and use it for my dM/dt accretion formula. Once this formula exceeds the dM/dt of CFH, then I assume the G&M formula takes over.
Since an mBH that's going even half the speed of light slows down to less than Earth's escape velocity in a matter of centimeters, then any mBH produced under CFH's theory will get trapped. However, it never gets big enough to go 4-D, so we don't have to worry about the transition. So I assume that the mBH will remain 5-D always.
Since the black hole will be in equilibrium, then dM/dt|accr = dM/dt|evap. Thus:
lamda pi rho cs Cem^2 M^{1/2} = g(eff) Mp^3 / (960 pi lp Mc^3 M)
So the thing to do is solve for M, and that will give you the equilibrium mass of the black hole. Thus:
M = ((960 lambda pi^2 rho cs Cem^2 lp Mc^3) / (g(eff) Mp^3))^2
I assume that the mBH settles in the lower Outer Core, where the speed of sound (cs) is ~12 km/s. Also I set lambda to the worst-case value in G&M of 6.6.
Thus, using the initial conditions chosen by CFH for their Figure 2, the equilibrium mass is ~3.5 x 10^-22 kg. Applying Einstein's formula E = mc^2, that's a power output of 20,000 Watts. But that scenario assumes a brane thickness L of 11 micrometers. However, the lowest empirical upper bound is 44 micrometers. So the worst-case scenario should take this figure, which gives an Mcrit of 2.4 x 10^6 kg. In this case, the power of one mBH would be 0.3 TW. It would take 100-200 of these to double Earth's intrinsic power of ~40 TW.
I doubt if it would get that far, however. The equilibrium size depends heavily on the nucleus size. The heavier the nucleus, the smaller the equilibrium size, which is somewhat counterintuitive. But this means the power output near the surface could be quite high, since the nuclei will come from the rock surrounding the LHC tunnel. It's probably limestone. But anyway, such an mBH would probably blow up the LHC and perhaps Geneva, so not too many of them would get produced.
OK.. sorry if it was a bit long.
What I would like is a bit of an analysis of the following posts that are a thread on Scientific Concerns. I can spot a number of logical flaws but I am not well versed enough in math to follow some of the more pseudo technical aspects. I prefer to understand things rather than blunder about so I would like a technical response from those people here who know enough physics to follow.
These are the salient posts in order... I will leave out the personal stuff and the redundancies.
CFH in this context refers to the paper by Cassadio, Fabi and Harms.. found here... On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC
The following posts are mostly by Warren Platts, who has contacted Prof Harms and used that correspondence to suggest that his new model is correct and that the LHC will produce dangerous black holes despite the conclusions reached by Harms.
Most of the thread is found here... Cassadio et al.. Catastrophic Black hole growth
QUOTE
I've been involved in a bit of correspondence with Professor Harms. He was appreciative when I pointed out the typo with respect to iron atomic mass. But I don't like to bug those guys too much. I want to get my ducks in a row first. Still making progress: am working on the system of equations for the numerical simulation.
Eric,
Yes, I agree that G&M is needlessly opaque. They probably did that on purpose. The CFH paper (I think that's what you're referring to as Fabi et al.) isn't bad at all though. The only numerical quantity they didn't give was the degree of freedom (i.e., the number of different kinds of subatomic particles) that a black hole can decay into. But I can see how someone versed in the subject would know that. As for them using natural (Planck units), that was my own fault for not seeing that.
Planck units are pretty cool. For example, CFH gives the initial momentum and mass of an mBH. So then one has to calculate the velocity. But it has to be done relativistically: p = mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2} NOT p = mv. But since in Planck units, c = 1, then the formula becomes p = mv/(1-v^2)^{1/2}, which algebraically much easier to solve for v. Thus in natural units I get v = (p^2/(m^2+p^2))^{1/2}.
As for solid versus liquid accretion mediums, G&M just assume that a solid medium would accrete more slowly, but it's not obvious to me. Think of an atomic bomb of the "Fat Man" style. The uranium is surrounded by a spherical shaped explosive charge that goes off causing a hypersonic impulse. The same thing would happen deep within the Earth. So there might be a cyclic process where a cavity forms then collapses and so on. Would it be net faster than in a liquid medium? I don't know. To begin to answer something like that would probably take a lot of computer time with those megasupercomputers the nuclear scientists at Los Alamos use.
Meanwhile, keep up the analysis of G&M, and I'll keep working on CFH. My initial goal is to just get a workable numerical simulation going, and then I can start to play around with variable parameters and equations, and see where they lead.
Eric,
Yes, I agree that G&M is needlessly opaque. They probably did that on purpose. The CFH paper (I think that's what you're referring to as Fabi et al.) isn't bad at all though. The only numerical quantity they didn't give was the degree of freedom (i.e., the number of different kinds of subatomic particles) that a black hole can decay into. But I can see how someone versed in the subject would know that. As for them using natural (Planck units), that was my own fault for not seeing that.
Planck units are pretty cool. For example, CFH gives the initial momentum and mass of an mBH. So then one has to calculate the velocity. But it has to be done relativistically: p = mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2} NOT p = mv. But since in Planck units, c = 1, then the formula becomes p = mv/(1-v^2)^{1/2}, which algebraically much easier to solve for v. Thus in natural units I get v = (p^2/(m^2+p^2))^{1/2}.
As for solid versus liquid accretion mediums, G&M just assume that a solid medium would accrete more slowly, but it's not obvious to me. Think of an atomic bomb of the "Fat Man" style. The uranium is surrounded by a spherical shaped explosive charge that goes off causing a hypersonic impulse. The same thing would happen deep within the Earth. So there might be a cyclic process where a cavity forms then collapses and so on. Would it be net faster than in a liquid medium? I don't know. To begin to answer something like that would probably take a lot of computer time with those megasupercomputers the nuclear scientists at Los Alamos use.
Meanwhile, keep up the analysis of G&M, and I'll keep working on CFH. My initial goal is to just get a workable numerical simulation going, and then I can start to play around with variable parameters and equations, and see where they lead.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've been involved in a bit of correspondence with Professor Harms. He was appreciative when I pointed out the typo with respect to iron atomic mass. But I don't like to bug those guys too much. I want to get my ducks in a row first. Still making progress: am working on the system of equations for the numerical simulation. Eric, Yes, I agree that G&M is needlessly opaque. They probably did that on purpose. The CFH paper (I think that's what you're referring to as Fabi et al.) isn't bad at all though. The only numerical quantity they didn't give was the degree of freedom (i.e., the number of different kinds of subatomic particles) that a black hole can decay into. But I can see how someone versed in the subject would know that. As for them using natural (Planck units), that was my own fault for not seeing that. Planck units are pretty cool. For example, CFH gives the initial momentum and mass of an mBH. So then one has to calculate the velocity. But it has to be done relativistically: p = mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2} NOT p = mv. But since in Planck units, c = 1, then the formula becomes p = mv/(1-v^2)^{1/2}, which algebraically much easier to solve for v. Thus in natural units I get v = (p^2/(m^2+p^2))^{1/2}. As for solid versus liquid accretion mediums, G&M just assume that a solid medium would accrete more slowly, but it's not obvious to me. Think of an atomic bomb of the "Fat Man" style. The uranium is surrounded by a spherical shaped explosive charge that goes off causing a hypersonic impulse. The same thing would happen deep within the Earth. So there might be a cyclic process where a cavity forms then collapses and so on. Would it be net faster than in a liquid medium? I don't know. To begin to answer something like that would probably take a lot of computer time with those megasupercomputers the nuclear scientists at Los Alamos use. Meanwhile, keep up the analysis of G&M, and I'll keep working on CFH. My initial goal is to just get a workable numerical simulation going, and then I can start to play around with variable parameters and equations, and see where they lead. |
I DID IT!
I reproduced exactly Figure 2 in CFH (v2). That of course is with the helium-lithium mixture.... When the true mass figure for iron is used the M(max) increases to about 2.5 x 10^{-21}--about double what the paper says. It also bumps up the Rem 8.9 x 10^{-12} m.
So the typo that got turned into a computational error doesn't materially affect the outcome.
But I think the takehome lesson here is that errors are easy to make, and hard to find sometimes. The correction this time actually goes in favor of LHC safety (in that if the reasoning is correct that went into CFH's eq. (25), then Mcrit for an mBH shouldn't be much more than ~60-70 grams), which is good news if you care about Planet Earth, but it just goes to show that *** happens.
Like the RHIC safety report, where it was demonstrated years after it was published that they had made a 3 order of magnitude mathematical error in their estimate of pcatastrophe.
If we are going to risk the Home Planet, the safety arguments have to be airtight. And they just aren't.
The other take home lesson is that physicists don't read each other's paper's much or very carefully. It's a total pain in the *** to go through a physics paper with a fine-toothed comb. E.g., like Giddings and Mangano accusing Plaga of using a different equation than he actually used. So when Rob says that other physicists will home in on any errors--well that just doesn't happen. They don't have the time. It took an unemployed geologist to find this one.
QUOTE
I'm just saying the way CFH have the their system of equations rigged, the evaporation equation has a term: M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2(t) + p^2(t)), and the rest of the equation is can be regarded as a constant. Thus, when the momentum p goes to zero, one is left with M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2), which equals M^2(t)/M(t) which equals M(t).
Meanwhile, the accretion rate is proportional to the radius squared of the black hole, but the radius in turn is proportional to the fourth root of the mass. Thus one has the accretion rate proportional (M^0.25(t))^4, which is the same as sqrt(M(t)).
So you have a race between accretion and evaporation. When M(t) is greater than one, evaporation wins out: e.g., if M(t) = 4, then sqrt(4) = 2, thus the evaporation rate is 4, whereas the accretion rate is 2, so the net rate is 2 - 4 = -2. Evaporation wins out and the black hole shrinks in size.
But if M(t) is less than one, accretion wins out. E.g., sqrt(0.5) = 0.7, thus the net rate is 0.7 - 0.5 = 0.2, and so the black hole grows.
So, you can see that if M(t) = 1, then sqrt(1) = 1, thus 1 - 1 = 0, and the black hole neither grows nor shrinks. So, the equilibrium size of the black hole depends on the constants--that's the stage I'm at now.
CFH have the black holes going to zero, because they have the accretion formula depend on an additional term: the velocity; thus, when the velocity goes to zero, so does the accretion rate, and so the accretion rate wins out, and the mbh evaporates completely away.
But CFH didn't take into account the thermal velocity of the surrounding medium. So that would set a ground floor to mBH size--I think. So today, I will try to add that into the system of equations and see what happens.
Meanwhile, the accretion rate is proportional to the radius squared of the black hole, but the radius in turn is proportional to the fourth root of the mass. Thus one has the accretion rate proportional (M^0.25(t))^4, which is the same as sqrt(M(t)).
So you have a race between accretion and evaporation. When M(t) is greater than one, evaporation wins out: e.g., if M(t) = 4, then sqrt(4) = 2, thus the evaporation rate is 4, whereas the accretion rate is 2, so the net rate is 2 - 4 = -2. Evaporation wins out and the black hole shrinks in size.
But if M(t) is less than one, accretion wins out. E.g., sqrt(0.5) = 0.7, thus the net rate is 0.7 - 0.5 = 0.2, and so the black hole grows.
So, you can see that if M(t) = 1, then sqrt(1) = 1, thus 1 - 1 = 0, and the black hole neither grows nor shrinks. So, the equilibrium size of the black hole depends on the constants--that's the stage I'm at now.
CFH have the black holes going to zero, because they have the accretion formula depend on an additional term: the velocity; thus, when the velocity goes to zero, so does the accretion rate, and so the accretion rate wins out, and the mbh evaporates completely away.
But CFH didn't take into account the thermal velocity of the surrounding medium. So that would set a ground floor to mBH size--I think. So today, I will try to add that into the system of equations and see what happens.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm just saying the way CFH have the their system of equations rigged, the evaporation equation has a term: M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2(t) + p^2(t)), and the rest of the equation is can be regarded as a constant. Thus, when the momentum p goes to zero, one is left with M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2), which equals M^2(t)/M(t) which equals M(t). Meanwhile, the accretion rate is proportional to the radius squared of the black hole, but the radius in turn is proportional to the fourth root of the mass. Thus one has the accretion rate proportional (M^0.25(t))^4, which is the same as sqrt(M(t)). So you have a race between accretion and evaporation. When M(t) is greater than one, evaporation wins out: e.g., if M(t) = 4, then sqrt(4) = 2, thus the evaporation rate is 4, whereas the accretion rate is 2, so the net rate is 2 - 4 = -2. Evaporation wins out and the black hole shrinks in size. But if M(t) is less than one, accretion wins out. E.g., sqrt(0.5) = 0.7, thus the net rate is 0.7 - 0.5 = 0.2, and so the black hole grows. So, you can see that if M(t) = 1, then sqrt(1) = 1, thus 1 - 1 = 0, and the black hole neither grows nor shrinks. So, the equilibrium size of the black hole depends on the constants--that's the stage I'm at now. CFH have the black holes going to zero, because they have the accretion formula depend on an additional term: the velocity; thus, when the velocity goes to zero, so does the accretion rate, and so the accretion rate wins out, and the mbh evaporates completely away. But CFH didn't take into account the thermal velocity of the surrounding medium. So that would set a ground floor to mBH size--I think. So today, I will try to add that into the system of equations and see what happens. |
HOLY CRAP!
Here it is folks:
Like I said, the way CFH have their system of equations set up, runaway mBH growth is logically impossible. I also pointed out they don't take into account thermal velocity. If they did, then the logical result is a balance of forces such that you get an mBH that is totally stable: that is, it is in a dynamic equilibrium where it neither grows nor shrinks.
So what I do is take that formula from G&M and use it for my dM/dt accretion formula. Once this formula exceeds the dM/dt of CFH, then I assume the G&M formula takes over.
Since an mBH that's going even half the speed of light slows down to less than Earth's escape velocity in a matter of centimeters, then any mBH produced under CFH's theory will get trapped. However, it never gets big enough to go 4-D, so we don't have to worry about the transition. So I assume that the mBH will remain 5-D always.
Since the black hole will be in equilibrium, then dM/dt|accr = dM/dt|evap. Thus:
lamda pi rho cs Cem^2 M^{1/2} = g(eff) Mp^3 / (960 pi lp Mc^3 M)
So the thing to do is solve for M, and that will give you the equilibrium mass of the black hole. Thus:
M = ((960 lambda pi^2 rho cs Cem^2 lp Mc^3) / (g(eff) Mp^3))^2
I assume that the mBH settles in the lower Outer Core, where the speed of sound (cs) is ~12 km/s. Also I set lambda to the worst-case value in G&M of 6.6.
Thus, using the initial conditions chosen by CFH for their Figure 2, the equilibrium mass is ~3.5 x 10^-22 kg. Applying Einstein's formula E = mc^2, that's a power output of 20,000 Watts. But that scenario assumes a brane thickness L of 11 micrometers. However, the lowest empirical upper bound is 44 micrometers. So the worst-case scenario should take this figure, which gives an Mcrit of 2.4 x 10^6 kg. In this case, the power of one mBH would be 0.3 TW. It would take 100-200 of these to double Earth's intrinsic power of ~40 TW.
I doubt if it would get that far, however. The equilibrium size depends heavily on the nucleus size. The heavier the nucleus, the smaller the equilibrium size, which is somewhat counterintuitive. But this means the power output near the surface could be quite high, since the nuclei will come from the rock surrounding the LHC tunnel. It's probably limestone. But anyway, such an mBH would probably blow up the LHC and perhaps Geneva, so not too many of them would get produced.
OK.. sorry if it was a bit long.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 11 2009, 11:32 AM)
Then don't read about Yelowstone National Park, or flu (avian flu hasn't gone away just off the front page), or the potential solar storm in 2012, or how many asteroids have come close since they started watching for them or...
Hun?
Hun?
QUOTE
I pointed out the typo with respect to iron atomic mass.
This is m in equation 22 of "On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC" [CFH] (which needs another factor of c² on top in the SI units given) and used in equation 26. The value of 9×10^-27 kg should have been 9×10^-26 kg for iron, which results in C_EM going up 78% to 2×10^-6 m kg^(-1/4). So equation 26 is wrong and equation 27 doesn't even make sense given any of the many values of L listed. This paper has not yet been accepted for publication as is. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I pointed out the typo with respect to iron atomic mass. |
This is m in equation 22 of "On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC" [CFH] (which needs another factor of c² on top in the SI units given) and used in equation 26. The value of 9×10^-27 kg should have been 9×10^-26 kg for iron, which results in C_EM going up 78% to 2×10^-6 m kg^(-1/4). So equation 26 is wrong and equation 27 doesn't even make sense given any of the many values of L listed. This paper has not yet been accepted for publication as is. Still making progress: am working on the system of equations for the numerical simulation.
Which is irrelevant unless they find a problem with equation 35 of [CFH].
QUOTE
G&M is needlessly opaque. They probably did that on purpose. The CFH paper
Not only is this statement vague, but it follows from pure ignorance and conspiracy thinking. Because Giddings and Mangano [GM] were writing for an audience of particle physicists and attempting to tackle every possible black hole model, including those which they considered contrary to basic physics, the paper is already very long. Boring trained physicists by spelling out trivia, algebra or calculus is no way to write a publishable paper. And the contention that [GM] is opaque is refuted when [CFH] cites it and depends on it as reference 10 for many calculations. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| G&M is needlessly opaque. They probably did that on purpose. The CFH paper |
Not only is this statement vague, but it follows from pure ignorance and conspiracy thinking. Because Giddings and Mangano [GM] were writing for an audience of particle physicists and attempting to tackle every possible black hole model, including those which they considered contrary to basic physics, the paper is already very long. Boring trained physicists by spelling out trivia, algebra or calculus is no way to write a publishable paper. And the contention that [GM] is opaque is refuted when [CFH] cites it and depends on it as reference 10 for many calculations. But I can see how someone versed in the subject would know that.
They know it (to the extent which they do know it) by building particle colliders and running experiments. Indeed, at high energies, it is an unknown figure and we can only put lower bounds on it.
QUOTE
Planck units are pretty cool. ... Thus in natural units I get v = (p^2/(m^2+p^2))^{1/2}.
I'm not convinced that the algebra is easier than that used to get the conventional unit answer v = pc / √( m²c² + p²) = p / √( m² + p²/c²). But for the examples given in [CFH], the Newtonian formula v = p/m is never more than 12% off. Indeed, if you are working in the SI system, you need to use the factors of c. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Planck units are pretty cool. ... Thus in natural units I get v = (p^2/(m^2+p^2))^{1/2}. |
I'm not convinced that the algebra is easier than that used to get the conventional unit answer v = pc / √( m²c² + p²) = p / √( m² + p²/c²). But for the examples given in [CFH], the Newtonian formula v = p/m is never more than 12% off. Indeed, if you are working in the SI system, you need to use the factors of c. As for solid versus liquid accretion mediums, G&M just assume that a solid medium would accrete more slowly, but it's not obvious to me.
See, that's one of the boring things that you don't put in a published paper addressed to physicists. Since, by definition, the atoms in a solid are not free to move independently, for a black hole which has a radius of strong influence, R_em, which is smaller than the solid cannot effectively eat the whole solid at once in a slurp. So it carves out what it can and now the density of the solid is less because it has a hole in it. For a liquid or gas, or a pile of sand, the density remains high because of the assumption that the material responds to hydrodynamic forces and thus abhors a vacuum. For a liquid, even far from the black hole, the material is being pulled in, slowly at first, and then increasingly faster until it eventually passed the speed of sound. (See appendix A of [GM].) And this is precisely the effect that solids resist.
QUOTE
Would it be net faster than in a liquid medium? I don't know.
I know of no other way to read this other than as admission of ignorance of the definition of solid and an inability to parse appendix A of [GM]. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would it be net faster than in a liquid medium? I don't know. |
I know of no other way to read this other than as admission of ignorance of the definition of solid and an inability to parse appendix A of [GM]. My initial goal is to just get a workable numerical simulation going, and then I can start to play around with variable parameters and equations, and see where they lead.
Well, that's meaningless unless you let the universe be your guide as to what parameters are realistic. Indeed, until someone can understand how equation 27 of [CFH] holds and is modified by the change to m, numerical simulation is premature.
QUOTE
So the typo that got turned into a computational error doesn't materially affect the outcome.
Yeah! QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the typo that got turned into a computational error doesn't materially affect the outcome. |
Yeah! But I think the takehome lesson here is that errors are easy to make, and hard to find sometimes.
Which is why all good science journals have peer review, while arxiv, of itself, has none.
QUOTE
Like the RHIC safety report, where it was demonstrated years after it was published that they had made a 3 order of magnitude mathematical error in their estimate of pcatastrophe.
Citation required. I suspect they are saying that their novel assumption of neutral stable black holes means that cosmic-ray black holes would not be stopped by a rocky mass of the diameter of the moon, which was not and is not part of any physical theory of black holes. [GM] modeled black holes as such, which is why the poster tried to discredit [GM] at every chance. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like the RHIC safety report, where it was demonstrated years after it was published that they had made a 3 order of magnitude mathematical error in their estimate of pcatastrophe. |
Citation required. I suspect they are saying that their novel assumption of neutral stable black holes means that cosmic-ray black holes would not be stopped by a rocky mass of the diameter of the moon, which was not and is not part of any physical theory of black holes. [GM] modeled black holes as such, which is why the poster tried to discredit [GM] at every chance. If we are going to risk the Home Planet, the safety arguments have to be airtight. And they just aren't.
The safety arguments are airtight. But they aren't proof against magic unicorns and post hoc shifting of goal posts. Logic has rules, and abandoning these rules is similar to the "genius" footballer who realizes that the opposing team will keep a greater distance if he demonstrate a willingness to kick players in the groin. Goals you score won't count.
QUOTE
The other take home lesson is that physicists don't read each other's paper's much or very carefully.
The unpublished [CFH] of course receieves less scrutiny than the widely read [GM]. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The other take home lesson is that physicists don't read each other's paper's much or very carefully. |
The unpublished [CFH] of course receieves less scrutiny than the widely read [GM]. I'm just saying the way CFH have the their system of equations rigged, the evaporation equation has a term: M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2(t) + p^2(t)), and the rest of the equation is can be regarded as a constant. Thus, when the momentum p goes to zero, one is left with M^2(t)/sqrt(M^2), which equals M^2(t)/M(t) which equals M(t).
That is the information content of equation 13 of [CFH], which is in proper time, but that only applies in a limited mass-regime. But it ignores that g_eff is assumed to be a function of mass.
QUOTE
Meanwhile, the accretion rate is proportional to the radius squared of the black hole, .... So, the equilibrium size of the black hole depends on the constants--that's the stage I'm at now.
All of which is in the definition of the critical momentum for a black hole, given by equation 35 of [CFH]. But since the black hole is always slowing down, this is not a stable equilibrium. Moreever, [GM] considers the much easier analytic case of no evaporation and no slow-down in the pre-Bondi accretion phase, just to make the hypothetical objects as dangerous as possible. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Meanwhile, the accretion rate is proportional to the radius squared of the black hole, .... So, the equilibrium size of the black hole depends on the constants--that's the stage I'm at now. |
All of which is in the definition of the critical momentum for a black hole, given by equation 35 of [CFH]. But since the black hole is always slowing down, this is not a stable equilibrium. Moreever, [GM] considers the much easier analytic case of no evaporation and no slow-down in the pre-Bondi accretion phase, just to make the hypothetical objects as dangerous as possible. CFH have the black holes going to zero, because they have the accretion formula depend on an additional term: the velocity; thus, when the velocity goes to zero, so does the accretion rate, and so the accretion rate wins out, and the mbh evaporates completely away.
Because the capture radius, R_em, never gets large enough relative to the size of atoms and the mean-free-path of atoms to treat the material as continuous and subject to hydrodynamic forces as required by the Bondi physics.
QUOTE
But CFH didn't take into account the thermal velocity of the surrounding medium. So that would set a ground floor to mBH size--I think. So today, I will try to add that into the system of equations and see what happens.
But then you have to abandon all the continuum treatments used. You have to use quantum physics. In short, you have to write a treatise many times the size of [GM] and cover many topics that they refused to in favor of making the black holes more dangerous than realistic. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But CFH didn't take into account the thermal velocity of the surrounding medium. So that would set a ground floor to mBH size--I think. So today, I will try to add that into the system of equations and see what happens. |
But then you have to abandon all the continuum treatments used. You have to use quantum physics. In short, you have to write a treatise many times the size of [GM] and cover many topics that they refused to in favor of making the black holes more dangerous than realistic. they don't take into account thermal velocity. If they did, then the logical result is a balance of forces such that you get an mBH that is totally stable: that is, it is in a dynamic equilibrium where it neither grows nor shrinks.
It does not follow that a stable black hole, which by definition is not growing, poses a danger. Also, in the model of [CFH] the capture radius of the black hole is at all times small relative to atomic dimensions, which means that any equilibrium is statistical at best. Also, the black hole model of [CFH] has not been demonstrated to be reliable, so pursuing it in such detail would likely be a waste. In short, the nit-picking pettifoggery has blinded the author to actually addressing the author's own issue.
The units don't match, because of missing terms in the [CFH]-derived right side. This means the result is nonsense in SI units. Another problem is this doesn't seem to match equations 13 or 32 of [CFH]. But even here the algebra is bad.
Given the above (which I have not checked) we actually have:
M = [Mp/(4 Mc)]^2 [g(eff)/(15 pi^2 lambda rho cs Cem^2 lp)]^2/3
and
dM/dt = (Mp/(4 Mc)) (pi g(eff) lambda^2 cs^2 Cem^4 rho^2/(15 lp))^(1/3)
But, naturally, the rest of the results are worthless.
QUOTE
Since the black hole will be in equilibrium, then dM/dt|accr = dM/dt|evap. Thus:
lamda pi rho cs Cem^2 M^{1/2} = g(eff) Mp^3 / (960 pi lp Mc^3 M)
So the thing to do is solve for M, and that will give you the equilibrium mass of the black hole. Thus:
M = ((960 lambda pi^2 rho cs Cem^2 lp Mc^3) / (g(eff) Mp^3))^2
lamda pi rho cs Cem^2 M^{1/2} = g(eff) Mp^3 / (960 pi lp Mc^3 M)
So the thing to do is solve for M, and that will give you the equilibrium mass of the black hole. Thus:
M = ((960 lambda pi^2 rho cs Cem^2 lp Mc^3) / (g(eff) Mp^3))^2
The units don't match, because of missing terms in the [CFH]-derived right side. This means the result is nonsense in SI units. Another problem is this doesn't seem to match equations 13 or 32 of [CFH]. But even here the algebra is bad.
Given the above (which I have not checked) we actually have:
M = [Mp/(4 Mc)]^2 [g(eff)/(15 pi^2 lambda rho cs Cem^2 lp)]^2/3
and
dM/dt = (Mp/(4 Mc)) (pi g(eff) lambda^2 cs^2 Cem^4 rho^2/(15 lp))^(1/3)
But, naturally, the rest of the results are worthless.
Responding to some counter-arguments:
1) “If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong, then the odds of disaster are actually infinity.”
I reiterate that my concern that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC does not hinge on the idea that all of our physical models might be wrong. The underlying framework could be correct enough so that mBHs are produced, but not correct enough to prevent mBHs from becoming potentially problematic. This is the “unlikely” scenario considered by Giddings and Mangano in their paper “Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes“ (arXiv:0806.3381v2). Giddings & Mangano's astronomical argument as well as Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) may also be incorrect if any of their assumptions are mistaken.
2) “My philosophy can be applied to any and all scientific experiments, and it would lead to the end of all scientific progress.”
My response would be that some risks are both necessary and unavoidable, and the LHC is not one of them. Instead of launching the LHC, I propose, in the short-term, that we try to determine if micro black holes exist using cosmic ray detectors (see arXiv:hep-ph/0109106v2). Cosmic-ray observations by the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope could shed new light on the matter. In the long-term (if the short-term approach doesn’t work), we could conduct the LHC program on a space station or another celestial body.
3) “When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which no one worries about.”
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
4) “The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it”. For example, one could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC.
This argument fails if one can show, with regards to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the exact opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If the argument does not fail, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk.
Here is an example of an argument that fails: “Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed.” First of all, this argument fails because I have proposed alternative ways to gain the knowledge we are seeking. Secondly, I can imagine the exact opposite scenario: tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful knowledge is criminal and if the LHC is allowed to be turned on due to an argument from knowledge, all of Earth must be killed. These aliens want to keep all the advanced knowledge for themselves.
A related argument: “Ignorance is automatically punished by the universe, because wrong choices are statistically more likely in ignorance than in knowledge.” This suggests that our current ignorance about LHC microphysics may prevent us from averting a catastrophe. But again, as proposed above, there are other ways that we might gain the knowledge necessary to avert such a catastrophe.
1) “If we give in to the idea that any and all of our physical models might be wrong, then the odds of disaster are actually infinity.”
I reiterate that my concern that catastrophic mBHs might be produced at the LHC does not hinge on the idea that all of our physical models might be wrong. The underlying framework could be correct enough so that mBHs are produced, but not correct enough to prevent mBHs from becoming potentially problematic. This is the “unlikely” scenario considered by Giddings and Mangano in their paper “Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes“ (arXiv:0806.3381v2). Giddings & Mangano's astronomical argument as well as Koch, Bleicher, Stoecker's astronomical argument (arXiv:0807.3349v2) may also be incorrect if any of their assumptions are mistaken.
2) “My philosophy can be applied to any and all scientific experiments, and it would lead to the end of all scientific progress.”
My response would be that some risks are both necessary and unavoidable, and the LHC is not one of them. Instead of launching the LHC, I propose, in the short-term, that we try to determine if micro black holes exist using cosmic ray detectors (see arXiv:hep-ph/0109106v2). Cosmic-ray observations by the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope could shed new light on the matter. In the long-term (if the short-term approach doesn’t work), we could conduct the LHC program on a space station or another celestial body.
3) “When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which no one worries about.”
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
4) “The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it”. For example, one could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC.
This argument fails if one can show, with regards to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the exact opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If the argument does not fail, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk.
Here is an example of an argument that fails: “Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed.” First of all, this argument fails because I have proposed alternative ways to gain the knowledge we are seeking. Secondly, I can imagine the exact opposite scenario: tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful knowledge is criminal and if the LHC is allowed to be turned on due to an argument from knowledge, all of Earth must be killed. These aliens want to keep all the advanced knowledge for themselves.
A related argument: “Ignorance is automatically punished by the universe, because wrong choices are statistically more likely in ignorance than in knowledge.” This suggests that our current ignorance about LHC microphysics may prevent us from averting a catastrophe. But again, as proposed above, there are other ways that we might gain the knowledge necessary to avert such a catastrophe.
QUOTE (User45+May 11 2009, 09:26 PM)
3) “When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which no one worries about.”
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
No, it is not. You are ignoring the entire concept of the likelihood of these dangers. AlphaNumeric is not claiming you shouldn't worry about being shot if you drive through a bad neighborhood flicking people off because you don't worry about being struck by a falling meteor. The former is likely, the latter unlikely. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "risk"? The risk of an event is not just the impact it would have, but the impact multiplied by the likelihood of it happening. In the case of the LHC, you cannot argue only the impact of an undesirable outcome without taking into account the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, without committing a logical fallacy of your own: an appeal to probability.
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
Here is an example of an argument that fails: “Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed.” First of all, this argument fails because I have proposed alternative ways to gain the knowledge we are seeking.
You have most certainly not proposed any method of garnering all the same information as could be gleaned from the LHC, only alternative methods of garnering some of the same knowledge, so your argument fails: The tyrannical aliens would still kill us.
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
I am not saying that it fails. I am saying it might fail, because (1) our knowledge is limited and (2) we have been mistaken in the past (e.g. rate of expansion of space). This is indisputable.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
We have mitigated the risks with the LHC.
It's been studied by people who understand it.
What makes you think people who don't understand it, understand it better?
If we had the money to run it off Earth then that money would be better spent in asteroid detection.
There are things that will happen eventually that will destroy the human race on Earth when it does. and other events that would merely destroy civilization.
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
No, it is not. You are ignoring the entire concept of the likelihood of these dangers. AlphaNumeric is not claiming you shouldn't worry about being shot if you drive through a bad neighborhood flicking people off because you don't worry about being struck by a falling meteor. The former is likely, the latter unlikely. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "risk"? The risk of an event is not just the impact it would have, but the impact multiplied by the likelihood of it happening. In the case of the LHC, you cannot argue only the impact of an undesirable outcome without taking into account the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, without committing a logical fallacy of your own: an appeal to probability.
QUOTE
4) “The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it”. For example, one could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC.
This argument fails if one can show, with regards to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the exact opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If the argument does not fail, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk.
This argument fails if one can show, with regards to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the exact opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If the argument does not fail, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk.
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) “The argument that something may have unknown errors can be used both for the building of the LHC as against it”. For example, one could also argue that because of some unknown ignorance or unknown mistake, the Earth is actually going to be destroyed if we do NOT launch the LHC. This argument fails if one can show, with regards to the alternative scenario (for example, Aliens destroy the planet because we didn't launch the LHC), that the exact same outcome could potentially follow from the same or similar unknown factors by the same mechanism in the exact opposite circumstances (we launched the LHC). If the argument does not fail, then the alternative scenario must also be considered seriously as a potential risk. |
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
Here is an example of an argument that fails: “Tyrannical aliens exist with the ability to depopulate the Earth. Under their rules, wilful ignorance is criminal and if the LHC is forbidden to be turned on due to an argument from ignorance, all of Earth must be killed.” First of all, this argument fails because I have proposed alternative ways to gain the knowledge we are seeking.
You have most certainly not proposed any method of garnering all the same information as could be gleaned from the LHC, only alternative methods of garnering some of the same knowledge, so your argument fails: The tyrannical aliens would still kill us.
Thank you Rpenner for a great overview. That is the kind of detail I was hoping for.
I will add a bit to MjolnirPants retort if I may.
User45
There is one very distinctive error you are constantly making in your philosophical approach... let me show you.
Who determines what risks are both necessary and unavoidable... for that matter who determines what experiment is risky and which experiment is not risky?
Who would be the appropriate body of persons to determine this?
You?
Politicians?
A vote?
Or scientists who actually understand the issue?
I will add a bit to MjolnirPants retort if I may.
User45
There is one very distinctive error you are constantly making in your philosophical approach... let me show you.
QUOTE
My response would be that some risks are both necessary and unavoidable,
Who determines what risks are both necessary and unavoidable... for that matter who determines what experiment is risky and which experiment is not risky?
Who would be the appropriate body of persons to determine this?
You?
Politicians?
A vote?
Or scientists who actually understand the issue?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 12 2009, 12:16 AM)
User45
There is one very distinctive error you are constantly making in your philosophical approach... let me show you.
Who determines what risks are both necessary and unavoidable... for that matter who determines what experiment is risky and which experiment is not risky?
Who would be the appropriate body of persons to determine this?
You?
Politicians?
A vote?
Or scientists who actually understand the issue?
Allow me to add to this addition by pointing out that if one were to apply the logic Rob and I are arguing against to the theory of evolution, then the risk posed by accepting the theory (going to hell) would have served to preclude most of the modern medicine that has increased the human lifespan in the past two centuries.
If we allow ourselves to use such logic whenever it pleases us, we can say with near absolute certainty that mankind will suffer as a result of it.
There is one very distinctive error you are constantly making in your philosophical approach... let me show you.
Who determines what risks are both necessary and unavoidable... for that matter who determines what experiment is risky and which experiment is not risky?
Who would be the appropriate body of persons to determine this?
You?
Politicians?
A vote?
Or scientists who actually understand the issue?
Allow me to add to this addition by pointing out that if one were to apply the logic Rob and I are arguing against to the theory of evolution, then the risk posed by accepting the theory (going to hell) would have served to preclude most of the modern medicine that has increased the human lifespan in the past two centuries.
If we allow ourselves to use such logic whenever it pleases us, we can say with near absolute certainty that mankind will suffer as a result of it.
QUOTE (User45+May 12 2009, 03:26 AM)
3) “When you start quantifying the dangers you find that there's a great many things which could kill us, either one at a time or all at once, but which no one worries about.”
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
No, that isn't correct. Firstly, the general public fear new things. Secondly, the general public cannot gauge the danger of new things.
The chance of you being killed in a car is much higher than in an aeroplane, yet more people are afraid of flying because it's not something which they do everyday. It's a novel thing, it's something their common experience doesn't allow them to feel comfortable with. Tell them the odds of a plane crash compared to a car crash and they don't feel safer, they clinge to the statistic on plane crashes. You and your ignorant cohorts are doing the same. You don't know the danger (or lack of) so you simply say "It's new and it's wrong". When someone quantifies the danger to you you don't understand or don't want to understand. At least with plane crashes you can show "Every 100,000 planes which take off 99,999 land safely" (not the real statistic), but the arguments about the LHC are complicated and surprise surprise, the biggest whiners are the more ignorant.
This is an example of the “is-ought fallacy” : since there are many things that could kill us and which no one worries about, we should not try to mitigate risks which no one worries about.
No, that isn't correct. Firstly, the general public fear new things. Secondly, the general public cannot gauge the danger of new things.
The chance of you being killed in a car is much higher than in an aeroplane, yet more people are afraid of flying because it's not something which they do everyday. It's a novel thing, it's something their common experience doesn't allow them to feel comfortable with. Tell them the odds of a plane crash compared to a car crash and they don't feel safer, they clinge to the statistic on plane crashes. You and your ignorant cohorts are doing the same. You don't know the danger (or lack of) so you simply say "It's new and it's wrong". When someone quantifies the danger to you you don't understand or don't want to understand. At least with plane crashes you can show "Every 100,000 planes which take off 99,999 land safely" (not the real statistic), but the arguments about the LHC are complicated and surprise surprise, the biggest whiners are the more ignorant.
QUOTE
No, it is not. You are ignoring the entire concept of the likelihood of these dangers. AlphaNumeric is not claiming you shouldn't worry about being shot if you drive through a bad neighborhood flicking people off because you don't worry about being struck by a falling meteor. The former is likely, the latter unlikely. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "risk"? The risk of an event is not just the impact it would have, but the impact multiplied by the likelihood of it happening. In the case of the LHC, you cannot argue only the impact of an undesirable outcome without taking into account the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, without committing a logical fallacy of your own: an appeal to probability.
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, it is not. You are ignoring the entire concept of the likelihood of these dangers. AlphaNumeric is not claiming you shouldn't worry about being shot if you drive through a bad neighborhood flicking people off because you don't worry about being struck by a falling meteor. The former is likely, the latter unlikely. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "risk"? The risk of an event is not just the impact it would have, but the impact multiplied by the likelihood of it happening. In the case of the LHC, you cannot argue only the impact of an undesirable outcome without taking into account the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, without committing a logical fallacy of your own: an appeal to probability. |
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
The argument itself does not fail. The claim made by the argument fails only in this specific case, and only if you can show your conjecture to be true.
I am not saying that it fails. I am saying it might fail, because (1) our knowledge is limited and (2) we have been mistaken in the past (e.g. rate of expansion of space). This is indisputable.
QUOTE
You have most certainly not proposed any method of garnering all the same information as could be gleaned from the LHC, only alternative methods of garnering some of the same knowledge, so your argument fails: The tyrannical aliens would still kill us.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
QUOTE (User45+May 12 2009, 09:56 AM)
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
We have mitigated the risks with the LHC.
It's been studied by people who understand it.
What makes you think people who don't understand it, understand it better?
If we had the money to run it off Earth then that money would be better spent in asteroid detection.
There are things that will happen eventually that will destroy the human race on Earth when it does. and other events that would merely destroy civilization.
QUOTE (User45+May 12 2009, 04:56 AM)
So you are now arguing that since there are many likely things that could kill us, we should not try to mitigate unlikely risks. That's still an example of the “is-ought fallacy” in my book.
That's because your 'book' is skewed by your own bias and inability to acknowledge a mistake.
1. Regardless of whether or not the response to your concerns is a fallacy, your concerns are still rooted in a fallacy, rendering them moot. If you claim that I will die lonely and alone because you've never seen any evidence of my fiancee's existence, then your claims do not become any more valid if I respond that you're a poopyhead and because of this, you can't make any judgments about how my life would turn out.
2. How many precautions have you taken to ensure against being struck by lightning? Please send me photographs of your extensive collection of rubber-soled, platform shoes, the defibrillator you keep handy, the rubber gloves you wear at all times when outdoors, the lightning rods you have placed around your house, yard and place of employment, etc.. I'd love to see those. Alternatively, you could acknowledge that you yourself engage in the same behavior you consistently claim is a fallacy.
It was posited that an alien species might wipe us out if we don't run the LHC, which is possible though unlikely. You then said that they might wipe us out regardless, which is also possible if unlikely. In either case, we would be best served by running the LHC.
The LHC may teach us something that makes anti-matter production cheap and easy, allowing for new forms of weaponry with which to fight off these aliens.
It was posited that an alien species might wipe us out if we don't run the LHC, which is possible though unlikely. You then said that they might wipe us out regardless, which is also possible if unlikely. In either case, we would be best served by running the LHC.
The LHC may teach us something that makes anti-matter production cheap and easy, allowing for new forms of weaponry with which to fight off these aliens.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
So running an experiment that deals with little-known and theoretical areas of physics in micro-gravity will absolutely produce the same results as running it in 1g?
Have you even considered the costs of such an undertaking, assuming that it would theoretically produce the same results? Have you considered the differences that could arise from the cut corners which would accompany any attempt to built it off of the planet? Have you considered any factors that may prevent building it in space from even being done?
That's because your 'book' is skewed by your own bias and inability to acknowledge a mistake.
1. Regardless of whether or not the response to your concerns is a fallacy, your concerns are still rooted in a fallacy, rendering them moot. If you claim that I will die lonely and alone because you've never seen any evidence of my fiancee's existence, then your claims do not become any more valid if I respond that you're a poopyhead and because of this, you can't make any judgments about how my life would turn out.
2. How many precautions have you taken to ensure against being struck by lightning? Please send me photographs of your extensive collection of rubber-soled, platform shoes, the defibrillator you keep handy, the rubber gloves you wear at all times when outdoors, the lightning rods you have placed around your house, yard and place of employment, etc.. I'd love to see those. Alternatively, you could acknowledge that you yourself engage in the same behavior you consistently claim is a fallacy.
QUOTE
I am not saying that it fails. I am saying it might fail, because (1) our knowledge is limited and (2) we have been mistaken in the past (e.g. rate of expansion of space). This is indisputable.
It was posited that an alien species might wipe us out if we don't run the LHC, which is possible though unlikely. You then said that they might wipe us out regardless, which is also possible if unlikely. In either case, we would be best served by running the LHC.
The LHC may teach us something that makes anti-matter production cheap and easy, allowing for new forms of weaponry with which to fight off these aliens.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am not saying that it fails. I am saying it might fail, because (1) our knowledge is limited and (2) we have been mistaken in the past (e.g. rate of expansion of space). This is indisputable. |
It was posited that an alien species might wipe us out if we don't run the LHC, which is possible though unlikely. You then said that they might wipe us out regardless, which is also possible if unlikely. In either case, we would be best served by running the LHC.
The LHC may teach us something that makes anti-matter production cheap and easy, allowing for new forms of weaponry with which to fight off these aliens.
No, I have said that in the short term, we should determine whether mBHs exist using cosmic ray detectors. I have also proposed running the LHC off the Earth. Therefore, we could garner the same information.
So running an experiment that deals with little-known and theoretical areas of physics in micro-gravity will absolutely produce the same results as running it in 1g?
Have you even considered the costs of such an undertaking, assuming that it would theoretically produce the same results? Have you considered the differences that could arise from the cut corners which would accompany any attempt to built it off of the planet? Have you considered any factors that may prevent building it in space from even being done?
Building the LHC in space is a ridiculous idea.
Currently the cost of lifting materials to space is around $19 000 per kilo. Let's make it easy to calculate and make it $10 000, making the assumption that tech improves along the way.
The LHC uses 1600 superconductive magnets each weighing 27 tonnes approx. = 43200 tonnes
Price tag = 432 000 000 000
432 Billion dollars.... just for the magnets.
The four detectors would run about the same... so now we are around a trillion dollars.
The whole thing would likely run a cost so high that the figure has no name. You would need a full committee of scientists just to come up with a name for that sort of amount.
Can you imagine the sales pitch?
"We have a project that will advance all sciences as we know them but we need to build it in space because a group of people think it would be safer that way."
"People... scientist people?"
"Hmmm.. no. No scientists to speak of. Well... maybe one scientist.. wrote a paper with a bunch of mistakes. But the others are quite sure it's dangerous... without knowing anything about the science... but we all decided it would be better that way so they would all feel better. Isn't that nice?"
"How much would this great project cost?"
"Hmmm.... a frooglepapillion dollars"
"How much is that?"
"Well... you know how much a trillion is?"
"Yes"
"Well... keep going... it's a lot more"
"..... Get out of my office before I shoot you."
(With due credit to Scott Adams for the name of the number).
Currently the cost of lifting materials to space is around $19 000 per kilo. Let's make it easy to calculate and make it $10 000, making the assumption that tech improves along the way.
The LHC uses 1600 superconductive magnets each weighing 27 tonnes approx. = 43200 tonnes
Price tag = 432 000 000 000
432 Billion dollars.... just for the magnets.
The four detectors would run about the same... so now we are around a trillion dollars.
The whole thing would likely run a cost so high that the figure has no name. You would need a full committee of scientists just to come up with a name for that sort of amount.
Can you imagine the sales pitch?
"We have a project that will advance all sciences as we know them but we need to build it in space because a group of people think it would be safer that way."
"People... scientist people?"
"Hmmm.. no. No scientists to speak of. Well... maybe one scientist.. wrote a paper with a bunch of mistakes. But the others are quite sure it's dangerous... without knowing anything about the science... but we all decided it would be better that way so they would all feel better. Isn't that nice?"
"How much would this great project cost?"
"Hmmm.... a frooglepapillion dollars"
"How much is that?"
"Well... you know how much a trillion is?"
"Yes"
"Well... keep going... it's a lot more"
"..... Get out of my office before I shoot you."
(With due credit to Scott Adams for the name of the number).
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 12 2009, 11:37 AM)
Building the LHC in space is a ridiculous idea.
Currently the cost of lifting materials to space is around $19 000 per kilo. Let's make it easy to calculate and make it $10 000, making the assumption that tech improves along the way.
The LHC uses 1600 superconductive magnets each weighing 27 tonnes approx. = 43200 tonnes
Price tag = 432 000 000 000
432 Billion dollars.... just for the magnets.
The four detectors would run about the same... so now we are around a trillion dollars.
Don't stop there...
Let's not forget all the extra weight that must be added to shield against radiation and provide thermal insulation. Plus, there's also all the life support equipment that must be installed so that we can actually go there (that's a lo-o-o-o-t of air conditioning and CO2 scrubbers...). And hat's just the money to get the stuff into space! It doesn't include the money to actually construct it, which would conservatively be about 10-100 times the initial figure of approx 6 billion Euros...
Plus the size of this undertaking would require new spacecraft to be developed, new crews to be trained, new spaceports to be built...
All in all, you're looking at a project whose costs exceeds the GDP of the entire planet, and this is while ignoring the costs of the support structure and personal accommodations and a million other features it would need.
But that's ok, we can just cut off all our charity work and every form of research or public service as well as forcing the entire planet to become one big communism in order to fund it. Who cares that people will die from starvation, diseases, and accidents, when we can save them from those black holes that are less likely to cause any harm than my foot is to spontaneously turn into a turnip?
Currently the cost of lifting materials to space is around $19 000 per kilo. Let's make it easy to calculate and make it $10 000, making the assumption that tech improves along the way.
The LHC uses 1600 superconductive magnets each weighing 27 tonnes approx. = 43200 tonnes
Price tag = 432 000 000 000
432 Billion dollars.... just for the magnets.
The four detectors would run about the same... so now we are around a trillion dollars.
Don't stop there...
Let's not forget all the extra weight that must be added to shield against radiation and provide thermal insulation. Plus, there's also all the life support equipment that must be installed so that we can actually go there (that's a lo-o-o-o-t of air conditioning and CO2 scrubbers...). And hat's just the money to get the stuff into space! It doesn't include the money to actually construct it, which would conservatively be about 10-100 times the initial figure of approx 6 billion Euros...
Plus the size of this undertaking would require new spacecraft to be developed, new crews to be trained, new spaceports to be built...
All in all, you're looking at a project whose costs exceeds the GDP of the entire planet, and this is while ignoring the costs of the support structure and personal accommodations and a million other features it would need.
But that's ok, we can just cut off all our charity work and every form of research or public service as well as forcing the entire planet to become one big communism in order to fund it. Who cares that people will die from starvation, diseases, and accidents, when we can save them from those black holes that are less likely to cause any harm than my foot is to spontaneously turn into a turnip?
Another of the problems with the LHC is it's bolted to solid rock about it's whole length -- and that is not rigid enough for the sub-millimeter alignment of the beams, so the beams have to be actively steered to compensate for the motion of the foundation due to causes such as the tides.
Thinner, free-standing structures, like a steel sky scraper reaching a quite modest distance into the sky, require their natural tendencies to bend by large moving counterweights to keep the motion of the top floors down to a human-tolerable amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper
So if granite isn't rigid enough, and human engineering materials aren't rigid enough, does someone want to talk about the bending modes of a thin torus? And the fuel costs, waste and and air pollution of rocket transport of 38000 tonnes of the LHC, plus stabilizing struts and counterweights, and over 100 MW of power generation equipment into space? It seems it would be cheaper for the human race to talk about only modeled risks and rewards than wholly imaginary ones.
For comparison, the shuttle's maximum payload is 24.4 tons.
Because we can't distinguish User45's purely imaginary black hole fears from those of Walter Wagner's vacuum collapse or Paul Dixon's supernovae, its not rational -- in the absence of a demonstration of physical possibilities leading to modeled loss of human life of property -- to consider them. Specifically, the best papers which exclude them present a bar which anyone who wishes to advance a reason to stop the LHC needs to get over before they can be taken serious. Carping about physicists using the language of physicists to describe physics or picking some other unpublished paper to dissect or hand-waving or lying about motives and math and physics and risk management and philosophy are not valid ways to present an argument.
Thinner, free-standing structures, like a steel sky scraper reaching a quite modest distance into the sky, require their natural tendencies to bend by large moving counterweights to keep the motion of the top floors down to a human-tolerable amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper
So if granite isn't rigid enough, and human engineering materials aren't rigid enough, does someone want to talk about the bending modes of a thin torus? And the fuel costs, waste and and air pollution of rocket transport of 38000 tonnes of the LHC, plus stabilizing struts and counterweights, and over 100 MW of power generation equipment into space? It seems it would be cheaper for the human race to talk about only modeled risks and rewards than wholly imaginary ones.
For comparison, the shuttle's maximum payload is 24.4 tons.
Because we can't distinguish User45's purely imaginary black hole fears from those of Walter Wagner's vacuum collapse or Paul Dixon's supernovae, its not rational -- in the absence of a demonstration of physical possibilities leading to modeled loss of human life of property -- to consider them. Specifically, the best papers which exclude them present a bar which anyone who wishes to advance a reason to stop the LHC needs to get over before they can be taken serious. Carping about physicists using the language of physicists to describe physics or picking some other unpublished paper to dissect or hand-waving or lying about motives and math and physics and risk management and philosophy are not valid ways to present an argument.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 12 2009, 01:50 PM)
Another of the problems with the LHC is it's bolted to solid rock about it's whole length -- and that is not rigid enough for the sub-millimeter alignment of the beams, so the beams have to be actively steered to compensate for the motion of the foundation due to causes such as the tides.
Thinner, free-standing structures, like a steel sky scraper reaching a quite modest distance into the sky, require their natural tendencies to bend by large moving counterweights to keep the motion of the top floors down to a human-tolerable amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper
So if granite isn't rigid enough, and human engineering materials aren't rigid enough, does someone want to talk about the bending modes of a thin torus?
So in other words, not only is it financially nigh-impossible to build it in space, it's technically nigh-impossible.
Thinner, free-standing structures, like a steel sky scraper reaching a quite modest distance into the sky, require their natural tendencies to bend by large moving counterweights to keep the motion of the top floors down to a human-tolerable amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper
So if granite isn't rigid enough, and human engineering materials aren't rigid enough, does someone want to talk about the bending modes of a thin torus?
So in other words, not only is it financially nigh-impossible to build it in space, it's technically nigh-impossible.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 12 2009, 07:50 PM)
and over 100 MW of power generation equipment into space?
We could build a giant pipeline from the Earth to the LHC, so it could burn petrol as both a propellant and a power source. We'd need a giant oxygen pipeline too. Or we could launch a fully functional nuclear reactor into space. After all, what's a ton of uranium when you're putting the LHC into low Earth orbit?
On a pseudo-more serious note, you wouldn't even want to put it into the same orbit as the Shuttle or ISS are capable, which is only a crappy 200 miles up or so. 200 miles compared to the 4 or 5 thousand mile radius of the Earth is nothing. A black hole made 200 miles up is going to be just as dangerous as one made on the surface. So you'd have to put it into a higher orbit, one which is less likely to allow easy gravitational capture due to orbital velocity. Geostationary? That's going to make the energy requirements to get the materials up there double at least (probably more like go up by a factor of 10). Sod it, if you're doing that let's just put it on the Moon.
Actually, I remember reading something about the Moon base you see in the film 2001. It was written in the 60s when space travel was new but the pace of development was blistering (something the Cold War was good for), so a huge Moon bas by 2001 was seen as very likely. However, someone, in the actual year 2001, worked out how much making the base of size and structure seen in the film would cost. It exceeded the entire GDP of the planet. If every single person put all their effort, time and money towards projects which culminated in a huge Moon base we still couldn't do it by say 2012. And by then the lack of agriculture would have led to mass starvation.
So yes, building the LHC on the Moon is a great idea for maybe not killing Mankind if you want us to all starve.
We could build a giant pipeline from the Earth to the LHC, so it could burn petrol as both a propellant and a power source. We'd need a giant oxygen pipeline too. Or we could launch a fully functional nuclear reactor into space. After all, what's a ton of uranium when you're putting the LHC into low Earth orbit?
On a pseudo-more serious note, you wouldn't even want to put it into the same orbit as the Shuttle or ISS are capable, which is only a crappy 200 miles up or so. 200 miles compared to the 4 or 5 thousand mile radius of the Earth is nothing. A black hole made 200 miles up is going to be just as dangerous as one made on the surface. So you'd have to put it into a higher orbit, one which is less likely to allow easy gravitational capture due to orbital velocity. Geostationary? That's going to make the energy requirements to get the materials up there double at least (probably more like go up by a factor of 10). Sod it, if you're doing that let's just put it on the Moon.
Actually, I remember reading something about the Moon base you see in the film 2001. It was written in the 60s when space travel was new but the pace of development was blistering (something the Cold War was good for), so a huge Moon bas by 2001 was seen as very likely. However, someone, in the actual year 2001, worked out how much making the base of size and structure seen in the film would cost. It exceeded the entire GDP of the planet. If every single person put all their effort, time and money towards projects which culminated in a huge Moon base we still couldn't do it by say 2012. And by then the lack of agriculture would have led to mass starvation.
So yes, building the LHC on the Moon is a great idea for maybe not killing Mankind if you want us to all starve.
Actually... in one of his papers, Prof Rossler estimated that it would only cost about 4 times more than the current cost of the LHC.
Good math there.
Good math there.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 12 2009, 03:17 PM)
Actually... in one of his papers, Prof Rossler estimated that it would only cost about 4 times more than the current cost of the LHC.
Good math there.
You forgot to enclose the abbreviation "Prof" in quotation marks. There's a guy who doesn't deserve his honorific....
Or maybe he's right, and we all need to ask him for financial advice, cause he makes John Nash look like a redneck with a mason jar full of 20's...
Good math there.
You forgot to enclose the abbreviation "Prof" in quotation marks. There's a guy who doesn't deserve his honorific....
Or maybe he's right, and we all need to ask him for financial advice, cause he makes John Nash look like a redneck with a mason jar full of 20's...
According to wikipedia Otto Rossler is a genuine professor, it's just that it's not in physics, it's in chemistry.
Of course, that doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and in fact, his interviews and writings that I have read on physics (not journal articles though - funny that...) indicate a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
Of course, that doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and in fact, his interviews and writings that I have read on physics (not journal articles though - funny that...) indicate a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
QUOTE (prometheus+May 13 2009, 03:25 AM)
According to wikipedia Otto Rossler is a genuine professor, it's just that it's not in physics, it's in chemistry.
Of course, that doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and in fact, his interviews and writings that I have read on physics (not journal articles though - funny that...) indicate a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
Well then, we should listen to him. He's infinitely qualified to comment on the logistics and economics of a huge construction project in space, being a professor of chemistry and all...
Plus, not having a clue (if you're right, which I can believe with no difficulty) about physics makes him even better at that sort of thing...
You'd think that getting an advanced degree in science might be an indicator that a certain person knows what he or she can and can't talk about with authority, but apparently not...
Of course, that doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and in fact, his interviews and writings that I have read on physics (not journal articles though - funny that...) indicate a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
Well then, we should listen to him. He's infinitely qualified to comment on the logistics and economics of a huge construction project in space, being a professor of chemistry and all...
Plus, not having a clue (if you're right, which I can believe with no difficulty) about physics makes him even better at that sort of thing...
You'd think that getting an advanced degree in science might be an indicator that a certain person knows what he or she can and can't talk about with authority, but apparently not...
That is why the peer review process exists, as well as the many checks on new published materials.
To be honest, the system does tend to limit the speed at which science can advance. Obviously this process is also not foolproof... groundbreaking work is sometimes pushed back, scientists with a greater name get more airtime, etc.
However...
It is there to make sure that all is done that can reasonably be done to make sure that what is published is reviewed, discussed and only the solid and most valid ones make it to the fore.
If I publish something... I have to expect that anything not darn well proven will get torn to shreds ... if it can be torn down, it will be.
Opponents of the LHC usually fail to see how unusual it is for most scientists to agree. 99.9 % of people in that field of research agree that the fears are baseless.
That tends to only happen to very very very obvious cases. Like if you asked particle physicists if their pen could suddenly become an attractive woman who only likes particle physics.
Most would say it's not very likely.
A few would only smile and walk away.... which sounds like wisdom to me.
To be honest, the system does tend to limit the speed at which science can advance. Obviously this process is also not foolproof... groundbreaking work is sometimes pushed back, scientists with a greater name get more airtime, etc.
However...
It is there to make sure that all is done that can reasonably be done to make sure that what is published is reviewed, discussed and only the solid and most valid ones make it to the fore.
If I publish something... I have to expect that anything not darn well proven will get torn to shreds ... if it can be torn down, it will be.
Opponents of the LHC usually fail to see how unusual it is for most scientists to agree. 99.9 % of people in that field of research agree that the fears are baseless.
That tends to only happen to very very very obvious cases. Like if you asked particle physicists if their pen could suddenly become an attractive woman who only likes particle physics.
Most would say it's not very likely.
A few would only smile and walk away.... which sounds like wisdom to me.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 14 2009, 12:15 AM)
Opponents of the LHC usually fail to see how unusual it is for most scientists to agree. 99.9 % of people in that field of research agree that the fears are baseless.
How true, how true... You don't even have that sort of agreement on the validity of a theory as popular as string theory...
That tends to only happen to very very very obvious cases. Like if you asked particle physicists if their pen could suddenly become an attractive woman who only likes particle physics.
Most would say it's not very likely.
A few would only smile and walk away.... which sounds like wisdom to me.
I used to work in a bar, and we had a physicist who was a regular. Every day he'd buy himself a beer, then buy one for the empty stool next to him. One day, I asked him why he did that, and he said "Well, you're into physics, you know what quantum mechanics says about things spontaneously turning into other things."
I gave him a funny look, and he went on, "Well, there's a chance that the barstool could spontaneously transform into a beautiful woman who thinks I'm sexy."
I said, "Yeah, but this bar is full of beautiful women! Buy one of them a drink, and you might find out she thinks you're sexy."
The physicist said...
...
...
"Yeah, but what are the odds of that happening?"
It's a totally (un)true story, I swear.
How true, how true... You don't even have that sort of agreement on the validity of a theory as popular as string theory...
QUOTE
That tends to only happen to very very very obvious cases. Like if you asked particle physicists if their pen could suddenly become an attractive woman who only likes particle physics.
Most would say it's not very likely.
A few would only smile and walk away.... which sounds like wisdom to me.
I used to work in a bar, and we had a physicist who was a regular. Every day he'd buy himself a beer, then buy one for the empty stool next to him. One day, I asked him why he did that, and he said "Well, you're into physics, you know what quantum mechanics says about things spontaneously turning into other things."
I gave him a funny look, and he went on, "Well, there's a chance that the barstool could spontaneously transform into a beautiful woman who thinks I'm sexy."
I said, "Yeah, but this bar is full of beautiful women! Buy one of them a drink, and you might find out she thinks you're sexy."
The physicist said...
...
...
"Yeah, but what are the odds of that happening?"
It's a totally (un)true story, I swear.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.