Not a reason to suspect the LHC might be unsafe. The detailed paper actually considers a wide class of higher-dimensional analogues to black holes, and lists in detail reasons why such black holes are generally expected to be safe, ignores those and calculates that the remaining physics is still safe after all the natural safeguards have been neutered.
First of all, this comes from someone that argued a black hole as massive as a mountain is safe, without realizing the gravity of the situation (literally).
Secondly, I'm not the only one that disagrees with these absorption calculations. They're deliberately slanted toward the results they want.
Third, it is a reason to suspect it's unsafe. If the LHC can produce micro black holes, then micro black holes must occur in nature. They'd have to take the form (at least in part) of the mysterious dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter apparently doesn't support normal matter under certain, observable conditions. Therefore, the danger is apparent.
Fourth, just how much mass (supposing they produce black holes) do you suppose might be represented by the cosmic ray collision figures, they calculated as having occurred naturally? Is it a lot?
QUOTE
Your comic misunderstanding of the issue missed the point of what cosmic ray physics tells us. If it were at all possible for LHC to make black holes, cosmic rays would have exposed Earth to over a thousand, million, billion, trillion times (10^31 is the number cited) the black hole load of LHC and stars would get even more. Clearly if black holes are possible, they aren't both stable and quick eaters.
Their ability to "eat" at all would be dependent on their relative velocity with the mass in question. Naturally occurring ones must have very high relative velocities with the mass it's formed in. The CERN ones would not have this prohibition.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your comic misunderstanding of the issue missed the point of what cosmic ray physics tells us. If it were at all possible for LHC to make black holes, cosmic rays would have exposed Earth to over a thousand, million, billion, trillion times (10^31 is the number cited) the black hole load of LHC and stars would get even more. Clearly if black holes are possible, they aren't both stable and quick eaters. |
Their ability to "eat" at all would be dependent on their relative velocity with the mass in question. Naturally occurring ones must have very high relative velocities with the mass it's formed in. The CERN ones would not have this prohibition.
Earth capture is likely based on contingencies about the unknown physics of the universe and the length of the duration of the operation of LHC.
Purposefully misleading. All you're saying is if they form, they would be captured, but if they don't form, they would not be captured. I obviously wouldn't argue that.
QUOTE
For many different parameters, black hole capture is unlikely. For example, the contingency that the minimum black hole mass is 1 PeV would make the production of black holes at LHC impossible and therefore their capture would be impossible.
That's an arbitrary presumption.
However, there's already observed evidence that formation is likely (the RHIC fireball).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For many different parameters, black hole capture is unlikely. For example, the contingency that the minimum black hole mass is 1 PeV would make the production of black holes at LHC impossible and therefore their capture would be impossible. |
That's an arbitrary presumption.
However, there's already observed evidence that formation is likely (the RHIC fireball).
Also, you've cut-and-pasted this list several times. Any chance we could have a "3"?
Oops. Please forgive the typo. I'll try to correct it in the future.
QUOTE
Not a reason to suspect the LHC might be unsafe. Where is your paper listing detailed black hole growth at a rate faster than in the paper?
Haven't I been right so far? How much more must I endure to definitively prove they don't know what they're talking about? Their results are clearly slanted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not a reason to suspect the LHC might be unsafe. Where is your paper listing detailed black hole growth at a rate faster than in the paper? |
Haven't I been right so far? How much more must I endure to definitively prove they don't know what they're talking about? Their results are clearly slanted.
The reason the paper is "over-long" is because they attempt to refute all models of physics which allow black holes to be formed at LHC, not any specific one. ubavontuba has failed to even describe a physics model, so has yet to appear on the relevant field of competition.
Give me a break. There's plenty of available research that suggests and anticipates black hole production. The CERN website itself called it a "black hole factory."
All you're saying is they're now backpedaling furiously to protect their precious experiment, at any cost!
QUOTE
The relevant issue is demonstrating non-falsified hypothetical physical laws that might cause work at LHC to shorten the habitable lifetime of Earth. For two years we have read your posts, ubavontuba, and in two years you demonstrate only your ignorance of large regions of math and physics and a hostility to science and fair argument.
Whiny baby crap. For two years I've been right, and you can no longer reasonably refute it.
I've clearly outlined the physical laws that might shorten the habitable lifetime of Earth, should this experiment proceed.
rpenner
25th June 2008 - 06:27 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 25 2008, 05:59 AM)
Haven't I been right so far?
No, you have not. You've gotten basic physics concepts wrong, and presented zero calculations. Your presented understanding of the concept of a black hole doesn't seem to exceed that of a Hollywood special effects illustrator or a comic book writer. And then you proceed to argue for two years based on your personal ignorance and misunderstandings.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 25 2008, 05:59 AM)
The CERN website itself called it a "black hole factory."
No, it didn't. You are referring to one article in the CERN Courier, which is not "The CERN website" nor does it reflect the opinion of the thousands of physicists working at or with CERN. Further, the authors of that quote tuned their model to make the LHC a hypothetical black hole factory -- the model was tuned to be a
post hoc fit to LHC.
Your refusal to cite your sources leads to your practice of basing your arguments on your false memories rather than the factual record.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 25 2008, 05:59 AM)
I've clearly outlined the physical laws that might shorten the habitable lifetime of Earth, should this experiment proceed.
No, you haven't. We have been asking from you your calculations to show there is a problem with the 1999, the 2003 and by extension the 2008 papers. This is beyond your capability. We have been asking for your model so that we might do the calculations for the past 2 years. You stop at "it might be possible to make stable black holes" but never proceed to answer the question of how even stable LHC black holes might pose a threat to the Earth.
For the safety of the Earth, the logic you present is identical to this statement from Aaronson : The LHC Must be switched on as soon as possible.
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334QUOTE (Scott Aaronson+June 21 2008, 09:57 PM)
As a concerned citizen of Planet Earth, I
demand that the LHC begin operations as soon as possible, at as high energies as possible, and continue operating until such time as it is proven completely safe to turn it off.
ubavontuba
25th June 2008 - 07:06 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 25 2008, 06:27 AM)
No, you have not. You've gotten basic physics concepts wrong,
When? Where?
QUOTE
and presented zero calculations. Your presented understanding of the concept of a black hole doesn't seem to exceed that of a Hollywood special effects illustrator or a comic book writer. And then you proceed to argue for two years based on your personal ignorance and misunderstandings.
..says the guy that presented the stupid black hole as massive as a mountain argument. Obviously, it's
you that fails to understand basic physics concepts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and presented zero calculations. Your presented understanding of the concept of a black hole doesn't seem to exceed that of a Hollywood special effects illustrator or a comic book writer. And then you proceed to argue for two years based on your personal ignorance and misunderstandings. |
..says the guy that presented the stupid black hole as massive as a mountain argument. Obviously, it's
you that fails to understand basic physics concepts.
No, it didn't. You are referring to one article in the CERN Courier, which is not "The CERN website" nor does it reflect the opinion of the thousands of physicists working at or with CERN. Further, the authors of that quote tuned their model to make the LHC a hypothetical black hole factory -- the model was tuned to be a
post hoc fit to LHC.
Sorry, the CERN Courier is indeed a publicly accessible part of
The CERN website. So it is correct to state, "the CERN website..."
QUOTE
Your refusal to cite your sources leads to your practice of basing your arguments on your false memories rather than the factual record.
When have I refused to cite my sources? I do it all the time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your refusal to cite your sources leads to your practice of basing your arguments on your false memories rather than the factual record. |
When have I refused to cite my sources? I do it all the time.
No, you haven't. We have been asking from you your calculations to show there is a problem with the 1999, the 2003 and by extension the 2008 papers. This is beyond your capability. We have been asking for your model so that we might do the calculations for the past 2 years. You stop at "it might be possible to make stable black holes" but never proceed to answer the question of how even stable LHC black holes might pose a threat to the Earth.
I've clearly and succinctly described the physics based on well known and irrefutably reliable laws. Are you saying you can't formulate a mathematical model yourself, without the model already existing? Gee, and you claim to be such an expert!
QUOTE
For the safety of the Earth, the logic you present is identical to this statement from Aaronson : The LHC Must be switched on as soon as possible.
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334 Why do you continually think these libelous associations you try to pin on me are relevant? Obviously, it's
you that finds value in this sort of (il)logic, so therefore you're the one using poor logic ...not me.
dimazin
25th June 2008 - 02:53 PM
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 25 2008, 06:27 AM)
Hi Rpenner. We cannot live without green plants.Green plants require carbon dioxide. We should provide their by carbon dioxide. How will you solve the problem which now is solved?
barakn
25th June 2008 - 07:01 PM
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 24 2008, 11:59 PM)
Their ability to "eat" at all would be dependent on their relative velocity with the mass in question. Naturally occurring ones must have very high relative velocities with the mass it's formed in.
10^31 black holes and not a single one interacted with enough particles on its way through the Earth to be gravitationally captured? I know B.S. when I read it and that is certainly a load of B.S..
Trippy
26th June 2008 - 06:25 AM
rethinker
26th June 2008 - 09:55 AM
I was wondering when the first beam was expected.
From Trippy's link
QUOTE
Although much remains to be done, said Oddone, preparations are on course for a midsummer injection of the LHC's first beams. "It is a huge enterprise and an opportunity for the world to come together in a grand adventure of discovery. The US community has made a large commitment of material and human resources to the success of the LHC."
rpenner
26th June 2008 - 10:12 AM
Court papers say August, but no firm date.
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.