On June 12 2008 18:07 betaben wrote: to the scared people: hey guys! bear in mind that the same physicists that say it's safe are the ones who brought you the concept of the black hole too. They know more about their hypothetical model that they created than your fear of the unknown will tell you about something you've made up in your head because you don't really know what they're talking about. do you think just because you're scared of things you don't understand allows you to know more about the model they created? hell, some physicists believe black holes don't actually form completely. Why do you believe them when they tell you scary things, but not when they tell you it'll be ok? I sometimes think people just like to live in fear. Please also bear in mind that the same physicists that say there is a small chance of the end of the world-whatever happening are the same ones that would say there is a small chance of your next fart ending the world. so if you think small chances - no matter how small - are not worth taking, I'm expecting you to never fart. or breathe. or do anything. in fact, don't even do that.
that.
ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?
yeah, it involves you if the experiment would kill you. but leave the decision making to the politicians and scientists, they are there for that reason, aren't they? you put them there. and obviously they are a lot more competent at that than any of you are.
you could draw a paralel to the politicians... they make decisions like these every day, and a lot more risky at that. take for an example the usa, bush etc. there's far more probability that he's the end of life on earth rather than LHC.
yes, I am a physics senior, so what!
I'm a experimental particle physicist working at the precursor to the LHC, the Tevatron. Data that makes decisions about the LHC comes from the experiment I generate results from. I may work on the LHC in a year or so. Does that qualify me as a scientist?
/pwnt.
Owned? hahaha, no. If anything, quirinus was supporting what betaben said. I wonder how betaben communicates with people at Fermilab if he can't even distinguish that
after quoting me "ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?" would seem to be directed in my direction even if he either wittingly or unwittingly supports me. Either way, my response was equally vague in it's intent, as it merely asks if I qualify, even thought the question is somewhat loaded. generally, a lot of communication in fermilab is performed with loaded questions...
On June 12 2008 16:11 Bill307 wrote: Ugh, what an ugly thread.
To the people who are afraid of black holes being formed by the LHC: incoming particles from space regularly collide with particles in our atmosphere at far higher energies than the collisions that will occur inside the LHC. If those upper atmosphere collisions haven't produced any Earth-destroying black holes in the history of the Earth, then why would the much less energetic collisions in the LHC produce any?
These cosmic ray particles have high energy because they are moving very quickly.
A non-evaporating, electrically neutral black hole would only be affected by one force: gravity. It would absorb anything it touched, and not be much impeded by matter.
One spawned by a cosmic ray hitting an Earth-stationary particle would start off with extremely high momentum, and therefore nearl-light speed. It would continue in whatever direction it was going, and even if that direction is straight through the Earth, it would be through in a flash.
One spawned by colliding particle beams would likely start out with little momentum relative to the Earth. Affected only by gravity, it would fall to the Earth's matter-rich interior and loiter in a sort of subterranean orbit while it sucked up mass and grew.
But this is only one possibility. The worry is that "normal" matter is unstable, and there is some kind of "infectious" (like strangelets) or "voracious" (like non-evaporating small black holes) matter that can convert it to its own type. Just because the physicists have imagined up some scare scenarios doesn't mean they've come up with them all.
What is dark matter? Is there even such a thing?
Nobody knows. This ignorance is likely due to a fundamental flaw in our laws of physics.
Is it matter that once was like the matter on Earth, but which has been converted by low-probability cosmic ray events which allowed the collision products to loiter in a star or planet's interior? It could be.
Could these low-probability cosmic-ray events become high-probability events in the new collider? Possibly.
Since we are acting in ignorance, we can't estimate the risk. We can't say it's a small risk or a large risk.
This is not a matter of "not understanding the big numbers." There is no way to assign numbers to the probability of disaster. When physicists claim to offer estimates, they are pulling them out of their asses. They might use elaborate mathematics to generate those numbers, but they are also using arbitrary assumptions to generate that mathematics. Any estimates here are no better than those made using the Drake Equation.
This is not a matter of primitive fear and ignorance of physics. These experiments are meant to push beyond the boundaries of understood physics. That is the whole point of experimental science.
This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction.
On June 12 2008 18:07 betaben wrote: to the scared people: hey guys! bear in mind that the same physicists that say it's safe are the ones who brought you the concept of the black hole too. They know more about their hypothetical model that they created than your fear of the unknown will tell you about something you've made up in your head because you don't really know what they're talking about. do you think just because you're scared of things you don't understand allows you to know more about the model they created? hell, some physicists believe black holes don't actually form completely. Why do you believe them when they tell you scary things, but not when they tell you it'll be ok? I sometimes think people just like to live in fear. Please also bear in mind that the same physicists that say there is a small chance of the end of the world-whatever happening are the same ones that would say there is a small chance of your next fart ending the world. so if you think small chances - no matter how small - are not worth taking, I'm expecting you to never fart. or breathe. or do anything. in fact, don't even do that.
that.
ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?
yeah, it involves you if the experiment would kill you. but leave the decision making to the politicians and scientists, they are there for that reason, aren't they? you put them there. and obviously they are a lot more competent at that than any of you are.
you could draw a paralel to the politicians... they make decisions like these every day, and a lot more risky at that. take for an example the usa, bush etc. there's far more probability that he's the end of life on earth rather than LHC.
yes, I am a physics senior, so what!
I'm a experimental particle physicist working at the precursor to the LHC, the Tevatron. Data that makes decisions about the LHC comes from the experiment I generate results from. I may work on the LHC in a year or so. Does that qualify me as a scientist?
/pwnt.
Owned? hahaha, no. If anything, quirinus was supporting what betaben said. I wonder how betaben communicates with people at Fermilab if he can't even distinguish that
after quoting me "ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?" would seem to be directed in my direction even if he either wittingly or unwittingly supports me. Either way, my response was equally vague in it's intent, as it merely asks if I qualify, even thought the question is somewhat loaded. generally, a lot of communication in fermilab is performed with loaded questions...
Well, you are wrong. He quoted you and then said:
"that.
ffs, what makes you think you know better than sciencists?"
So, he supported what you said ("that') and asked to the people that believe in LHC black holes eating up the earth: "what makes you think you know better than scientists?" Is it clear now or should we keep going with this discussion between two colleagues? (although I don't consider myself a physicist yet ^^)
omg, so many particle physiscists! I'm 2:nd year on my PhD as well. Doing QCD phenomenology (dipole model).
Betaben, you're an experimentalist at the tevatron? I got a work related question, since I've been tuning my recent model after your data. + Show Spoiler [question for beta] +
I see a lot of papers from Tevatron with 1.96TeV CoM energy. But I have found no data on total or elastic p-pbar cross sections. Seeing that everyone are trying to guess the total cross section at LHC from various extrapolations, it would be kinda useful. You got any preliminary results or anything?
Also: what is your opinion on the two different measured total cross section at 1.8TeV? Which one is most reliable in your opinion?
I hope I made myself clear. Cheers, and gl last year at Tevatron!
And I'm partially funded by CERN. So ofc it's safe!
The cosmic ray argument isn't really valid though, since those black hole could just travel right through earth, as it is a fix target situation. The LHC on the other hand could potentially create a black hole at rest which then would travel back on forth through the earth until its big enough to kill us all. Apart from the fat that most dont think that we will not create a black hole, and that it would decay immediately even if one was created, there is another argument. I dont remember the details but it was something about neutron stars creating similar conditions sometimes, and the fact that neutron stars do not collapse into black holes is what ultimately ENSURES us that no dragons will jump out of ATLAS.
Exactly how was it supposed to destroy the entire universe? O_o
This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction.
Who made the observation and what theory suggests a possibility of true and total global destruction? I am asking you because I have heard and talked to top high energy theoretical physicists and they all agree that what you say is not true. There is no such thing as an observation or theory that suggests global destruction.
This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction.
Who made the observation and what theory suggests a possibility of true and total global destruction? I am asking you because I have heard and talked to top high energy theoretical physicists and they all agree that what you say is not true. There is no such thing as an observation or theory that suggests global destruction.
Observations suggest the existence of dark matter and black holes.
Do you deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes? The idea that black holes evaporate is not yet supported by observation.
It wasn't random guys on the street who came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Respectable physics researchers did that.
That respectable physics researcher also pooh-pooh the notion does not mean it has no validity. It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed.
This is a matter of the world's top experts choosing to act in an area where they know they are ignorant, and where observation and theory suggest a possibility of true and total global destruction.
Who made the observation and what theory suggests a possibility of true and total global destruction? I am asking you because I have heard and talked to top high energy theoretical physicists and they all agree that what you say is not true. There is no such thing as an observation or theory that suggests global destruction.
Observations suggest the existence of dark matter and black holes.
Do you deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes? The idea that black holes evaporate is not yet supported by observation.
It wasn't random guys on the street who came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Respectable physics researchers did that.
That respectable physics researcher also pooh-pooh the notion does not mean it has no validity. It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed.
I do not deny the existence of theories of infectious strangelets and non-evaporating black holes. If you and so many other people mention them is because those theories must have been invented by some physicist. I am not saying they are correct, but the theories must be there.
Now, about Hawking radiation (which causes black holes to evaporate). True, to date there has been no observational evidence to support it. However, every respectable physicist knows that the calculation made by Hawking is quite robust, so much that if you think that it is not correct, you are basically saying that quantum field theory and/or general relativity (the two pillars of modern theoretical physics) are both rubbish. If you don't believe me, then study Hawking's original paper and redo the calculations. If you cannot do that, then you should shut up and let the people who really know about the subject give an opinion on the physics that will happen at the LHC.
You say that "respectable physics researchers" came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Please, mention at least two of them. If you say Walter Wagner or someone who supports him, then you will have proven that you are indeed a layman in this topic. Want to know why? Because the top theoretical and experimental physicists in the world disagree with what Wagner and you say about the catastrophic consequences that the LHC will bring. And how do I know that they are "top" physicists? Simple, look up their numbers of citations, invitations to give seminars, conferences, talks at renowned places, Nobel Prizes, Dirac Medals, Fields Medals, etc.
It only means that they have decided that they, who have proven by the way they live their lives that they're more concerned with curiosity than with worldly responsibilities, are willing to accept the risk, and to say whatever's necessary to convince laymen to let them proceed.
That is pretty damn stupid. Do you think that if they knew something catastrophic might very likely happen, they would even consider doing the experiment? What you call risk is as likely to happen as a flying cow taking a dump on your head.
There were a theory during the Manhattan project which was that the chain reaction provocated by the A-bomb would concerns also oxygen atoms, and therefore that the planet was gonna explode if the bomb was used.
Obviously, it was bullshit.
By the way, I would be quite surprised that we have the scientific level of creating a blackhole (starcraft 2 has not been released, we don't have yet the mothership)
The funny thing here, is that a controversed man is trying to sue an european organisation (wich spend trillions of $) in an american court composed of non-scientist. The probability that the cern will follow the judgement of this court is close to the probability of a black hole to eat the earth
On June 13 2008 03:02 Kroc. wrote: Now, about Hawking radiation (which causes black holes to evaporate). True, to date there has been no observational evidence to support it. However, every respectable physicist knows that the calculation made by Hawking is quite robust, so much that if you think that it is not correct, you are basically saying that quantum field theory and/or general relativity (the two pillars of modern theoretical physics) are both rubbish.
Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down.
Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct.
So we've got an object that causes the one theory to break down, and then we've got an interaction with an incompatible theory. In other words, black hole evaporation is mere conjecture, like all non-observed properties of black holes.
Hawking's concept qualifies as an interesting idea, and nothing more. It suggests observations and experiments of interest to pursue, but has no other practical value. It is certainly not adequate for dismissing safety concerns.
If you don't believe me, then study Hawking's original paper and redo the calculations. If you cannot do that, then you should shut up and let the people who really know about the subject give an opinion on the physics that will happen at the LHC.
You say that "respectable physics researchers" came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Please, mention at least two of them.
Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh?
I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research.
This idea is not novel. It certainly doesn't originate with Walter Wagner. People have talked about it every time a big new particle accelerator is proposed. They put a committee to work evaluating the LHC's risk.
(committee's conclusion: blah blah blah, we don't know, blah blah blah, we're not worried)
That is pretty damn stupid. Do you think that if they knew something catastrophic might very likely happen, they would even consider doing the experiment? What you call risk is as likely to happen as a flying cow taking a dump on your head.
Nice strawman.
You know damn well my position is not that the catastrophe is likely and the scientists know it, but that the probability is completely unknown and the scientists are ignorant of the risks that may exist.
On June 13 2008 03:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: lol
There were a theory during the Manhattan project which was that the chain reaction provocated by the A-bomb would concerns also oxygen atoms, and therefore that the planet was gonna explode if the bomb was used.
Obviously, it was bullshit.
I was going to mention how CERN was a step up from the atomic bomb. But you can't call something "bullshit" if there's a good enough theory behind the reasons for it happening. Sure, it didn't happen. It doesn't mean it wasn't plausible. I remember reading part of Carl Sagan's book about how everyone but one guy was celebrating after the bomb worked. And he asked him why he wasn't celebrating, and his response was "My God, what have we done?" (in essence).
The atomic bomb was bad enough in itself, the fact that scientists a-okayed the test when it could have wiped out everything the planet was reprehensible. Even if it didn't destroy the world, it unleashed new evils. It's not really surprising scientists (aka, Linus Pauling, etc, etc) started lobbying against the stuff after waking up from the euphoria of using theory to make something "practical."
Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down.
Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct.
Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh?
I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research.
OK, i don't know who you are, and what your formation is but if you have done any studies in science, you should know that when you reach an high level, working on a theory by re-doing the calculations helps to understand it. In fact one cannot understand something that huge without doing so.
So it's not nessecarily a
"disproof by homework assignment."
but a common advise if you really want to understand what's up here, thus you should not be rude.
On June 13 2008 03:02 Kroc. wrote: Now, about Hawking radiation (which causes black holes to evaporate). True, to date there has been no observational evidence to support it. However, every respectable physicist knows that the calculation made by Hawking is quite robust, so much that if you think that it is not correct, you are basically saying that quantum field theory and/or general relativity (the two pillars of modern theoretical physics) are both rubbish.
Black holes are singularities, places where the mathematics of general relativity break down.
Anyway, quantum field theory and general relativity conflict. This is why they are two separate theories and not one unified theory. They can't both be totally correct.
So we've got an object that causes the one theory to break down, and then we've got an interaction with an incompatible theory. In other words, black hole evaporation is mere conjecture, like all non-observed properties of black holes.
Hawking's concept qualifies as an interesting idea, and nothing more. It suggests observations and experiments of interest to pursue, but has no other practical value. It is certainly not adequate for dismissing safety concerns.
If you don't believe me, then study Hawking's original paper and redo the calculations. If you cannot do that, then you should shut up and let the people who really know about the subject give an opinion on the physics that will happen at the LHC.
You say that "respectable physics researchers" came up with the idea that a particle collider might destroy the world. Please, mention at least two of them.
Oh... "disproof by homework assignment." If I'm not willing to go spend hours or weeks doing whatever homework assigned to me by every random nobody from the internet, I have nothing to say, eh?
I have an answer to that: fuck you. Do your own homework. If you think that redoing Hawking's calculations is a prerequisite for having anything to say, go do them yourself first. If you want to know who first suggested that a powerful collider could destroy the Earth, do your own historical research.
This idea is not novel. It certainly doesn't originate with Walter Wagner. People have talked about it every time a big new particle accelerator is proposed. They put a committee to work evaluating the LHC's risk.
(committee's conclusion: blah blah blah, we don't know, blah blah blah, we're not worried)
That is pretty damn stupid. Do you think that if they knew something catastrophic might very likely happen, they would even consider doing the experiment? What you call risk is as likely to happen as a flying cow taking a dump on your head.
Nice strawman.
You know damn well my position is not that the catastrophe is likely and the scientists know it, but that the probability is completely unknown and the scientists are ignorant of the risks that may exist.
Hmmm, it is quite a test for me to reply to such stupid arguments from someone like you. Ok, let me try to do it, even though I know you probably won't understand anything
- The singularity were the laws of physics, as we know them, break down is the curvature singularity in the center of the black hole. That doesn't mean that the laws of GR cannot be applied near the horizon.
- QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period. Now, it is true that in order to study black hole to the full extent, we would need a theory of quantum gravity. However, the semiclassical approximation used by Hawking is extremely robust. Moreover, there are precedents that the approach works (e.g. before quantum electrodynamics was developed, the spontaneous creation of electron-positron pairs was treated in a semiclassical manner and gave the correct results).
- I don't need to redo Hawking's calculation, I have already done it extensively. And yes, I think that if you want to talk properly about these kind of subjects, you should have something to back you up. In this case, how can you argue with scientists that understand all the theories that you talk about so lightly and without any true knowledge.
- You cannot even tell me what "respectable physicists" support your point of view. I don't need to check who proposed first that the next accelerator would destroy the Earth. Every time they have been disproved by facts and by brighter, more accomplished physicists.
- Finally, if you say that the probability of something like that happening is unknown to the experts, then you are even dumber than I thought. When Arkani-Hamed made the analogy with dragons coming out of the LHC, he was obviously being sarcastic and it was his polite way to tell people like you that what you belief in is just irrational.
Let me ask you something in capitals, so that you do answer it: WHAT IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC TRAINING? And yes, you are entitled to have your opinion on the subject, but you are not doing yourself a favor if you enter this type of discussion with someone who is more trained and knowledgeable than yourself in the subject (SCIENCE IS OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE).
On June 13 2008 05:15 Kroc. wrote: - QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period.
If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you.
On June 13 2008 05:15 Kroc. wrote: - QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period.
If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you.
On June 13 2008 05:15 Kroc. wrote: - QFT and GR are completely correct in their domains of validity. Period.
If you can say something like that seriously, you are not a scientist, and you can never be a scientist. There is no possibility you will ever rise above what is spoonfed into you.
I am done talking with you.
Wow, you just raised the bar for your stupidity. Well, I am done too. I think you can disproof anything you say on your own, you don't need my help