|
oh, and the "tuning and tweaking" they will be doing is to get their 14TeV protons as concentrated as possible at the collision points (higher luminosity). So that will only cause the things that happen to happen more often.  Actually, the first test run this autumn will be at only 10TeV since they've had a few delays.
And the detectors they have built up around the interaction points are still only made of protons, neutrons and electron, and will not interact with black holes any differently than anything else. Even the closest detectors are a few centimeters away from the interactions which is more than enough for a 14TeV black hole to evaporate anyways. And at that high energy it doesnt matter if the proton is part of a lead nucleus, or is a hydrogen nucleus in a water molecule.
Ahh, I could go on forever, but I dont think this what you worry about...
|
On June 13 2008 11:09 Cascade wrote:ok, so now you move away from philosophy and into physics right?  As me and others have said above: yes, the cosmic ray argument in the earth atmosphere is flawed. And yes, there is a complete argument, namely the one with neutron stars by ritebkatya that i refered to. But no, if you have not done particle physics it may be hard to understand it.
This is not "a complete argument". The same objection applies. This is a collision of a cosmic ray with a stationary particle, creating collision products with high momentum.
I understand the argument just fine. They are bigger and more dense than the Earth, and thus more likely to interact even with fast-moving collision products.
It is based on the assumptions that we understand the properties of the collision products (we don't, or the LHC experiments would be worthless) and that we understand the properties of neutron stars and white dwarfs (we think we do, but we haven't exactly flown up and poked them).
For that matter, there is even the assumption that the principle of relativity is correct, and that there is no difference between a universe where the cosmic ray zips through the universe to crash into a heavenly body, and a universe where the cosmic ray sits still while the universe zips by until one of its heavenly bodies crashes into the cosmic ray. It is certainly fundamental and well-supported, but we haven't exactly accelerated an experimental apparatus to near-light speed to collide it with a stationary particle.
I think a different standard of evidence applies between the cases when you accept an assumption for the sake of guiding future research, and when you accept an assumption for the sake of deciding whether something threatens to destroy the Earth.
So your "worries" (from a philosophiocal viewpoint. ) are based on you not trusting the physiscists to have done the calculations correctly? If so I guess it cannot really be argued with. Your choice in the end if you trust them or not. I havent done the calculations myself, but I think I got a pretty good idea of how they would look, and I trust that people have done the details correctly, so I'm not even philosophically worried. 
Are you intending to take us around in circles?
The reason they want to do these experiments is precisely that they do not know what the outcomes will be.
You say they have done calculations to confirm the safety of the experiments. Meanwhile they plan to do the experiments in hopes of confirming the theory they based the calculations on.
Do you see the problem with this reasoning?
My objection is not that they might have done the calculations incorrectly, but that they might be doing the wrong calculations entirely. There is a huge difference between operating a theory consistently and being right.
|
I think this new research will bring one of two things, either:
1. open up even more questions about the creation of the universe
2. solve some very controversial questions that humanity has been trying to answer ever since it has been here on earth
|
We are sure of some things in LHC (order of magnitude of total cross section, electroweak reactions etc, etc). Others are we not so sure about (higgs? susy? etc). I think you can accept that it is viable to build an experiment where you allready know parts of the result, if you dont know all of the results.
And again, if you dont trust the calculations, or the physics the originate from, then ok, go ahead. Your call. If you are going to question special relativity, then you are in the "dragons" region, im sorry to say. Special relativity is actully the experimentally most accurately proven theory in physics, in the accelerators all over the world.
I think that your argument is what i call dragons. So I agree with you in principle, in that we ofc cannot be 100% sure of anything. And neither of us have any real worries about the end of the world. So it seems like we agree basically... Anyways, I dont think we have more to say here. I think we have both presented our arguments more than anyone on TL is interested in.
|
On June 08 2008 23:49 dinmsab wrote:
CERN != Aperture science.
I need to get me one of them portal gun thaaangs.
|
|
|
It's not even 2012 yet T-T
|
On June 13 2008 11:44 SexInTheStreets wrote:
I think this new research will bring one of two things, either:
1. open up even more questions about the creation of the universe
2. solve some very controversial questions that humanity has been trying to answer ever since it has been here on earth
Every answer opens 10 more questions, it will never stop
|
Bumping this thread since Michelangelo Mangano, one of the big guys at CERN, published a paper on this with Giddings, dismissing risks using the white dwarf/neutron star argument above.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdf
It's 97 pages, but just reading the abstract is enough, and should be understandable to most. Let me also emphasis that these are not some random PhDs publishing, but well renowned guys.
|
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
So when is the experiment going to take place?
|
On June 12 2008 15:31 Funchucks wrote:
Experimental high energy physics is about causing stuff to happen that doesn't happen naturally on Earth, and which we don't understand the physics of.
That is why we're doing it: we don't know what will happen. If they knew what would happen, they wouldn't need to do the experiment.
There's no getting around this fact.
The physicists are saying, "Trust us, we're experts." but the only use they're putting their expertise to here is to find things they don't understand, so they can play with them like children playing with matches.
There's no urgent need for high-energy physics research on Earth, the only home of the only known life in the universe.
There is too little to gain, and too much to lose by rushing to do this research on Earth instead of in space, where it can be properly isolated, and the potential for damage limited to the test apparatus.
It's not a "small chance" or a "very small chance" or "an insignificant chance" of disaster, it's an unknown chance, because they're doing something unprecedented for the very reason that they don't understand it.
What we can do in large colliders has been done numerous times in the universe, and even around earth. We just didn´t notice. The chance is not unknown, it is insignificant, and just for the fact that we are here.
|
On June 24 2008 20:12 Chewits wrote:
So when is the experiment going to take place?
http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/HEPAP/reports/P5_Report 06022008.pdf
page 86 gives a review of all the current high energy physics experiments and their running times. LHC will start taking non-cosmics in 2009 hopefully (but then again, the original date was 2005... physicists are not very good at being modest when it comes to the amount of time it will take to get things right.)
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
|
On June 09 2008 01:10 H_ wrote:
That would be hilarious.
"Flight security, what's in that bag?"
"A black hole."
"JESUS CHRIST"
ROFL, a whole [lolpun] new beginning to terrorism
|
|
|
|
|
ya u shud
ask around, you get a free hl2 gift with orange box, and there;s quite a few people who have it here.
|
so when are we supposed to be dead?
|
On June 24 2008 18:10 Cascade wrote:Bumping this thread since Michelangelo Mangano, one of the big guys at CERN, published a paper on this with Giddings, dismissing risks using the white dwarf/neutron star argument above. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdfIt's 97 pages, but just reading the abstract is enough, and should be understandable to most. Let me also emphasis that these are not some random PhDs publishing, but well renowned guys.
typo in introduction
"We argue here that charged black
holes will loose enough energy to stop when traversing the Earth or the Sun, via standard
electromagnetic processes."
:D
|
this shit really scares me.. WTF..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.wallcoo.net/game/hl2wallpapers/m01/wallpaper_half-life_2_07_1280.jpg)
