and this one:
http://www.tdg.ch/geneve/actu/2008/09/16/systeme-froid-gele-faisceau-lhc

it all depends on one question: is Hawking radiation real or not. I believe it’s not. As long as there is any doubt about that question, stop the LHC until it’s too late!

There must be SOME way to stop these genius/morons! Don’t they have families who could reason with them..no wait…how about have them committed?! I lived with a physicist like these guys for many years and worked for some others at UMass/Amherst, and I was shocked at how STUPID and impractical such intelligent people could often be!

I manage risk for a global financial corporation. As challenged as we can sometimes be, we’d never make such inappropriate moves. We live in a world where we have a responsibility to the stakeholders of our organization to make sure we aren’t incurring outlier risk (Taleb’s Black Swans). It is our duty to remind the operations manager of our company that they have no authority to incur risks that invite exogenous, existancial risks that threaten the continuance of mankind (and all the species we travel with).

LHC is a black swan party. It invites exogenous risk. It is an arrogant scientist’s dream, but disregards the practice of risk management. Sure, black holes were regarded as silly impossibilities at RHIC, only to be later regarded as “sure, they happen, but they’re not significant.” To switch gears from impossible to expected would result in individuals being thrown out of a profession in any other field. However, our scientific community has shown itself incapable of such self-regulation per the wholesale subscription to Gaia myth beliefs in the whole “global warming caused by CO2″ religion. Sunspots? Solar influence? Impossible. Just like black hole formation was impossible.

Science in our era is not capable of self-regulation and objective practice. LHC is a risk we cannot afford.

We may conclude that if einstein was right we will die. If mr. Hawking is right we will live. Fact is that on october 21 the LHC will start up and that nobody can stop this. Reasons behind this are that the return on investment has to be made clear to the governments that contributed to this project. I am seriously worried that money and politics are more important than the safety of all living creatures on the planet.

At 2:12 PM, May 22, 2008, Anonymous Tayman said…
“Hasanuddin, … says that LHC collisions are more dangerous than cosmic ray collisions because “dogpiling will occur.”

Hasanuddin wrote: ““I’ll admit that a lone cosmic ray particle striking the Earth will have more energy than two lone protons smashing head-on—but that isn’t what will happen inside of LHC, is it? LHC is designed to smash packets of 10,000,000,000 protons into packets of 10,000,000,000 in one tight spot. Using “all-things-being-equal” blinders to ignore to cumulative effects of the 9,999,999,999 other potential collisions of each packet will skew the overall estimate making LHC seem benign and harmless. Collision of packets will not occur as a one-time event either, will they? They will happen repetitively in very quick succession, which will allow for dogpiling. Is any of this similar to a cosmic ray striking the Earth—no.”

At 3:31 PM, May 22, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
“I have no idea what ‘dogpiling’ is supposed to be… Maybe he’d want to clarify what exactly he means with ‘one tight spot,’… Sorry, but I really don’t have the time to debunk everybody’s idea about what the LHC might be able to do when one doesn’t know particle physics”

At 7:10 PM, May 22, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
“…Sorry, but I really don’t have the time to debunk everybody’s idea about what the LHC might be able to do when one doesn’t know particle physics”

??? No good response…

On the disputed mechanism of Hawking Radiation, which Dr. Hossenfelder basically call psedo-science as it is written in Wikipedia…

At 8:52 AM, May 19, 2008, Blogger JTankers said…
“… most likely method that would explain how energy entering into a micro black hole in the form of matter, anti-matter or both, might be expected to cause the micro black hole to lose energy rather than gain energy?

I find this concept extraordinarily non-plausible. So please help enlighten me as to how adding energy to a system could cause the system to lose energy…”

At 9:03 AM, May 19, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
Bee writes: “…black hole does not lose energy because matter falls into it. …I dislike the explanation with Hawking-evaporation from particle pairs at the horizon for exactly this reason…”

At 4:36 AM, May 21, 2008, Blogger JTankers said…
The Wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation uses the following clearly fallacious argument since 2006. An argument that implies the existence of a yet undiscovered fundamental force of “anti-energy” or “negative energy.

“…vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process the black hole loses mass, and to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.”

The wikipedia article originally used the concept of tunneling:

“One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to fill the energy ‘hole’ left by the pair’s spontaneous creation, energy tunnels out of the black hole and across the event horizon.”

In that argument, double the amount of energy that entered the black hole would have to “tunnel out” in order to negate the energy that entered the black hole and to balance the created particle that radiated.

Unless the black hole gained energy, then no negative energy nor tunneling is required. But that might require the existence of dark energy to account for the particle creation, and dark energy is still just a theory also, but gaining acceptance.

At 9:03 AM, May 21, 2008, Blogger Bee [Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder] said…
“…one does not need any particles of negative energy for the Hawking effect. You have a black hole with mass M. It emits an energy E. The remaining mass of the black hole is M-E. You can write that as M+(-E) if you wish, but this still doesn’t make negative energy particles necessary. For this you’d have to succeed in emitting an energy E > M, such that the remainder is negative. I don’t know of anybody who ever argued this would be the case.”

JTankers: Who is correct, Wikipedia’s negative in or double positive out or Dr. Hossenfelder, or some other explanation… perhaps this theory is just incorrect, have you considered that???

I recall reading Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time” many years ago and deciding it was confused and not very informative.

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder [Bee] said something similar at: Black Holes at the LHC - again

At 2:19 PM, May 17, 2008, Blogger Bee said… “I didn’t like “A brief History of Time” either, and I also didn’t understand it. In fact, my disliking of Hawking’s book was one of the reasons why I studied physics”