“But there are people like me who can’t wait to see the look on your face or the words you will write when the LHC does turn on, and in fact, all of your scaremongering was wasteful.”

You don’t seem to understand what the “doommongers” are saying will happen. Nothing will be apparent when they fire up the machine for tests, nor will anything be apparent even in a month when they first perform collisions. The doom would occur once the created black hole had got large enough to damage the planet, which people are theorising could be 5 years or less.

Thanks for all the useful discussion above, I have posted an article about the safety or otherwise on my blog.

Let’s look at this objectively. You concede that are you not part of mainstream physics. Therefore, you have not much to say about the LHC turning on. Let’s face it: The LHC is going to turn on whether you want it to or not. And say you were correct, humanity will be blown to smithereens.

But there are people like me who can’t wait to see the look on your face or the words you will write when the LHC does turn on, and in fact, all of your scaremongering was wasteful.

It is not so much that we are ridiculing people who are concerned for their safety, we are extremely annoyed by these people’s ignorance.

The point: The LHC will turn on. You will not have a say. After it does, write your thoughts on how the world actually still exists.

The alternate I have been researching confirms Milgrom is correct even if applied to structures higher dimensions and that science should at least wait a few years before making the decision to use the particle accelerator.

The argument is that nature is not well understood enough. Dark matter is not even known, nor is dark energy known or defined. To continue when the standard model is so poor in predicting the stream of discoveries coming in from the astronomical community is nothing short of criminal negligence.

Even in the last few years there has been a stream of articles where respected scientists are saying the standard model did not predict the latest observations of the matter. That can clearly be seen such as the early and rapid formation of stars in galaxies which is not consistent with universe formation. Over the last decade there have been so many “fixes” to the standard model that Mike Disney another respected physicist has called it Humpty Dumpty covered in bandages waiting to come undone.

Most likely it will fail the standard model because the standard model is near enough broken and improperly understood anyway. It most certainly will fail the alternate model leaving only one question. How many deaths will eventually be attributed to this scientific endeavor … all of us?

I have looked around a few forums and have noticed an increase in pro CERN blogger activity. The basic point is that there really are people like me who are violently opposed to this experiment and that is not being respected. My rights to live in a world with one less needless risk and the rights of my family and friends to live in a world with one less needless risk is being violated.

Yes I do believe there is an element of CERN bloggers being in denial, denial that the particle acceleration experiment is lowering the quality of life for ordinary folk who even in ignorance are not sure if science is ready to control such extreme levels of power. What I have noticed is that with the air of confident authority there is a harshness being used to bully those who do protest.

The stress of uncertainty is something I write about and there could be others less vocal but concerned all the same. While it would be unreasonable to brand the particle physicists as terrorists the stress of the destruction of life may be akin to the fear of loss that sent the free world to war against alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The great tragedy is that if the scientists are wrong the loss of credibility in the wake of destruction (assuming there is one) would make it almost impossible for science to maintain the respect and leadership role it currently enjoys. In a time of crisis a loss of leadership means any fool with a mouth can lead and that really is dangerous.

Michael.

From Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity right through to Quantum Mechanics has in part relied on guesswork. So while not saying the intuitive leap of logic is wrong it is also fair to say there is a chance the logic is not right either.

This is end game physics because it deals with the extreme boundary of ‘assumed’ forces applied in a way not seen in nature. Sure there are cosmic ray events 100 times more powerful than the collisions being produced at CERN, maybe even a 1000 times more powerful. The difference is that CERN will produce 800 million collisions a second which is millions of times the overall energy density that a single high energy cosmic ray collision can carry.

Nowhere in nature is any region as cold as CERN. That is a fact an acknowledged fact. Nowhere in standard matter is heat and energy concentrated at a single focal point. Black holes however well accepted are still just as theoretical as wormholes.

Is it really so unreasonable to ask if enough is known to play end game physics? Why should people with reasonable doubts be ridiculed when they speak up against an institution that wouldn’t even need to run the experiment if it knew everything already?

I would agree that there ought to be serious discussions about inherent dangers of this sort of tinkering. That being said, I have absolutely no background in physics, quantum or otherwise, beyond that of the ‘pop-science’ books Mr. Z condemns. I do however, have a discriminating taste for blather, and a vested interest in the full analysis of the potential dangers (unlikely as they may be). In this case, as opposed to so many others, the result of a fail scenario would mean total and complete annihilation of all that I hold dear.

For what it’s worth JTankers, I think your method of debate of the issue was much more readable, than that of Mr. ZapperZ. At the very least, you had the fewest grammatical errors… which (while I admit this may be a very poor characteristic on my part) often tends to sway my opinions in these sorts of discussions.

If ZapperZ gets a chance to read this comment, I hope that he will refrain from this sort of name-calling and chest-thumping rant in the future. Those sorts of tirades are akin (and perhaps more appropriately suited) for the global warming discussion boards :o)

Cheers,

David V.

I believe that micro black hole creation is at least plausible, I find Hawking radiation dubious, I find Dr. Rossler’s fast accretion theory plausible, and I agree with CERN’s SPC Committee’s comments on the theories arguing empirical evidence from cosmic rays and Neutron stars:

“A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years.”

The danger is plausible and miscalculation is just not an option.

Please, make better use of your time. You are only harming the public’s perception from one of the most marvelous experiments ever created by humans. It would not be a stretch to say you are detrimental to society.

Martin

Unfortunately, I think ZapperZ won the argument. Next time you argue something, think for yourself instead of quoting others. Otherwise, let the quoted people argue against him.

Just for the record, anyone who has the slightest respect for physics knows the black hole coming out of LHC is a bunch of horsepoop.

Martin

JTankers said…

I see that the GLAST telescope has been launched today.

How much time might be required before analysis of GLAST data might indicate proof or rejection of Hawking Radiation theory?

This could be critical in determining the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, due to begin collisions later this year.

Unlike
what CERN tells the public, the Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment
Group (LSAG) writes that current safety arguments are not valid proof
of safety. Micro black holes might be created by the Large Hadron
Collider, they might not evaporate, they might grow quickly and we have
not been damaged by cosmic rays because cosmic rays pass harmlessly
through Earth. CERN also tells the public that a new safety report has
been completed, but so far the final report has not been released for
review by world’s scientists.

The legal complaint before US
Federal Court in Hawaii demands 4 months to review this safety report
and a permanent injunction if safety can not be assured to within
reasonable industry standards. First hearing is scheduled for June 16,
2008.

Learn more at LHCFacts.org

ZapperZ said…

I’m sorry, but we have had this discussion already related to the
LHC. So please don’t derail this topic into the LHC-blackhole again.

“Followers” of LHCfacts.org should not go around other people’s blog and spamming such links repeatedly.

For
your information, cosmic rays doesn’t just “pass harmlessly” through
the earth. The FACT that Auger Observatories can detect the most
energetic ones from the AGN’s when they enter our atmosphere means that
they DO interact significantly around us.

Zz.

JTankers said…

ZapperZ writes: “cosmic rays doesn’t just “pass harmlessly” through the earth… they DO interact significantly around us.“

Yes they interact, but the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) concedes that results of cosmic ray collisions with Earth travel at relativistic speeds and results exit Earth safely into space, unlike results from head-on collider collisions:

LHC: what if … ? Michelangelo Mangano CERN, TH-PH
(http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/
LHC2008/documents/LSAG.pdf)

“Problems with using “cosmic rays hitting the Earth” to rule out Black Holes”

“• CR-produced BHs have large velocity [...]“

”
• At production BHs have small cross section[ ...]➡ they fly through the Earth like a neutrino (unless it is charged!!)
➡ no limit can be set“

”
• At the LHC, some of them will have [low velocity], will be gravitationally trapped, and could start growing“

More details about the safety arguments here: (depending on the verity of Hawking Radiation and MBH growth rates…) Could the Real Risk to the Planet be closer to 100%?
(http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=53)

Cheers!

ZapperZ said…

This is the last time you’ll get this warning. If you continue to
cite your “lhcfacts” website for your source, I will delete your
comments.

GLAST has a lot of things to look at, and I doubt that
its top priority will be to determine the safety of the LHC. This blog
entry is NOT a discussion of LHC safety.

Zz.

JTankers said…

I will make a note not to quote my site on your blog, but would it
not be more fair to delete the reference rather than the message?

I am very concerned
about this safety issue and the lack of serious attention from most
physicists, and so are many highly credible science PHDs that are
making comments like Teresa E Tutt, (Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University)

“Unfortunately, I don’t have the clout to put a stop to this insanity“

May I add the reference to the quote on a site that is not mine?

JT

ZapperZ said…

So you listen to one set of PhD’s and ignore the rest?

And
how dare you accuse of physicists not paying attention to it. Do you
think these people, who WORK THERE, would knowingly risk their lives,
and the lives of their loved ones (many of them have families nearby)?
Just who do you think you are that you somehow have a higher moral
superiority than them?

I talked to people who work at the ATLAS
detector often, and ask them about these things. Many of them have
discussed this at some length WAY before these things become public
discussion. These people are not just physicists, but also high energy
physicists who are INTIMATELY knowledgable in such area. Do you think,
even for a second, that if they even remotely consider such disaster
scenario to be possible, that they would knowingly continue to actually
want to be there during the first collisions set for some time this
September? Honestly? Do you really, truly think these people are THAT
stupid?

Zz.

JTankers said…

“Do you think, even for a second, that if they even remotely
consider such disaster scenario to be possible, that they would
knowingly continue to actually want to be there during the first
collisions set for some time this September?“

I don’t think
any physicist would purposely harm Earth. And I don’t think the
managers of the last flight of the Shuttle Challenger had ANY intention of harming ANY Astronaut including a female grade school teacher who was aboard. But their sub-contractor’s own technicians were LOUDLY BEGGING their managers not to launch in freezing weather.

The
sub-contractor’s managers believed it was “safe enough”, 300% safety
margin they thought, and did not forward their own technician’s
warnings and allowed the launch anyway.

The location does not
matter, as the potential danger is to the entire planet, but not for at
least years or decades according to calculations of Dr. Otto E. Rossler

And I am not just listening to 1 PHD. What about Dr. Paul J. Werbos of the National Science Foundation. He writes (shortened for brevity):

““… stake the very survival of all life on earth on the truth of their ZPE stuff! … a gamble.”“

ZapperZ said…

Not even in the same ball park!

If anyone would know about
such problem, it would be the people in the trenches, just like the
shuttle! And the people in the trenches, which are the theorists and
the experimentalists, ARE the people that I talk to, not the so-called
managers. They are the ones responsible for most the design of the
whole damn thing. When was the last time that YOU talk to any of them?
Or do you simply restrict your source of information based on what you
read and to confine yourself to citing quote and tag lines?

And
just so you stop wasting your time, I am not the least big impressed by
all the quotes that you did. This is a physics issue, not an issue of
who said what. This leads me to believe that you actually have no
understanding of the actual physics of what you are objecting here. All
that you are going for is what you can quote out of these people
without understanding the source, i.e. you are actually gaining only
some SUPERFICIAL knowledge of things. I am MORE WORRIED about such
people than I am about the LHC, because they are delusional about their
state of knowledge.

Again, just who do you think you are? When
was the last time you step foot on CERN’s grounds and talk to these
people who are going to be right there when this thing turns on?

Zz.

JTankers said…

Zz writes: “When was the last time you step foot on CERN’s grounds and talk to these people who are going to be right there when this thing turns on?”

I have not been to CERN, but in the last few weeks I have personally had one (very enlightening) more than 10 minute phone conversation with the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Physics

(Dr. Carl E. Wieman) and shared blog posts (on my blog, I will leave
off the url), and emails between him and anther Nobel Laureate for
Physics (Dr. Eric A. Cornell) and the MIT Professor (Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics) (Professor Kerson Huang) who co-wrote in one of his recent papers about bosenova type implosions of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions:
(http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/
pdf/0012/0012418v1.pdf)

“A black hole opens up at the center, …density fluctuations becomes infinite“

“The density in the black hole shoots up as time goes on, fed by waves of implosion“

The
critical number of attractive atoms to cause implosion beyond detection
is calculated at between only 1251 to 1260, Wow, not many required! If
the GLAST telescope can not find indications of Hawking Radiation, I wonder if experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates might provide the answer “are micro black holes stable”.

According to Dr. Cornell and Dr. Wiemans Nobel Lecture
(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/
laureates/2001/cornellwieman-lecture.pdf)
A large portion of the atoms after their bosenova implosion could not be accounted for. (Similar signature to that of stable micro black hole creation and very scary to me…)

There is a fascinating article related to this implosion in the Wikipedia article on Bose-Einstein Condensates, unusual characteristics section
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bose_einstein_condensate#Unusual_characteristics)

I
am talking to some of the most respected experts in the world, though I
also want to make clear, that these same experts want the public to
know that what might be created by bosenova implosions of BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates)
are more likely something other [than] “real micro black holes”. Their
quotes, blogs and emails are available, but I will not include the url
at your request.

However, I do think that a search for Hawking Radiation should be a priority of the GLAST telescope in my opinion.

JT

kyle said…

I am far from being qualified to make a statement regarding the
safety of the LHC but what I can say is this. I believe that zapperz is
quite correct in saying that the views/opinions of the scientists
working at CERN are not accounted for in jtankers arguments.

Jtankers,
you make reference to the space shuttle challenger here, and numerous
times on your blog. Yes the engineers did scream abort when the
management didn’t listen, that is because NASA management was under
immense pressure to launch the shuttle and the teacher, Christa
McAuliffe. Luckily, the LHC is not being run by people short of a PHD
in some form of Physics and are not under any pressure from the public,
the experiment is strictly scientific and not a publicity stunt.

I look forward to seeing what mysteries the GLAST telescope can uncover about our world.

ZapperZ said…

JTankers: And did you bother to ask them if they think the LHC will
create the catastrophe that you have envisioned? Did you ask Wilzek,
who also did a study on RHIC’s?

But this would qualify as the
“managers” in your Shuttle scenario. Did you ask those people who are
the equivalent of the shuttle engineers/contractors who are working in
the trenches? You are IGNORING the same group of people that you were
touting as having more info then these managers! Both of those
physicists you talked to would NOT be at CERN when they have their
first collisions. These people in the trenches will. Who do you think
will have a more vested interest in making sure the damn thing is safe?

It
is very difficult for me to take you seriously, when ALL you are
capable of is quoting other people’s statement. We haven’t even
considered yet if you are doing this out of context, because, more
often than not, such things ARE usually done out of context! The very
fact that you THINK that physics is done this way, via a series of
who-said-what, lends you almost no credibility in my book.

I’m
sorry to say that you’ve wasted your time here, but you have. I would
strongly advice that before you start to be foaming at the mouth
against these things, that you first understand the physics of it,
rather than rely on someone’s interpretation of it that has been
conveyed in a series of “quotes”.

Zz.

JTankers said…

ZapperZ writes “you first understand the physics of it, rather than rely on someone’s interpretation of it that has been conveyed in a series of “quotes”.“

I
became personally concerned about the possible LHC safety issue because
of my personal doubts of the veracity of Hawking Radiation, which was
advertised as the primary safety mechinism to assure safety from the
possible creation of slow moving micro black holes on Earth by the
worlds most powerful head-on particle collider.

But I am well
aware that my personal opinion does not have necessary clout to be in
itself compelling… the personal opinion of a former US Army offer
with a BS in computer science, one year of college physics and a few
marginally notable physics achievements over the last 25 years or so.

But I can share much more credible opinions and evidence, including from CERN’s own LHC Safety Assessment Group, a team that does take the safety issue very seriously
and who’s report has been reported by CERN as having been completed but
has not yet been released for the world’s scientists to validate.

I
can also share credible quotes from papers questioning whether “micro
black hole decay” from PHDs and Professors of Math, Physics and other
theoretical sciences, such as Adam Helfer’s quote from Dr. Do black holes radiate? (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042)
“no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes“, there are many similar papers…

Should the safety of Earth be decided by three coin flips: Micro Black holes (MBH) are created or not, MBH decay or not, MBH grow extremely slowly or not.

All of these assumptions have credible experts arguing both sides of all three coin flips.

Are
those reasonable odds to risk Earth with? I don’t think so. And when
credible physicists are asked “Is it safe” they tend to only repeat the
“Cosmic Ray” agument that the CERN still publishes in some form of on
their public web site while their own LHC Safety Assessment Group concedes that the argument is not valid.

So
no, I do not think that most physicists are giving the issue the
serious attention that it deserves. With a few exceptions. CERN’s LHC
Safety Assessment Group is taking the issue very seriously, and trying
very hard to prove reasonable safety. (Something far less than three coin flips).

I
hope LSAG is able to prove reasonable safety if that is also what
mother nature’s laws determine, and I am very much looking forward to
having the world’s scientists confirmation of this proof after the
final report is released, which I hope will be soon.

And I hope my efforts might help persuade scientists in charge of GLAST telescope experiments to make the search for Hawking Radiation a priority, to attempt to validate [or] invalidate this theory.

Sincerely,
James Tankersley Jr
Middleton, WI

ZapperZ said…

That makes no sense. You are the poster child for my series of essay
on “Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen”. I
will leave your comments on here as an example of what happens when you
mix ignorance with a little knowledge.

For example, are you SURE
you have fully understood Hawking Radiation? Honestly? Beyond just what
you read in pop-science books? How are you able to evaluate the
validity of all the theoretical analysis of the LHC? What if I tell you
that there’s even a speculation that Blackholes CANNOT EXIST?

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-more-blackholes.html

Will you then stop foaming at the mouth? It will make ALL of such arguments as MOOT.

It
is one thing to have some concern about something you barely know. It
is another to be RABID about your ignorance about the whole thing to
actually go into people BLOGs and populate it with links to your site.
And then you have the audacity to think that YOU have the market on
being concerned about safety. YOu have zero data to base such claim,
considering by your own admission, you have never talked to anyone that
actually worked there. So how you can actually say with any conviction
about these physicists not having any consideration about such scenario
is beyond me.

But then again, you have shown no qualm about
making such conclusion with the flimsiest of understanding. So such
action is entirely consistent. Each comment you make here makes your
opinion even LESS credible, if that’s possible.

You should go to
other blogs to spew your ignorance. I consider this discussion from you
as closed. Your opinion on this is no longer welcome here.

Zz.