Legal bid to stop CERN atom smasher from 'destroying the world'

[Shine]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html
Critics of the Large Hadron Collider - a £4.4 billion machine due to be switched on in ten days time - have lodged a lawsuit at the European Court for Human Rights against the 20 countries, including the UK, that fund the project.

The device is designed to replicate conditions that existed just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and its creators hope it will unlock the secrets of how the universe began.

However, opponents fear the machine, which will smash pieces of atoms together at high speed and generate temperatures of more than a trillion degrees centigrade, may create a mini-black hole that could tear the earth apart.

:scared: Should we be worried?? I don't normally post in here, but thought this seemed worthy of bringing to your attention. Colliding atoms, black holes....It all sounds kinda wild to me.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. people thought the sky would catch

fire when they tested the atomic bomb too

by people, I mean physicists

[joshcryer]

16. The consensus was that nothing would happen.

Those who thought that it would catch fire didn't do the math.

[Botany]

2. nothing will happen

:grr:

[Shine]

3. Why the anger?

:shrug: Do you think the concerns are unwarranted and silly?

How does ANYone know exactly what will happen??

[joshcryer]

17. Yes they are unwarrented and silly and based on unfounded assumptions not in the Standard Model.

In other words it's people freaking out for nothing.

[LunaSea]

4. link for you-

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/
read it and chill.
A rather nutty guy with some physics background and a friend who love filing suits have made a name for themselves with this one.

Now they are famously nutty.

[Shine]

7. Thanks, I'll pass that one along to my techy hubby.

I tell ya, this whole thing makes me envision a bad science fiction movie! :rofl: It's such an old formula: the science project gone awry.....:scared:

Did you ever see the fantastic Australian movie, "Quiet Earth"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/

[LunaSea]

9. Yep, saw that one in a theater.

Here's one for you, it's really obscure-
Idaho Transfer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071647/

[Shine]

12. Never heard of that one, but I like time travel flicks.

you're right, though, it does look obscure. :D I'll keep an eye out for it!

Thanks!

[phantom power]

23. We can't have this thread without props for "Thrice Upon a Time"

It's even got black holes produced unexpectedly by a particle accelerator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time

[VAliberal]

5. I have a small hadron collider

in my basement and so far I haven't had any problems with it. What a large hadron collider would do is another story.

[FogerRox]

6. One group said the stream of anti Quarks caused earthquakes

as the stream shot thru to the other side of the planet. Anti Quarks are anti matter and cannot travel thru the earth, idiots.

[two gun sid]

8. Nothing to worry about, I think...

nothing will be produced inside the collider that isn't already being produced in nature due to cosmic rays. Not really sure want the chief litigant has against the collider unless he's some kind of whack job. He's a chemist so I don't really know how much of a theoretical physicist he is and what calculations he's done.

WannaJumpMyScooter is right about the Los Alamos physicists wondering about the atmosphere actually being set on fire by the first atomic test. They actually had a betting pool on how big the explosion would be. Enrico Fermi took bets on whether it would ignite the atmosphere, destroy the world or just New Mexico. Famed theoritician, I. I. Rabi, won the bet on how big the explosion would be. He was so unconcerned with its dangers he played poker into the early hours of the morning of Trinity.

[lutherj]

10. The way I see it, the odds are extremely high that nothing bad will happen,

but we'll learn all kinds of amazing stuff from the experiments. If, on the other hand, we all get sucked into a black hole, it will happen so fast that we'll never know the difference. So really, you can't lose.

[Shine]

13. Well, I was intrigued b/c of the mention of it taking 4 yrs to work itself out

and the Mayan calender is supposedly ending in 4 yrs, too, so a lot of people seem to think there's something to that. Hmmm....pretty out there, I know, but I keep an open mind. :D heheh.

[lutherj]

15. Ah yes, I hadn't read the article at the link. It seems like a black hole growing

exponentially would consume the earth in a lot shorter time than 4 years. But what do I know. :shrug: Maybe you'd notice nothing until the last 90 seconds. Of course, if it's the Mayan calendar we're up against, then the black hole thing is just a red herring anyway.

[Ready4Change]

11. Tear the Earth apart?

If thats their 'logic' then I'm not worried.

IF it creates a black hole, and IF that black hole doesn't evaporate in a microsecond, and IF it starts doing what some fear it would do, then it still wouldn't 'tear the Earth apart.' The opposite. It would pack the Earth down into a speck.

To say it would tear the Earth apart belies a complete misunderstanding of black holes in general, which doesn't bode well for the authors grasp of more technical details.

[pa28]

14. Here's a video of what is going to happen . . .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=395453113407743139&ei=e6fESNzsHZ-2qAPDyOy3BQ&q=cern&vt=lf

:evilgrin: - OK not really. Most experts on the subject seem to think the odds of something like that are one in several million. Not enough mass to sustain a black hole long enough they say. Sleep tight!

[stuntcat]

26. lol sweet!

:headbang:

[wtmusic]

18. I'm stocking up on food and ammo just to be sure nt

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Always best to be prepared!

:rofl:

[krispos42]

19. A black hole a fraction of the size of an electron...

Yeah, that worries me. It might suck up like five molecules of silicon on it's way down to the center of the Earth.

Sorry, a five-billion-ton black hole is not going to suddely appear in Switzerland when a handful of molecules collide at the speed of light.

[joshcryer]

29. The funny thing is that gravity is such a weak force I don't even think humans could make one...

...that small! We're talking about a lot of energy! The whole black hole theory is based upon spurious String Theorist stuff.

[Nihil]

31. Precisely ...

> The whole black hole theory is based upon spurious String Theorist stuff

and this stuff is the nearest thing you will get to faith-based science
outside of Kansas.

"String Theory" (String Hypothesis really) is only one step away from
homeopathy in terms of testability & supporting results ... unfortunately
it's one step further from science (but has more supporters in academia
so is given a free pass).

[Posteritatis]

21. I'm supremely unworried. (nt)

[semillama]

22. You shouldn't be worried

but if you want to read a good novel about a black hole consuming the earth, read "Earth" by David Brin. It's great!

[Shine]

24. Cool book tip, thanks!

I likes me some good science fiction. :hi:

[frogmarch]

25. Don't worry - be happy!

(article snip)

"But wait", I hear you say, "Has anyone considered that creating artificial black holes might not be the best idea?" The idea of creating black holes in the laboratory has to give one pause. I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC. The black holes produced at CERN will be millions of times smaller than the nucleus of an atom; too small to swallow much of anything. And they'll only live for a tiny fraction of a second, too short a time to swallow anything around them even if they wanted to.

If it makes you feel any more comfortable, we're pretty sure that if the LHC can produce black holes, then so can cosmic rays, high-energy particles that smash into our atmosphere every day. There are probably a few tiny black holes forming and dying far above you right now. So I think we should all relax, fire up the Large Hadron Collider, and get ready for a view of the universe that we've never seen before.

more at http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0523/p25s02-stss.html

[PVnRT]

27. GAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Why *bonk* must *bonk* people *bonk* be *bonk* so *bonk* dumb *bonk* ? *bonk*

(not you, OP, the idiots who filed the lawsuit)

[Greyskye]

28. Are we dead yet?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

30. But but! They didn't smash atoms when they turned it on! That's not for a few more weeks!

We still have to worry!

[Bassman66]

32. Anyone who believes nothing bad could happen...

..has to ask themselves, if we already know the outcome, why are we doing the experiment?

I'm fairly certain I saw on the news a breathless, excited scientist cheerily saying "we don't know what we'll find".

The CERN track is already unique in the universe because it colder than anywhere in existence - colder than deep space, anything else unique about the experiment?

I want to know what the contigency plan is if something goes wrong.

Can we The People have a vote on it first?

[semillama]

33. Here's a resource that you should check back on often.

It may reassure you:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

[Bassman66]

35. Thanks. Are CERN saying there is ZERO risk of...

...of something very bad happening?

From what I have read:

There is a chance that mini-blackholes could be created.
Scientists say that if these appear they will disappear very quickly because of "Hawkings Radiation".
Hawkings Radiation is a theory.

There is the possibility that Strangelets will be produced, unlikely but not ruled out as impossible.
If we produce strangelets we are in trouble.

We are playing russian roulette here.

Yes perhaps it's millions to one, even billions to one that something bad could happen, but the bullet is in the chamber.

I'm not a gambler - I want a vote on it.

[Random_Australian]

45. Would a scientist say there is zero risk of putting one foot in front of the other?

Perhaps doing it at just the right time and place will cause something we've never seen before, and destroy the world.

There is a non-zero probability of that. (Ok, so not particularly far from zero, but the same argument can be made about the LHC)

[Bassman66]

47. non-zero probability

Q.E.D.

If if goes wrong.. it's THE END.

Why don't they ask The People?

[Random_Australian]

56. Non-zero probability of you putting one foot in front of the other going wrong.

QED.

If it goes wrong.... it's THE END.

Why don't they hold a vote to see if you are allowed to walk? Are you putting your selfish desires to walk so far ahead of the good of others you won't even allow a vote?

Note: This is what your argument looks like to me. And yes, you do have a non-zero probability of destroying the world by putting one foot in front of the other. You should think a little more deeply about the idea of "non-zero probability" if this all seems odd.

[Nihil]

34. Don't worry, even in the worst case the effects wouldn't reach *your* planet ...

:eyes:

> Can we The People have a vote on it first?

:banghead:

[Bassman66]

36. A smart guy. Nice.

So is there ZERO risk or not?

[TZ]

39. Whats the risk of being struck by lightning when you walk outside

Is it zero? No. We all better stay inside!!

Good grief. Learn about statistical risk assessment would you. Why in the HELL would you think scientists would do this if they thought it was going to destroy the world. Umm they live here too.
SHEEESH.

[Bassman66]

40. So you agree.

It's russian roulette and the bullet is in the chamber.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. What an idiotic response.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I've never been to Paris. Should I go?

I've never been, so I have no way of knowing if my visit to Paris will cause the world to explode.

[TZ]

43. Uh no.

We are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than swallowed by a CERN produced black hole.
Just because *I* don't understand the technology (I'm a biologist NOT a physicist) doesn't mean I'm afraid of it.
Besides I do know at least one very talented physicist in training who values his life as much as everyone and he's super excited about CERN.

[Bassman66]

46. We have no choice about the asteriod, however...

..we do have a choice about CERN.

If it goes wrong.. and nobody is saying that's impossible.. then it's THE END.

I want a say in it.

[TZ]

96. You don't understand physics

Why the FUCK should you have a say in it? Thats like saying the anti-vaxxers should tell me what to put in new vaccines cause they KNOW that vaccines are dangerous. Aye yi yi.
Yeah scientists should take scientific advice from amateurs. What is this the dark ages?

[PVnRT]

52. Yes, if the chamber has a few trillion empty chambers

Maybe we should stop all scientific experiments. Something bad might conceivably happen!

[Bassman66]

61. How is your probability determined?

Mini black holes are theoretical.

Hawking's radiation is theoretical.

Strangelets are theoretical.

How can you possible arrive at a probability?

Sounds like 'The Titanic is unsinkable' to me.

This is maddness, we are conducting an experiment with factors unique to the universe.

You do realise that if they're wrong then there will be no more wrong?

[qazplm]

170. perhaps

but then again the gun holds a gazillion bullets, there's only one bullet in the gun, and its a blank round.

[cyborg_jim]

144. If you want a risk free life... you can't have it

Deal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. That's a really dumb argument.

Seriously.

Do I have to explain why?

[Bassman66]

48. Yes. There is a risk.. yes or no? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. No.

Would it make you feel better if I said they consulted astrological charts and they said there was no risk?

[joshcryer]

38. We *know* that there are energies within proximity of earth that are much higher than LHC.

As one of the scientists said, there's a 10^-11 chance of being vaporized while shaving, there's a 10^-19 chance of LHC destroying the world.

[Bassman66]

49. So there is a risk.... everyone's agreeing.

Why weren't The People consulted?

[PVnRT]

53. That is asinine

"Why weren't The People consulted?"

Because The People think science is yucky and weird, and many of them think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

When I'm getting a diagnosis from my doctor, I don't run it by my accountant, trainer, auto mechanic and priest to make sure they're OK with it.

[Bassman66]

59. Arrogance - sheer arrogance.

Scientists know best.

Arrogance.

Scientists are sometimes wrong, that is a fact.

If they are wrong about this the result could be the end of mankind.

I want a vote.

[TZ]

97. Oh- you know more than Stephen Hawking?

Really? YOU are the arrogant one..YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD ONE FRICKEN ARGUMENT MADE ON THIS POINT.
You know what you remind me of? The people who burned suspected witches because you know, even if they possibly weren't witches one couldn't take the chance!

[Bassman66]

110. What point haven't I understood.

Nobody has told me how they could possibly calculate a probability on this!

Unless you want ti enlighten me.

You could perhaps also tell us what the contigency plan is in case something goes wrong.

[joshcryer]

147. Here's how you calculate the probablity of this.

You look at how long the sun has been sending rays to the planet.

You calculate how much energy cosmic rays empart into the atmosphere.

proton + o16 -> neutron + gamma

neutron + nitrogen -> carbon 14

From this we know that Earth is being hit by 10^14 Gev of cosmic radiation from any given point, and that we can have levels of radiation as high as 10^20.

Much higher than LHC ever thought about being. Fusion reactions are happening every single moment above the Earths atmosphere at rates far beyond anything we can currently reproduce here on Earth.

[joshcryer]

146. There's a risk that a penny in your pocket will kill you.

There's a risk that a spec of dust will make you have to have a lung replaced.

There's a risk that tomorrow an asteroid will slam into your TV during your favorite show causing you to jump up, run to get a fire extinguisher, slip, hit your head on something, sending the fire extinguisher out a window to land on a car which is driven by your mayor who in turn collides with a homeless man who is carrying a broken pocket watch that suddenly starts working as he lays on the ground dying.

There's a chance you are full of shit.

It is higher than the chance of the other things I noted occuring.

[Random_Australian]

44. Oh noes! It's nearly as cold as Heike Onnes made stuff in 1911!

It's so cold, it's nearly a thousand times hotter than what you get in regular BEC experiments!

"anything else unique about the experiment?"

Lots of things. (Leaving aside the fact that the temperature they are using is really, really not unique at all) In fact, practically all of it. Well, new arrangements of the same things we've had before.

For instance, it employs half the particle physicists in the world...... but wait, maybe putting that many scientists on one experiment will cause their density to pass a critical level, initiating a science-field collapse and destroying the world!

And the magnets are pretty big. Well, they're just lots of smaller magnets put together. But hey, maybe putting magnets close to each other will destroy the world!


In summary, today I will put silica gel together with aluminium isopropoxide. What will happen? I don't rightly know. I don't know the outcome of the experiment that I'm doing. However, I have a pretty freaking good idea that it won't destroy the world, and neither will CERN if it creates collisions far less energetic than the ones happening all the time in the atmosphere + cosmic rays.

Bar, humbug. You've no better argument that "bad things will happen at CERN" that you do "bad things will happen if you take a coin that's never been flipped and flip it"

No, really. I'll even use your argument.

Someone wants to flip a coin.

I say it could destroy the world because we don't know the outcome.

"if we already know the outcome, why are we doing the experiment?"

It's the first coin to be made of that particular arrangement of atoms.

"anything else unique about the experiment?"

"I want to know what the contigency plan is if something goes wrong.

Can we The People have a vote on it first?"

[Bassman66]

50. Scientists are always right... discuss.

..oh.. isn't that arrogance?

It's is the coldest place in existance according to the National Geographic documentary I watched a few days ago.

They said -270 degrees C.

So we're creating all these unique circumstances, things that have never happened in the history of the Universe and waiting to see what happens.

Can we have a vote?

[PVnRT]

54. ...which is not what he said.

Your arguments in this thread are little more than strawmen and continued repeating of the same thing, even though it's been explained to you a half dozen times.

People like you, who think that scientists are going to kill us all, are the reason that this country is getting more scientifically illiterate by the hour.

[Bassman66]

57. Nothing has been explained to me..

I've been TOLD there's no need to worry.

There is a risk, yes or no?

The risk is low? Based on theories that not everyone agrees on?

This isn't messing about with some chemicals in a lab, if this goes wrong it's THE END.

I want a vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Wait, what?

"This isn't messing about with some chemicals in a lab, if this goes wrong it's THE END."

What if messing with some chemicals in a lab causes the universe to explode? Can you tell me there's no risk?

[Bassman66]

75. You know chemicals in a lab isn't going to do that.

However, producing mini black holes might.

Do you deny the possibility that a black hole could be created?

Are you willing to bet on Hawking's Radiation?

Why are you willing to bet my life too?

What gives you or any of those scientists the right to do that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. How do you know chemicals in the lab won't do that?

You haven't proven it to me.

I want a vote on it.

Chemists aren't always right you know.

[Bassman66]

78. No comparsion - Black holes.

Potential end of the world.

Now are you saying that it is impossible for the LHC to create a mini black hole?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Chemical A + Chemical B = Black holes.

Potential end of the world.

Prove it can't happen.

[Bassman66]

81. OK whatever you say.

I'm all for stopping anything that will end the world.

Do you have an example of a chemical experiment in a lab that has that potential?

I know of particle experiment that does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Great, so then you're in favor of ending chemistry experiments!

"Do you have an example of a chemical experiment in a lab that has that potential?"

The fact that it hasn't happened yet means that they should be stopped in case it does.

Scientists make mistakes.

[Bassman66]

84. Only those that could end the world.

Do you have an example of one?

I know of a specific particle experiment that does have that potential.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Any of the chemistry experiments that haven't been tried yet.

Can you prove to me they won't synthesize black holes?

No?

Well then we should put it up to a vote.

[Bassman66]

87. If you have an example then tell us and I'll oppose it.

Meanwhile I'll focus on a known experiment that has that potential.

[Random_Australian]

55. My argument at no point needed the idea that scientists were always right.

Discuss, right after you discuss anything in the previous rebuttal of what you said.

Let's look at what you had to say, shall we?

1) You said it was colder than anything in existence.
1R) I pointed out that it really wasn't. I even provided examples. Here's another: superfluid helium. But Bose-Einstein condensate is the one that really pushes it.
Your reply: Repeat initial claim.

2) You said lots of the circumstances were unique.
2R) I pointed out that 'unique' really isn't indicative of 'dangerous'. For example, when you make a new coin, that exact group of atoms has never been used to make a coin before. It is unique. However, it doesn't make it dangerous.
Your reply:Repeat initial claim.

In summary, when someone questions what you say, your best argument for your ideas is to A) Keep repeating the claims and B) Imply that unless scientists were right about everything forever, your ideas about what is and isn't dangerous are correct.

Actually, this could be pretty funny. You posted "Scientists are always right... discuss", and now I want to see your rationale. Please note that the fact that scientists aren't always right doesn't affect any of my arguments at all. You might have well said "carrots are usually orange"

Because I'm sure there is supposed to be a rebuttal of what I've said in there somewhere. :)

[Bassman66]

58. OK, sometimes Scientists are wrong - FACT!

If they are wrong on this one it could be THE END - FACT!

I want a vote.

[Random_Australian]

103. Ha! Bwahahahahaha!

Oh man.

If they are wrong about "walking won't destroy the universe" it could be THE END - FACT.

I WANT A VOTE BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO WALK AROUND!

You could destroy the universe!

[Bassman66]

108. The human race is waiting...

..for a scientist or a group of scientists to screw up big time.

It only needs to happen once.

As science becomes bigger the chances of this happening increase - the LHC is one of the biggest scientific experiments ever.

Maybe it won't be this time (we don't know) but at some point down the road...

Unless you can say science doesn't makes mistakes then you can't argue with this.

We're merely waiting for the big one.

[Random_Australian]

115. Hell yes I can argue with that. It goes a little something like this:

"The human race is waiting.....for a scientist or a group of scientists to screw up big time."

In science fiction, at any rate. There are lots of made-up end of the world scenarios. Meanwhile, back in reality, replicating conditions that happen in the atmosphere all the time is clearly as dangerous as replicating the conditions of me walking to the shops the other day by walking to the shops again.

And I really, really want to know your data source for "As science becomes bigger the chances of this happening increase" as if there is some connection between the amount of scientists working on something and how dangerous it is.

No really, got anything outside of Terminator II: Judgement day to back that up? Or anything else in your last post?

[Bassman66]

123. You're saying that....

..it is impossible for a scientist or a group of scientists to make a mistake that ends the human race?

Really?

[Random_Australian]

127. No. I'm kinda looking for that in my post, and I don't see it.

I thought I saw "your standards are pretty silly" but no "scientists are perfect"

Hmmmmmm. Maybe you're having trouble understanding what I am saying?

[TZ]

98. Wait would you like to tell my all mighty GOD

how you know so well nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the universe? I bow to your omnificence o mighty zeus!
Lord of the lowly iq's

[Bassman66]

109. It hasn't.

The LHC is unique in the Universe ("for all practical purposes").

[Bassman66]

60. Google CERN + 'coldest place in the universe'

enjoy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. OK, I googled it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/cern.particle.physics2

Read down to the bottom where the science reporter made a mistake and in fact CERN will be billions of times warmer than other science experiments.

Let me know if you have a hard time following that over at the most scientifically illiterate place in the universe.

[Bassman66]

74. -270 degrees C.

The coldest place in the universe - did you read the hundreds of other links that said it was?

Oh we're arguing about fractions now are we?

The conditions in the CERN experiment are found nowhere else in the Universe.

The outcome is unpredictable.

I want a vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. All the other links are wrong.

Like the link said: there are plenty of other physics labs which reach conditions that are billions of times colder.

"Oh we're arguing about fractions now are we?"

Actually, no. YOU were arguing about fractions because CERN is fractionally colder than outer space.

I think it's a stupid point, personally.

[Bassman66]

79. Billions?

Absoulte zero is -273 degrees C.

The LHC is down to -270 degrees C.

Billions?

"All the other links are wrong".

Whatever you say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. C'mon, bassman.

3 degrees Kelvin (CERN) - 0 degrees Kelvin (absolute zero) = 3 degrees Kelvin.

3 - 0 = 3

With me so far? OK, here comes the tricky part...

3 degrees Kelvin / 0.000000001 degrees Kelvin (other science experiments) = 3,000,000,000

That big number at the end is pronounced "three billion."

So the CERN experiments are about three billion times warmer than other experiments.

I mean, you've already demonstrated you're scientifically illiterate. But this is elementary school math.

These are Sarah Palin level skills you're showing here, buddy.

[Bassman66]

86. Oh.. you arguing about

3 billionths of a degree... (smacks head)... of course!

I see what you're saying.

CERN is not the coldest place in the Universe by 3 billionths of a degree.

What about when BEC isn't running?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. "I see what you're saying." No.

We're arguing about 3 degrees.

Not billionths of degrees.

3 whole degrees.

Billions of times warmer than other places in the universe. And about the same temperature as deep space.

"What about when BEC isn't running?"

Bassman, a BEC is a kind of state of matter, not an instrument.

[Bassman66]

89. Yes but what about when it's not running?

If a BEC state doesn't exist anywhere whilst the LHC is running then what does that make the LHC?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. ...

"If a BEC state doesn't exist anywhere whilst the LHC is running then what does that make the LHC?"

That makes the LHC a really big particle accelerator which is about as cold as the liquid helium used to cool superconducting magnets in the MRIs found in any modern hospital.

[Bassman66]

90. If CERN say it's the coldest place in the Universe...

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:f3-V5o3sCgIJ:bulletin.cern.ch/eng/earticles.php%3Fbase%3Dart+cern+%22coldest+place+in+the+universe%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

...then it's good enough for me.

Maybe they know that the BEC experments are running all the time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Boy, that's weird.

You trust CERN when they claim* they're the coldest place in the universe, but not when they say their experiments are safe?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

* please show me a proper reference where they make this claim.

[Bassman66]

105. The reference was in the CERN bulletin.

And making strawmen doesn't help you argument.

[Realityhack]

141. Care to specify that "straw man"?

or do you not know what a straw man is?

[Realityhack]

140. Basic math FAIL

You are clearly either not paying attention or not even capable of basic elementary school math. We are not talking about 3 billionths of a degree. We are talking about almost 3 degrees (Kelvin).

If you can't even figure that out how the fuck are people supposed to have any rational discussion with you?

[Random_Australian]

102. 1) Google "Bose-Einstein condensate"

2) Realise that you are talking to someone who knows what they are talking about.
3) Notice that if you do google cern + "coldest place in the universe" you get blog noise. Realise that you should probably make sure you've got a reasonable source in the future.

No really. -270 celsius isn't particularly impressive.

[Bassman66]

111. I know what BEC is.

I also know that the LHC has been described as the coldest place in the Universe everywhere, including CERN bulletin releases (so they have lazy PR people).

Anyway, it's true. Unless people are running a BEC experiment 24/7 then the LHC will be the coldest place in the Universe.

The LHC is a unique environment, we are not observing a known event in the Universe, we are creating a new one - outcome uncertain.

[Random_Australian]

114. A) You keep saying that it's unique. Then you say it's unique when everything else

that goes further has been shut down. That's not a particularly strong case for "the set of circumstances is dangerous" y'know.

The LHC isn't that unique an environment either, by the way. Much higher energy collisions happen all the time all over the place. Of course, they don't happen in the presence of so many detectors, so I guess it is unique like that, but that is a bit like saying "if more people take notes at a lecture than ever before, the universe will explode!"

And no, we don't know the outcome of the collisions that are naturally here except for A) They eventually decay into more stable particles ("Duh" is the appropriate response to that) and B) They haven't destroyed the world.

[Bassman66]

118. 'The LHC isn't that unique an environment either'

It is totally unique.

Outcome unknown.

Potentially dangerous.

No contingency plan for disaster.

[Random_Australian]

120. Our conversation: (paraphrased)

Me: There are higher-energy collisions all the time. There's nothing that special here.
You: I repeat my claims, again!

I'll admit it is potentially dangerous. In the same way that me walking to the shops has a non-zero chance of destroying the world.

[Bassman66]

124. Provide a probability calculation that demonstrates...

..that the LHC is safe.

You can't.

[Random_Australian]

129. Me: "This is why I don't need a probability calculation"

You: Yes, but do you have a probability calculation?

Look carefully. You might see a small flaw in your logic.

[Bassman66]

51. Low risk.

The risk is low because the theoretical black holes will be dissipated by the theoretical Hawking's radiation, the theoretical strangelets will be positively charged, in theory negative charged strangelets will not appear.

The planet is safe - theoretically.

I can rest easy - all these scientists obviously know what they're doing.



Do you feel lucky?

[Bassman66]

62. Will the LHC surprise us?

Will the LHC surprise us?

Chris Llewellyn Smith

I hope so. Having failed to find any completely unexpected new physics for over 30 years, we clearly need nature’s help to progress, and the case is good.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tsrwUqI2ofEJ:cerncourier.web.cern.ch/cerncourier/texts/CLS-draft.doc+lhc+surprises&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

Surprises?

How can you put a probability factor on surpises and the unexpected?

Ever heard of bad surprises?

Arrogance.

[Bassman66]

63. I'll shut up if...

..someone honestly tells me that the LHC cannot possibly destroy the world.

If scientists want to do experiments that don't involve me, that's fine.

This involves me.

[FiveGoodMen]

64. If I have to keep listening to shit like yours, I'd just as soon be sucked into a black hole

You've stated your position about a zillion times now.

You're not convincing anyone.

Shut up!

[Bassman66]

68. I want a vote.

This involves me.

Min black holes.
Hawking's radiation.
Strangelets.

All theoretical, all unknowns, all potentially dangerous for THE WORLD.

Now I'm waiting, who says it's impossible that the LHC could destroy the world?

[PVnRT]

94. Why don't you explain to us what Hawking radiation is?

Since you keep bringing it up. Tell us what it is.

[TZ]

100. I bet he knows

He thinks he knows more than Hawking..he KNOWS that CERN is like NOTHING that has ever happened in history of the universe. He's Zeus ya know...

[Bassman66]

107. If mini black holes are created and Hawking's radiation...

...doesn't exist then we have a problem.

Do you agree?

What is the probabilty of either? Answer: You have no idea.

How can you side with such recklessness?

[PVnRT]

136. So, then, answer the question

What is Hawking radiation?

[Realityhack]

139. That isn't how science works.

You are far to ignorant to be allowed a say in what is and isn't done.

[semillama]

66. Would you concede that particle physicists know more about particle physics than do you?

If so, then wouldn't you think that if this project, involving half the particle physicists in the entire world, had the slightest chance of destroying the world, that they would be attempting it if they thought so?

Seriously, calm down. You're coming off like Chicken Little after the acorn dropped on his head.

[Bassman66]

67. Are you saying there is ZERO RISK?

Seriously?

Are you really saying that?

[semillama]

69. For all practical purposes, yes.

Of course, if you enjoy performing the Chicken Little routine, go right ahead and continue.


But the fact that you are still able to perform such a routine is pretty damn good evidence that there is zero risk (i.e, the world didn't end when they turned it on).

edited to add that you didn't answer my question.

[Bassman66]

72. How is your zero-risk determined.

Based on what?

Seeing as people are expecting surpises and new physics, how can any risk be assessed?

For instance, what is the probably of a mini black hole being created?

What is the probability of Hawking's Radiation dissipating any black holes created?

What is the probability of a strangelet being created?

Got any figures?

No, of course you haven't.

You're quite happy to let scientists play dice with our lives.

Scientists only have to be wrong once, then it's all over.

The arrogance of it all is astounding.

I want a vote.

[semillama]

95. You keep saying you want a vote

but I really think what you need is a pacifier.

[Posteritatis]

101. Or a veto (nt)

[TZ]

99. This guy is Johny Cochran

Who argued that DNA evidence on Simpson COULD have been wrong because there was a 1:200,000 chance of misidentification. Theres a chance! So we can't trust it!

[Bassman66]

112. Show me some honest probability calculations on the LHC...

..or apologise.

How can you calculate the probabilty of risk when you don't even know if some of the factors exist or not.

Alternatively you could continue with your strawman arguments.

[TZ]

142. I think you need to take a statistics and probability class

and maybe a basic physics and math class as well. Do you even know what the term statistically significant means?
I'm betting you have ZIP science background (except for the dubious distinction of being able to google technobabble). Most of the people you are arguing with DO. Hmm.
I think now you are just being disruptive for the sheer joy of it. I'm going to make that assumption because I'd like to think there aren't really people this stupid in the science forum.

[Posteritatis]

91. No you won't. (nt)

[Random_Australian]

104. I'll take you seriously if...

you address any of the rebuttals of your posts thus far, as opposed to replying to the post with a repeat of your earlier claims.

No really.

How about this one:
**************
By your "we must have certainty" standards, we could make the same argument against going for a walk. Because it isn't 100% certain that it won't destroy the world.
**************

This is the bit where you try to maintain that "100% certainty or else" is a standard that is sensible to adhere to.

[Bassman66]

113. What rebuttals?

Show me a risk calculation for the LHC.

You can't because you have no idea of some of the factors exist or not.

[Random_Australian]

116. ....

"How about this one:
**************
By your "we must have certainty" standards, we could make the same argument against going for a walk. Because it isn't 100% certain that it won't destroy the world.
**************

This is the bit where you try to maintain that "100% certainty or else" is a standard that is sensible to adhere to."

It seems you kinda missed that in my last post. :) It's a rebuttal of your standards, in case you hadn't noticed. (Although I'm guessing you didn't notice as you did just look at it and say "what rebuttals?")

[Bassman66]

117. That's not a rebuttal.

A rebuttal would demonstrate a probability calculation for the safety of the LHC.

But you can't do that.

Pure recklessness.

[Random_Australian]

121. What, are you serious?

"If we use your standards of 'dangerous' and 'not dangerous', then walking to the shops is dangerous."

"You've not managed to meet my criteria for 'not dangerous'! Therefore my argument is valid!"

No, really. I'm still waiting for any reason why your standards should be taken seriously at all. And no, you're not allowed to repeatedly claim that I must meet them. That tells me nothing about the validity of your standards.

[Bassman66]

122. I'm waiting for a disater probability calculation.

It appears you don't have one.

Do you want the excitedly breathless quotes from CERN scientists about "we don't know what we'll find"? (You'll find them on YouTube).

Mankind is just waiting for the day when a scientist or a group of scientists make THE big mistake.

We certainly have the capability.

Why doesn't the rest of the human race get a say in this? It affects them too!

[Random_Australian]

130. I'm waiting for you to actually read any of the posts that rebut your claims.

You claimed it was dangerous.
I showed your standards for doing so were useless.
You then claimed I hadn't met your standards.
Do you think this constitutes a valid argument on your part that the LHC is dangerous?

[Bassman66]

151. Accept the challenge. nt

[Random_Australian]

157. What challenge? You mean the probability one that's shown to be stupid with a healthy dose

of irrelevant?

Why would I do that?

Ok, I accept the challenge in the same style that you presented it: making up whatever standards you like.

Ok, so how to prove that there is no chance of disaster? Hmmmm. The standards I'll make up on the spot say that if cheese exists, then the CERN LHC has a zero chance of doing anything bad.

Cheese exists.

Therefore I win.

Challenge accepted and defeated.

[semillama]

65. Buckle up Nerds! Science just grew a pair!

http://www.bigfatwhale.com/archives/bfw_374.htm

[Bassman66]

106. Contingency plan - safe science or recklessness?

Seeing as nobody knows what exactly the LHC is going to produce, and seeing how nobody will say that it definitely won't produce the dangerous things that some scientists say it will, I wondered what the contingency plan was in case they produced something unpleasant.

Is there one?

Do they have a plan to safely isolate and dispose of any nasty particles created?

If they haven't isn't that bad science and just plain recklessness?

[Random_Australian]

119. Look at me everybody! I get to make up standards on the spot!

Seeing as nobody knows what exactly me walking to the shops is going to produce, and seeing how nobody can say that it definitely won't produce the dangerous things that some scientists say it will, I wondered what the contingency plan was in case I produced something unpleasant.

Do you think this argument is valid? No?

Well then, let's have a look at the crux of the matter: "seeing how nobody can say that it definitely won't produce (dangerous things)"

I want you to either

A) Prove that me walking to the shops definitely, certainly, won't destroy the world, taking into account the things about the universe we don't know yet (like the outcome of the LHC experiment)

B) Admit that "nobody saying there is a 0% chance of something bad happening" means sweet freak all, which in turn means the rest of your argument isn't supported at all.

Please note: Whatever standards of proof and evidence you use to "show" that my walking to the shops has a 0% chance of destroying the world, I will use the same standards to show the LHC also has a 0% chance of destroying the world. (Which it doesn't)

Now, be a good little twooth investigator and ignore my entire argument in favour of "Aha! You admitted the LHC can destroy the world! Therefore my standards are correct!"

Well, to be fair, maybe you won't. Seeing your performance in this thread though, it would suprise me.

[Bassman66]

125. I guess that's your way of saying there is no contingency plan.

Reckless.

Totally reckless.

[Random_Australian]

128. I guess that's your way of saying you don't want to admit your standards

for what is and what isn't dangerous have no value whatsoever and couldn't tell a rabid bulldog from a picture of a butterfly.

[TZ]

137. .

Would you like to tell me WHAT scientists are saying it WILL produce dangerous things? As far as I know the ones saying LHC is dangerous are LAWYERS and UNEDUCATED WOOS.
I have YET to hear ONE SCIENTIST say that it COULD destroy the world. What I hear people saying is they hear "black holes" and have built it into TEH FRANKENSTEINS ARE GONNA DESTROY TEH WORLD.
R_A's right..you've watched too many terminator movies I think.
The scientists who talk about the small black holes have ALSO SAID THEY AREN'T DANGEROUS.
Statements bolded in an attempt to force them through that thick head of yours.

[Bassman66]

126. I don't get it.

If what the LHC does happens elsewher naturally, why aren't we spending billions of dollars building equipment to observe this in nature?

How can we say that this already happens naturally if we haven't observed it, if we could observe it we wouldn't need the experiment.

How can we say it already happens when we don't know what "it" is?

"Science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing" - Alvaro De Rujula CERN

"The LHC is certainly by far the biggest jump into the unknown" - Brian Cox CERN

"We could make black holes for instance" - Alvaro De Rujula CERN

I think the rest of the human race needs to be consulted.

[Random_Australian]

131. Uh, you do realise that the detectors on the ATLAS wiegh 7000 tons and

require thousands of scientists to operate, don't you?

And you do realise that the collisions that do this in nature happen at about the speed of light at the top of the atmosphere at random, don't you?

Tell me what, you find a way to move the small center volume of the detector halfway across the sky in about a trillionth of a second and land it directly on the incoming particles, and I'll admit we don't need to make our own source.

"How can we say that this already happens naturally if we haven't observed it, if we could observe it we wouldn't need the experiment."

Well, had you bothered to read any of the rebuttals of your stuff before, it was kinda pointed out that we only see the long-term products (ie only see them after they have travelled through the atmosphere) to the nearly-stable and utterly interesting decay products, so we don't know much about what happens in the meantime other than the energy involved.

We want to know more than this, so we need to put the detectors near the source.

"How can we say it already happens when we don't know what "it" is?"

We don't. We tell you (repeatedly, not that it does any good) that the energy involved is much higher than what we can make at the LHC. We don't know how it works. We need to put detectors near the initial reaction or we will only find the stable decay products and the total energy.

[Realityhack]

134. Please note

Bassman hangs out in the 9-11 forum and from experience is clearly not familiar with scientific concepts and refuses to learn. You may be fighting a lost cause.

[Random_Australian]

135. I noticed. This whatever-it-is is mainly for my entertainment.

It's also good for pattern recognition; I want to be able to recognise it if I ever think like that about something.

But doesn't it just fascinate you? I've fought a lot of these, and it's just cool how the same pattern of refusing to evaluate one's thinking comes up again and again. I mean, there are a lot of things that influence the way we interpret others' words, but when it comes to something-or-other (particular to the person and argument) they really can't see it. Not just interpreting differently but refusing to interpret at all.

So you find what they can't see, hit them over the head with it, watch the cognitive dissonance fly, and note what it looks like. :) Then, hopefully, one is more likely to recognise if one is doing it.

Of course, this post is covered by the same clause. If he responds to this, he can't just go over what I've said and assume he is missing something he can understand; he (or she) will have to assume I am saying "my arguments are just too intelligent for you to understand" or something, or will repeat the same claim again. (Well, there are a variety of responses, but you get my drift)

Case in point:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=43628&mesg_id=43919
Was my post. Putting forward the idea that his standards are bad in as few words as possible, and trying (in this case unsuccessfully) to leave out anything else, because they have to latch onto whatever they can see.

[Realityhack]

138. In this case a HUGE factor is willfull ignorance.

Bassman asks lots of stupid questions that could be answered with a 3 second google search and then gets all confused when people tell him/her to read up on things. This is compounded when he/she decides to make comments other than asking questions.

Once the facts are pointed out Bassman seems to do everything possible to ignore that they have been pointed out. The same errors will come up again and again.

[Random_Australian]

148. Ah, call it by another name then :). Yes, that is basically what I am talking about.

"Once the facts are pointed out Bassman seems to do everything possible to ignore that they have been pointed out"

Imagine you were stuck in a Bassman like state about something. How would you know? Because neither Bassman or any of the other like him seem to know, I'm going to have to assume that I wouldn't automatically know.

So, by knowing what it looks like, you can tell, no?

But yes, you are very correct in that my conversation with him will go nowhere in terms of the subject matter. A good laugh and a bit of learning about cognitive dissonance is what I'm really after.

[TZ]

143. You know, I'm getting a feeling of deja vu...

What do think mr. "you create your own reality" would think of this? Would he make a big black hole in his own little reality?:rofl:

BTW, thanks for the very informative and highly entertaining posts on this subject. I've learned quite a bit...:)

[Bassman66]

149. Please note; I'm used to ad hominem.

Some people mistake it for argument.

[Random_Australian]

158. ..... except fairly obviously not the person you are replying to, as they weren't using it

as an argument.

Whoopsie by you!

.... or maybe you just said that accidentally and coincidentally. :)

[Realityhack]

169. Please look up ad-hominem.

I wasn't using one. As pointed out I was not arguing against anything you said. Simply pointing out that you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no interest in a factual discussion, avoid learning the facts at all cost, and frequently post the same erroneous information/questions even after they have been explained to you.

[moggie]

145. Google "oh my god particle"

Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have been observed in nature, including the so-called "oh-my-God particle":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

The OMG particle was a proton with an energy of 300 million TeV. The LHC accelerates protons to 7 TeV; two colliding head-on will have a cumulative energy of 14 TeV, i.e. this collision will be about 21,428,571 times weaker than an OMG-style particle hitting the detector. Such particles are arriving at Earth all the time, though since the Earth isn't covered will full-time particle detectors we don't get to watch them. Nature is conducting much grander experiments than those performed at the LHC, and we're still here. Well, I am; I'm not sure about you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904220342.htm

I'm surprised you haven't brought up quantum mechanics yet: that's what you woo-mongers usuaully do, isn't it? You know, how QM means that just about anything can happen, so how can those nasty poindexters be so sure of anything? Well, QM means that your body could spontaneously collapse into a mini black hole at any time. I want a vote.

[Realityhack]

132. Should we be worried?? NO. Read the LHC page with information on these isues. n/t

[Realityhack]

133. Important URL

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

[Bassman66]

150. A Challenge! Post the probability calculation...

..that proves the LHC won't create an uncontrollable mini black hole or a negative charged strangelet.

Please, no ad hominem.

Ad hominem means I win the argument.

So any of you up for that challenge?

[TZ]

152. I wanna vote!

Scientists around the world vote that googlicious amateurs don't have a say in real physics.
Or at least 9 out of 10 physicists do..the 10th one is busy getting a haircut that day!


Hey buddy..this is the science forum, we take SCIENCE not chicken littles seriously here.

[caraher]

153. I'm not sure the challenge is well-formulated

You ask for a calculation of what would presumably be a tiny probability to back up a claim that you might interpret to require a probability of exactly zero. I'm going to assume the heart of the challenge is to produce a calculation and trust that you are "playing fair" and not simply going to say, "AHA! The number is not exactly zero, therefore the physicists are lying to us!"

I should add that there are all sorts of calculations one can make that yield nonzero probabilities that represent fatal circumstances yet are not worth worrying about. For instance, there is some chance that all the oxygen in the room I am in might, just by chance, for a period of several minutes, not be present in my half of the room, causing me to asphyxiate. That number can be calculated, and is not exactly zero. Yet I feel entirely justified in calling my dying that way an impossible event.

On to the fun...

the probability calculation that proves the LHC won't create an uncontrollable mini black hole

Actually, LHC might produce an "uncontrollable" mini black hole, but surely you would agree that the pertinent worry is not merely that it would be "uncontrollable" but that it would destroy Earth prematurely. (After all, if such a black hole might destroy Earth but would do so only after a trillion years - long after the Sun swallows Earth and winks out - that should be of no concern.)

The CERN LHC Safety Assessment Group report says

The rate at which any stopped black hole would absorb the surrounding material and grow in mass is model-dependent. This is discussed in full detail in <2>, where several accretion scenarios, based on well-founded macroscpic physics, have been used to set conservative, worst-case-scenario limits to the black hole growth rates in the Earth and in denser bodies like white dwarfs and neutron stars. In the extra-dimensional scenarios that motivate the existence of microscopic black holes (but not their stability), the rate at which absorption would take place would be so slow if there are seven or more dimensions that Earth would survive for billions of years before any harm
befell it. The reason is that in such scenarios the size of the extra dimensions is very small, so small that the evolution driven by the strong extra-dimensional gravity forces terminates while the growing black hole is still of microscopic
size. If there are only five or six dimensions of space-time relevant at the LHC scale, on the other hand, the gravitational interactions of black holes are strong enough that their impact, should they exist, would be detectable in the Universe.

Reference <2> above is a paper called Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes by Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano. It's noteworthy that this paper explores the scenario where Hawking radiation does not result in black hole decay, and simply calculates the accretion rates that are possible. Their conclusion is actually that the probability of the fast-growing (i.e. fast enough to destroy the Earth in less than 10 billion years or so) runaway black hole scenario is indeed zero if you accept the physics that predicts the formation of such black holes in the first place!

The authors note that there is a threshold for black hole size where there is a crossover to "macroscopic" size. This occurs when its radius is roughly one angstrom. I direct your attention to the following results from this paper:

1. If there are 8 or more spatial dimensions, the accretion time to reach an "electromagnetic capture radius" of one angstrom for a mini black hole is on the order of 100 billion years (Equation 4.30).

2. Once it has attained this size, it still takes a long time for planet-swallowing effects to occur. Inside Earth's core, to double in size takes a time given by Equation 4.45 of roughly 1 trillion years divided by a parameter whose value lies between 4 and 18. In the worst case, that would be another 50 billion years.

This effectively sets the probability at zero. If there are fewer dimensions, the growth can be faster. For D=7, they calculate 6-80 billion years, and for D=6 the results are short compared to the lifetime of Earth. But these scenarios are inconsistent with astronomical observations of the existence of dense stars such as white dwarfs.

the probability calculation that proves the LHC won't create... a negative charged strangelet

First, the CERN LSAG report points out that

We conclude on general physical grounds that heavy-ion collisions at the LHC are less likely to produce strangelets than the lower-energy heavy-ion collisions already carried out in recent years at RHIC, just as strangelet production at RHIC was less likely than in previous lower-energy experiments carried out in the 1980s and 1990s

A detailed analysis of LHC safety that investigates the possibility of negative strangelet production is John Ellis et al's "Review of the safety of LHC collisions". The appendix looks at this in detail. They note that strangelet stability is unlikely below A=10 size, and look at the rate of production of normal nuclei with A=10 to set an upper bounds on the probability of producing stable strangelets.

Our conservative estimate for the thermal production of a normal A=10 nucleus at the LHC was 3×10^-25 times the rate of nucleon production. Taking the latter rate to lie in the hundreds, we arrive at a probability of 10^−13 that a single normal nucleus of size A=10 is produced during the entire LHC programme as a result of the essentially thermal dynamics in a heavy-ion collision.

So here's one number - one chance in ten trillion of LHC ever producing *any* particle the size of a theoretically-stable strangelet. And by far, a particle of that size would be more likely a piece of "normal" matter. The report continues...

...if LHC would run for the entire lifetime of the Universe, the probability of producing such a single nucleus via thermal production would be 1/1000. We note that the above is an estimate for the thermal production of a normal A = 10 nucleus from a hadron gas of temperature T = 165 MeV. The production of normal nuclear matter provides an extremely conservative upper bound on the production of strange quark matter. For this reason, we find that the significant empirical support for thermal particle production in heavy-ion collisions, which was further substantiated by RHIC data in recent years, strengthens the main conclusion of the 2003 report <1>. There is no basis for any conceivable threat from strangelet production at the LHC.

Bottom line: if one insists on being pessimistic, ignores a multitude of theoretical arguments against the production of stable negative strangelets and takes the production rate of negative strangelets to be given by the calculation for A=10 nuclei - surely a vast overestimate - that still places the odds at well over 10 trillion to one against making even one over the lifetime of LHC.


By the way, the validity of your statement,"Ad hominem means I win the argument" depends on a defining "the argument" in a very narrow way, something like, "I contend that nobody here can post a probability calculation without resort to an ad hominem argument." If you were to issue a challenge to find the sum of 3 and 4 and someone replied with the answer 7, accompanied by an ad hominem argument, that ad hominem arguemnt would in no way imply the substantive challenge has not been successfully met by the answer.

[Posteritatis]

154. That and "ad hominem" is not synonymous with "flame" in the first place

"You are a colossal stupidhead" isn't an ad hominem; "You are a colossal stupidhead therefore when you say 3 + 4 = 7 you can't be right" is.

Most fans of the term I've encountered seem to have difficulty with that one. Likewise the ad logicam fallacy, of which the post you responded to is a literal textbook example some places. ;)

[joshcryer]

155. Note that both possiblities require certain String Theory ideas to hold.

Stranglets for instance, while a novel idea, are non-existant in the observable universe (since all neutron stars would be strangelets).

And micro black holes are not possible under the standard model.

[Random_Australian]

159. A challenge! Post the probability calculation....

.... that proves walking to the shops won't create an uncontrollable mini black hole or a negative stranglet.

Well, actually, some argument as to why your standards of "must be certain it is safe" are at all valid or relevant to the real world would be appreciated.

[Bassman66]

156. As I thought, no probabilty calculation...

...interesting that one of the posters thinks this is a game of chicken though.

I'm not the crazy one here.

[Random_Australian]

160. As I thought, no response at all to the whole "your standards are, in a word, silly" thing.

Y'know, what with the applicability of them to walking to the shops and all. (ie. "give me a probability calculation using unknown stuff or it will kill us all... oh wait, using that, walking to the shops tomorrow could kill us all! We need a vote on it!")

Furthermore, 'one of the other posters' likened you to chicken little, running around yelling that the sky is falling. Not the LHC to a game of chicken.

[Bassman66]

161. You have no probability calculation.

Do you rule as impossible the creation of a mini black hole?

What is the probability of that?

What is the probability that it not disappear?

You're happy for scientists to play the biggest game of russian roulette in human history?

I'm not answering your questions about going to a walk because they are not relevant or realistic.

My questions relate to real possibilities put forward by the Scientific community as regards the LHC.

Real possibilities.

So do you have a risk calculation or not?

[caraher]

163. You haven proven, beyond any doubt, that you are not interested in a calculation

of any kind.

My post was quite hard to miss. Did you read it and the references therein?

Your failure to read or comprehend a calculation does not imply its nonexistence.

You're perfectly welcome to believe you're at risk from LHC, but you richly deserve every insult you've received here and more for your obnoxious attitude.

[Bassman66]

166. You have failed to provide a calculation.

Because it's impossible.

This is "the unknown".

Not my words, the words of CERN people.

[TZ]

164. Here's your probability calculation....

Seriously here's your problem--you pick and choose what you want from what CERN scientists say..only the stuff that supports your fear mongering, while ignoring the other statements that directly contradict your paranoid foolishness.
Posters have over and over given you the stats you want, only for you to either end up a) dismiss them out of hand or b) putting words in their mouths.
Why don't you answer Random_Australians cheese theory? Makes as much sense as anything that you've said.
And now, I present Bill Engval to say..."Here's your sign".....

[Random_Australian]

165. You have no reason to ask for one, save to cling to a point long lost.

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

Do you rule as impossible the creation of a black hole (not just a mini one) by walking to the shops? Please show your working, including of course the physics we don't know yet. Heh.

What is the probability of that?

You could kill us all.

You're happy for people to play the biggest game of russian roulette in human history? Even if it is just a small chance, it is one people are taking day in, day out. One of these times, it has to happen.

I'm not answering your questions about a "probability calculation" because I have no reason to believe the standards you use lead to realistic interpretations of whether or not something is dangerous. Something that happens all the time is now happening with detectors.

In fact, given the fact that I can apply "real possibilities put forward by the scientific community" to walking to the shops, it seems I could call anything I like dangerous. (eg. a specific measurement of the distribution of the atoms in the earth finds them all in the same spot. Given that the wavefunctions of all the freaking atoms extend to infinity as far as the scientific community is aware, this is actually possible.)

And that is called reasoning - I thought your point was wrong, so I gave an argument as to why it was so. (ie. with those standards you can call anything you like dangerous)

But what did you do when you thought I was wrong? Did you supply reasoning? Let's have a look.

"I'm not answering your questions about going to a walk because they are not relevant or realistic."

Hmmmm. It looks a lot like an assertion with absolutely no support aside from your faith in your reasoning to me, but maybe not. Maybe I missed the "No, these standards accurately show what is and is not dangerous, because it uses the properties x,y,z of the LHC"

"I'm not answering your questions about going to a walk because they are not relevant or realistic."

Still not seeing any reasoning. Perhaps it isn't there.

But wait?

Did you mean

"My questions relate to real possibilities put forward by the Scientific community as regards the LHC."

Well, that is actually a lot like reasoning. The scientific community did put forward possibilities.
Like the possibility that a measurement of the position of the atoms around the world could find them all in the one spot, creating a black hole and killing us all. Whoops! Maybe "possibilities" doesn't equal "danger! Danger Will Robinson!" after all.

[Bassman66]

167. Do you have any scientists saying that wlaking to the shops...

...can create black holes?

What is the mechanism for this happening.

On the other hand we have CERN scientists excitedly saying that the LHC could produce mini black holes.

I'm not the crazy one around here.

[Random_Australian]

171. It seems you are stuck in a timewarp. You appear to be posting what I just responded to.

No, really. I propose to answer your posts using only quotes from the one you are responding to.

Let's see:

You: "Do you have any scientists saying that wlaking to the shops...
...can create black holes?"

What you were responding to: "eg. a specific measurement of the distribution of the atoms in the earth finds them all in the same spot. Given that the wavefunctions of all the freaking atoms extend to infinity as far as the scientific community is aware, this is actually possible."


You: "What is the mechanism for this happening.(?)"

What you were responding to: "eg. a specific measurement of the distribution of the atoms in the earth finds them all in the same spot. Given that the wavefunctions of all the freaking atoms extend to infinity as far as the scientific community is aware, this is actually possible."


:)

[Nihil]

162. So far you have only proven one thing in this thread:

That mentally-retarded and wilfully ignorant people should not be given
the vote.

[Codeine]

168. You don't get input on this.

People like you should never - and will never - have input on scientific experiments and studies of this magnitude.

That pleases me to no end. I hope it burns you up knowing that your Chicken Little fears are discounted out-of-hand as the nonsense they are.

Science says "Suck it!"