Einstein equations indicate possibility of black hole formation at the LHC

Apr 06, 2010 By Miranda Marquit feature
A person stands in front of the huge ATLAS detector, one of six detectors that are part of the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva. (Credit: Maximilien Brice, CERN)

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the concerns that has been voiced about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is that it could result in the formation of black holes that could destroy the world. While most scientists dismiss claims that anything produced in the LHC would destroy the planet, there are some that think that black formation could be seen with LHC collisions of sufficiently high energy. This idea has gotten a further boost from recent efforts by Matthew Choptuik at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and Frans Pretorius, at Princeton University in New Jersey.

“What we did was a calculation,” Choptuik tells PhysOrg.com. “We solved some of the Einstein field equations describing head on soliton collisions at certain energies.” Choptuik and Pretorius present their work, and their conclusions, in : “Ultrarelativistic .”

“Our calculation produced results that most were expecting, but no one had done the calculation before. People were just sort of assuming that it would work out,” Choptuik says. “Now that these simulations have been done, some scientists will have a better idea of what to look for in terms of trying to see if black holes are formed in LHC collisions.”

Choptuik points out that there has been an effort for more than 50 years to marry with the idea of gravity. “At the level of classical physics we think we understand gravity pretty well,” he explains. “However, at the quantum mechanical level, gravity is not at all well understood. Scientists have been looking for a way to understand in the same way as we understand how the smallest particles work on a quantum level. While solving these equations doesn’t answer all the questions, it does substantiate what we have already assumed.”

One of the keys to the principles behind these field calculations is . String theory suggests that there are several dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions (plus time) that we see in . “If extra dimensions do exist, they could be as large as 10s to 100s of a micrometer. And if those extra dimensions are big enough, then there is a chance that the particle collisions at the LHC might be able to form black holes,” Choptuik says.

Of course, these black holes would be quite tiny, and difficult to detect. On top of that, they would evaporate almost instantly, making it even more difficult to detect whether they had even existed. “In collision like this, you would have to look at the debris,” Choptuik explains. “You’d look at the decay pattern in space. In a normal collision, you would get jets of debris. If a black hole was created and evaporated, the pattern would look more spherical than jet-like.”

However, the fact that the solution of these Einstein field equations suggests that black hole formation could be possible at the LHC is a far cry from actually detecting it. “Some are already taking this very seriously,” Choptuik says. “However, I don’t think that we are likely to actually see any at the LHC, even if it is possible.”


PhysOrg.com on iPhone, BlackBerry
PhysOrg.com Audio Podcasts / iTunes
Join PhysOrg.com on Facebook!
Follow PhysOrg.com on Twitter!

Explore further: New terahertz device could strengthen security

More information: Matthew Choptuik and Frans Pretorius, “Ultrarelativistic Particle Collisions,” Physical Review Letters (2010). Available online: link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.111101

4 /5 (63 votes)

Related Stories

What are 'mini' black holes?

Mar 29, 2010

In films and books black holes capture unwary spaceships and planets, gobble up whole galaxies or offer portals to other parts of the Universe.

Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?

May 18, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In trying to understand how gravity behaves on the quantum scale, physicists have developed a model that has an interesting implication: mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles ...

LHC Ready for Duty Again

Feb 21, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- For the Christmas holiday, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was shut down for a break and for a little technical tinkering. But next week, the hope is that the LHC will start up again around ...

What will the Large Hadron Collider reveal?

Jan 07, 2010

With its successful test run at the end of 2009, the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, seized the world record for the highest-energy particle collisions created by mankind. We can now reflect ...

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

Feb 03, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Recommended for you

New terahertz device could strengthen security

Nov 21, 2014

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

Nov 21, 2014

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

New technique allows ultrasound to penetrate bone, metal

Nov 20, 2014

Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed a technique that allows ultrasound to penetrate bone or metal, using customized structures that offset the distortion usually caused by these ...

User comments : 361

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

seneca
1.2 / 5 (22) Apr 05, 2010
We should consider, we are talking about STABLE black holes here, i.e. those, where laws for Hawking radiation doesn't apply. Physicist knew about it very well before at least ten years already. The theory of such black holes exists for years and the plan of CERN physicists is just to verify it.

http://cerncourie...rn/34938
seneca
1.2 / 5 (25) Apr 05, 2010
..but no one had done the calculation before...
This sentence just illustrates general level of preparation of LHC experiments at theoretical level (not saying about security analysis of it).

It's like to spend ten billions of USD into development of space shuttle and just after then to start with calculations, if it's really possible to fly with it. Of course, shuttle crash could kill only few hundreds people, with compare to LHC crash.
tkjtkj
4 / 5 (20) Apr 05, 2010
"Einstein equations indicate possibility of black hole formation at the LHC"


Another misleading physorg title!!! The possibilities of minute blackholes being created is called: OLD NEWS. It has been debated. There is NO new evidence that significant BH formation can occur. It has been mentioned for years that tiny BH's might form. It has also been discussed for years that cosmic rays' energies can exceed what the LHC can ever do.
"Scientific journalism"?? I think not. Is Physorg listening too much to Rupert Murdock and his methods?
seneca
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 05, 2010
...but no one had done the calculation before...

How is it possible? For what all these scientists are payed for? For twaddling?

There is NO new evidence that significant BH formation can occur
If I understand you well, all scientific theories are BS, because we cannot use them for predictions anyway. Especially at the moment, when CERN scientists are waiting for their salary. What all these poor people would do?

The situation, when scientists would change into crackpots, denying their own theories for the sake of their existence is nothing very new in human history. It's supersymmetric effect, in fact.
mlange
3.3 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2010
Another misleading physorg title!!!


agreed. Same old news, only good for getting particle physicists (you must be based on your comments:) like seneca riled up.

JayK
3.7 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2010
seneca has a PhD from Google.com and another from wikipedia.org. Everything that resembles advanced intelligence from the seneca poster is usually purloined from some blog and copy/pasted into PhysOrg without any citations.

Also, this is a repeat from a month ago. Anyone want to do a background search on the authors of this fearmongering? They're probably posters on blogs about Aether.
seneca
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2010
The same guys would repeat obstinately bellow another articles, the stable black holes cannot be formed in LHC, because of Howking radiation, blah, blah, cosmic rays, blah blah..

Well, now it's all "old new" - they're trying to cover, they all cheated the publicity whole years... If it's old new, why none of CERN security analysis didn't mentioned it? Because it was written by criminals?
croghan27
3.4 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2010
Another misleading physorg title!!!


agreed. Same old news, only good for getting particle physicists (you must be based on your comments:) like seneca riled up.



Is that Physorg or the CERN PR people that came up with the grandiose title - they seem to have no problem claiming the LHC will do everything from eating perches to changing the universe.
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2010
Especially at the moment, when CERN scientists are waiting for their salary. What all these poor people would do?


Anyone bright enough to do nuclear physics at this level is more than bright enough to make millions/billions in finance or law. This is true for most scientists. I am not saying that they don't have human foibles, want to be famous, recognized, etc., but anyone in pure science knows they will never be rich.

I know this from personal experience.
seneca
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2010
They're probably posters on blogs about Aether.
Yep, you guessed it - it's all about Illuminati conspiration..
vantomic
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2010
seneca your ignorance astounds me. go find a new hobby...please leave these boards. There will not be any blackholes, there is no danger. enough already
seneca
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2010
..but anyone in pure science knows they will never be rich..
There are many factors, for which CERN physicists are lowing their detectors like members of family. It isn't just about money. Anyway, their behavior is out of public control already. These people lack self-preservation instincts in similar way, like many sectarians. No evidence or theory would convince them about LHC disaster, until it really happens.

http://www.nature...482a.pdf

..There will not be any blackholes, there is no danger. enough already..
As we can see, no theory, no calculation could convince these people, their work is dangerous - they're all just waiting for their big crush. A version of Stockholm syndrome, maybe. These people are all psychos.
JayK
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
Yep, they're all reptile invaders from another galaxy, teleported here through the aether to dance the tango while the earth is disrupted, one photon at a time.

seneca, you're a joke.
seneca
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2010
Nope, they're probably posters on blogs about Aether. Whole LHC is one big joke.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2010
shorter seneca:
"mumble mumble mumble I'll show them, mumble grumble, fear fear, wharrrrrrrr, whirl, twin sproing, glitch! I know things, mumble mumble, red stapler"
seneca
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2010
Anyway, this situation explains, why CERN scientists have no relevant simulation of their collisions even after twenty years of LHC existence - although physicists in all other areas are spending millions for various Millennium simulations.

These guys simply don't need some - they're prepared to collide anyway, anyway. Every simulation would just demonstrate, they're dangerous freaks - which is exactly not, what these guys want. A careful observer can deduce various consequences not only from simulations, but from their lack, too.
JayK
3.4 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2010
@seneca: I'm curious, do you have to stop and refuel the crazy, or is it self-sustaining?

I'd recommend the lithium improvement, though. I think you'll definitely see crazy performance improvements with the right additives.
BH123
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
okay, the title here is definitely misleading. Talking about the formation of miniature blackholes, well we already knew what was coming. The numerical analysis definitely substantiates their formation. Can anyone explain what is it with the formation of blackholes due to existence of other dimensions (based on String theory as the article says in third from the last paragraph?)
mlange
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2010
look, I've said this before, but I'll say it again. If they were speeding up bowling balls to near the speed of light, and then smashing them together, then you have every reason to be worried. However, they are smashing hadrons (protons) together to possibly form black holes with a density NO MORE then the combined masses of those 2 protons. These black holes (if they are even detected) evaporate in milliseconds. If one of these black holes formed right next to you seneca, fortunately (or un :), you would be completely safe and still on this earth.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2010
Why lithium improvement just for me? I'm not threatening anybody with my activities & experiments. I'm just describing existing situation.

If you place a ten billions dollars at a single place of human civilization, Schwarzschild criterion will be reached and a strange things would happen - the people would behave like black hole, separated from neighboring reality.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
Talking about the formation of miniature blackholes, well we already knew what was coming.
Nope, you couldn't know, until you computed it. By all existing CERN security analysis any black hole prepared in LHC should evaporate due the Hawking's radiation. This is simply, what all CERN specialists are saying and I've evidence for it at many places of the web.
.Can anyone explain what is it with the formation of blackholes due to existence of other dimensions..
As Choptuik said, the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. By string theory, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor. If you put the corrected Planck energy into equation, you'll get the stable black hole formation even at much smaller energies, then Howking theory requires.
vantomic
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2010
I really want to know what you get out of this seneca. Enlighten me as to your true motivations. You don't know anything about physics or science and my first guess is that you are just trying to get a rise out of us.
mlange
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
If you place a ten billions dollars at a single place of human civilization, Schwarzschild criterion will be reached and a strange things would happen - the people would behave like black hole, separated from neighboring reality.


Touché seneca, that was actually funny. Although, I disagree with your stance wholeheartedly. That was funny
seneca
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2010
.. you are just trying to get a rise out of us.
Nope, I'm just trying to save my neck, because I know, how BIG idiots the people could be. I cannot travel to neighboring planet, so I really want to stop LHC experiments NOW.
.. That was funny..
Maybe it was funny, but this is not a game. LHC is fu*ing real.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
Why tiny black hole doesn't evaporate coud be understood in many ways. For example free neutrons are unstable and they "evaporate" into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. But inside of atom nuclei, the same neutrons are surprisingly stable. The same mechanism could apply at the sub-nuclear scale - it's a result of strong space-time curvature around black hole, which is behaving like tiny mercury droplet. Inside of such droplet a surface-tension pressure exist, not just hydrostatic pressure. The high surface-tension pressure stabilizes unstable particles there in similar way, like hydrostatic pressure at the core of much larger neutron stars.

In this way, very tiny black holes may be stabilized against their evaporation in similar way, like these very large ones.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2010
Who/where did you steal that from, seneca? Plagiarism is bad, m'kay?
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
So far we have evidence, this mechanism is real in jet suppression during LHC/RHIC/Tevatron collisions. During these events the products of collisions emanate quark fragments in pairs of polar jets. But when certain energy density threshold is reached, only one polar jet is formed, and the formation of the second one is suppressed. Black hole swallows its own jets! You can find many additional details about it on the web.

http://www.google...pression
http://www.suteka.za.net/?p=35
Skepticus
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2010
Judging from the level of earnestness of protests about scientists trying to explore the unknown, technophobes are fervently wishing all those wacky prophesies about the world ending on 2012 will be true (perhaps when the LHC goes on full designed power)then the whole world will be cleansed to their satisfaction. They are busily scribing their new religious dogma on their cave floors right now...
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (18) Apr 05, 2010
Seneca, if you truly believe the LHC is an existential threat of the magnitude you profess, what in the name of Hawking's speech synthesizer are you doing posting about it on these comment threads? They've already reached 7 TeV level collisions, and are on their way higher, and I can think of a dozen much more effective things you can do to stop these experiments, just off the top of my head. I doubt anybody who works at the LHC regularly posts or reads these comments, so your trolling is accomplishing exactly...nothing.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2010
I'm not technophobe regarding cold fusion, room Tc superconductivity or antigravity research. I just don't see any usage for creation of black holes at CERN underground. I doubt anybody who works at the LHC would take my comments seriously from apparent reasons.

http://www.nature...482a.pdf
mlange
3.5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
Why tiny black hole doesn't evaporate coud be understood in many ways. For example free neutrons are unstable and they "evaporate" into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. But inside of atom nuclei, the same neutrons are surprisingly stable. The same mechanism could apply at the sub-nuclear scale - it's a result of strong space-time curvature around black hole, which is behaving like tiny mercury droplet. Inside of such droplet a surface-tension pressure exist, not just hydrostatic pressure. The high surface-tension pressure stabilizes unstable particles there in similar way, like hydrostatic pressure at the core of much larger neutron stars.


lol.. seneca, you just contradicted your ideals in this statement..unfortunately you don't where and how you did. Too funny.. anyone else understand?
mlange
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
I doubt anybody who works at the LHC would take my comments seriously from apparent reasons.


because your not a physicist and have no idea what you are talking about?
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2010
That's not my point, seneca. My point is that you think these experiments will DESTROY the WORLD! So your answer to this dire prediction is not to strap a bomb to your chest to go blow up the facility, or take a rifle and snipe off the scientists and engineers running the thing, or even to sit outside the front doors with a sign, but to make a bunch of raving posts to a backwater science news website? It seems you lack conviction of your beliefs. At the very least, take your raving someplace where it stands a chance that something might happen from it, even if that's just putting you in a rubber room with a nice white jacket, and fun afternoon activities involving fingerpainting and drool.
JayK
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2010
I told you, she has a PhD from Google U. with a minor in plagiarism.
seneca
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2010
OK, show me some simulation, which would create micro-black hole and leaves Earth intact at the same moment. Until this time a precautionary principle should apply.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

In the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2010
My point is that you think these experiments will DESTROY the WORLD!

What I'm thinking is completely irrelevant, as it can be substantiated here. I'm just presenting results of various physical theories here. Everything is supported by various independent sources and I can prove it. It's not me, but various scientists who are predicting WIMPs, monopoles, strangelets and black holes at LHC and who want to demonstrate it by LHC collision.

What I really think about LHC has no connection to these theories.
JayK
2 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2010
Oh, she has a secondary Master's from the prestigious University of CopyNPaste as well.

Isn't there a streetcorner you should be standing on, seneca?
seneca
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2010
.It seems you lack conviction of your beliefs...
I needn't any conviction here. Scientists are openly claiming, their experiments are safe, while their theories and computations shows again and again, they're not. This is what is pi**ing me, not the real safety of LHC experiments (which cannot be verified in this moment). The LHC experiments as such are useless and they could be stopped without evidence of any risk - just for saving of money. I'm not here for doing fear of experiments, but of irresponsible scientists.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2010
@seneca: The very fact that the LHC is currently operating and doing experiments is evidence that the legal barriers you mention (and fail to understand) have been met to the satisfaction of the legal authorities in the countries in which it is operating and who have jurisdiction over its operation.

And you're still wasting valuable time. If they didn't make a black hole in the last collision, they might in the next one, right? You'd better hurry up and get to Switzerland before they do.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2010
My conviction is, if we would behave in completely open and responsible way (i.e. without any apparent lies toward publicity), then the Nature cannot harm us in any way. The purpose of LHC episode is to learn people new degree of responsibility.
If they didn't make a black hole in the last collision, they might in the next one, right?
Of course, "they" have both theory, both computer simulation numbers, both equipment for it.

Virtually nothing prohibits it.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2010
Oh, so now you're retreating? So you don't think black holes or strangelets or monopoles will be created? Do you believe the scientists predicting these things or not? If you do, why aren't you trying to do something productive, and if you don't, why the heck do you care that a bunch of foreign countries and the US got together a bunch of money to smash protons against each other really fast to see what would happen? It's better than spending hundreds of times that amount bombing brown people into the dirt.
seneca
2 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2010
..why the heck do you care that a bunch of foreign countries and the US got together a bunch of money...
The ignorance is one-way ticket to the hell.
..So you don't think black holes or strangelets or monopoles will be created? ..
Objects with one jet suppressed were observed already. These objects are monopoles at the same moment. Pure strangelets weren't observed yet, but the particles with strange quarks were prepared already.

http://physicswor...ws/41917

So, I have absolutelly no reason in doubt about relevance of such concepts.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
Oh, so now you're retreating?
I've no reason to stop LHC research without reason. An open scientific conference about ALL possible LHC risk scenarios must be organized. All the existing risk factors must be modeled first and their impact to disaster scenario should be calculated. The article discussed should be done before ten years without problem - so we can wait for subsequent collisions another five to ten years without problem. We are just at the very beginning of REAL security analysis.

But at the moment, when every subsequent experiment or computer simulation just elevates security risk expected, then sorry - you guys should prepare your experiments better. In this moment no CERN security analysis considers such trivial facts, like model of extradimensions, or magnetic field of black holes, or the special geometry of LHC collisions. It's all just about guessing at the moment, when all can be computed and estimated.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2010
And the most important thing: every open LIE about real status of LHC security should be punished by lost of carrier and scientific titles like every other misconduct. These things are too serious for being overlooked at future. The person at CERN responsible for completeness of security analysis must be established (like at the case of every large project). The job of this person will be to collect all public proposals of risk factors and their incorporation into estimation of total probability of disaster scenarios. The current situation, when CERN security analysis ignores so many risk factors and no one is responsible for it should lead into replacement of CERN management.
mlange
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
@seneca Answer me this, do you genuinely feel you are qualified you question the LHC's safety? Do you you feel you have an undertaking of the processes taking place inside ATOM or ALICE? If your answer is NO, why do you post such things. Personal gratification, boredom, insanity? And if your answer is yes, where did you study? Why aren't you doing more to stop this? Please be honest, the least you can do is be honest in disguise.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2010
..do you genuinely feel you are qualified you question the LHC's safety..
Of course.

Every little child can see, every publicly available security analysis of CERN simply ignores the extradimensions in stability calculations of black holes. It simply ignores the interaction of resulting black holes with neighboring matter by electromagnetic field. So far all CERN security analysis consider, black hole simply evaporate fast (although virtually every theory tested at LHC considers the opposite!), or they would react so slowly with matter of Earth, we can ignore them "safely"...

While real security analysis should consider the worst possible combination of factors, predicted by various theories - or not?

For another details

http://lhc-concer...2010.pdf

http://www.risk-e...fety.pdf
seneca
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2010
Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference

http://tinyurl.com/ya4zmm6
mlange
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference http://tinyurl.com/ya4zmm6


DUDE! (or dudete) did you even read this link you posted?

"Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to my new interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric [1]. "

his "NEW" interpretation is wrong. lol.. did you read it? Or even understand it? http://www.wissen...hole.pdf is fiction.

"2) Black holes are effectively uncharged [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence non-point-shaped mini objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely."

Duh, we know they are going to occur. Do the fuc#$ing math!!

i'll stop there. You know Rössler is speculating everything. Backed by no real science

There is no doubt in my mind you would have wanted to burn Galileo at the stake along with the rest of the ignorant
seneca
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2010
Of course, some people will never accept arguments of others, this is nothing special. Frankly, I don't see big difference between claim:

"Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime"

or

"Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is separated by many compactified extradimensions from our space-time"

Interpretations are different - but the result is always the same: stable black hole, swallowing Earth, despite the CERN security analysis claims the opposite.

Duh, we know they are going to occur. Do the fuc#$ing math!!
This is just an evasion of your. Now you have a math and what? All my posts supporting article are labeled negative. Some people will never accept the truth, until they're not punched like rabbits. This is a great feature of people, until they get an idea to create black hole at underground. After then the same obstinacy becomes a big problem.
mlange
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2010
[q}"Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime"

or

"Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is separated by many compactified extradimensions from our space-time"

ahh, you're missing the point seneca..Those 2 claims have nothing to do with our discussion. You truly have no idea what you are talking about. Do you? It's OK, I just want you to be honest of your ignorance. Sorry for engaging. Last post.. for the future, don't believe everything you read, learn it on your own. Do the work the physicists at CERN have done. Then come back with something intelligent to say.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2010
Those 2 claims have nothing to do with our discussion
This is just a bold conjecture of yours. Silly dog never understand, what the other are saying and he is unable to follow flow of discussion. But does it mean really something relevant about subject?
mlange
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
But does it mean really something relevant about subject


what? ..let's stop arguing, we will get nowhere. If you are right, I promise, I will buy you a beer in Hell when the earth is devoured by a black hole.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
If you are right, I promise, I will buy you a beer in Hell when the earth is devoured by a black hole.
So far I made many predictions. I was never wrong so far - because I'm not observing the world in the ways, the other people are describing - I'm observing it directly. Regarding your offer, I'm not buying untestable hypothesis. Rules are simple. There is a simulation of stable black hole - so that LHC must be stopped, until you derive another, more relevant one, which proves the opposite.
milford30
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2010
..do you genuinely feel you are qualified you question the LHC's safety..
Of course.

Every little child can see, every publicly available security analysis of CERN simply ignores the extradimensions in stability calculations of black holes. It simply ignores the interaction of resulting black holes with neighboring matter by electromagnetic field. So far all CERN security analysis consider, black hole simply evaporate fast (although virtually every theory tested at LHC considers the opposite!), or they would react so slowly with matter of Earth, we can ignore them "safely"...

While real security analysis should consider the worst possible combination of factors, predicted by various theories - or not?


you didn't answer his question... unless your suggesting even a little child can understand the equations that govern a black hole...
maybe i missed it, but what's your explanation on why cosmic ray collisions do not create stable black holes and the LHC does?
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2010
These people know it might be dangerous, yet they continue anyway!

From Wikipedia: Mad Scientist:
...Mad scientists also, whilst definitely being intelligent, if not necessarily brilliant, usually fail to think things through to their conclusion...

Some excerpts from the LSAG (CERN safety committee) summary report:
Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays. Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.

If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.
... So just what do they think stable neutral black holes, which remain on Earth, might do next?
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
This explanation is commonly known and it's only symptomatic, CERN criminals didn't mentioned it in their "risk analysis". Cosmic rays are formed by isolated particles, not by dense, collimated jets of counteracting protons with zero momentum toward Earth. Therefore at the case of cosmic ray collision, the same energy, which occasionally forms dense state of matter would disperse it over large volume in the next moment.
daywalk3r
3.6 / 5 (20) Apr 05, 2010
Guys and gals, please refrain from feeding the troll(s) - be it intentionally or by accident. It just makes them more hungry, hence almost allways resulting in an exact opposite of the wished-for effect.. Thank you.

And btw Seneca, if it would be required to allways falsify every possible hypothesis / catastrophic phantasms any random individum (sane or not) ever comes up with, before conducting any relevant science or experiment, then it would most definitively mean THE END of any future scientific advance. And if it were so in the past, mankind would be extinct allready - a long time ago.

On the other hand, it is not your fault for being what you are and doing what you do (in regards to this matter). Being part of a natural advancement-slowing mechanism is nothing to be ashamed of - we all are just parts of some bigger system, which in the long run would not function properly without the many roles and flavours of "us" :)

So peeps, be nice to him - it's not his fault :-)
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
Look, I presented my set of criterions, under which we could continue in LHC experiments. If you're not determined fanatic, you should demonstrate your conditions, which would convince you to interrupt these experiments.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2010
Look, I presented my set of criterions, under which we could continue in LHC experiments. If you're not determined fanatic, you should demonstrate your conditions, which would convince you to interrupt these experiments.

Who the hell are you to set "criterions" for anything?(btw, the plural of criterion is criteria) The vast majority of people who've spent their lives in this field agree that the risk is vanishingly small, and are very excited at the new observations these experiments permit. Lawyers and governments throughout Europe and around the world are not only satisfied as to its safety, but eager enough for its insights to help fund the thing. Get off your high horse thinking you know anything about what's going on at the LHC. If you knew half as much as you think you do, you'd be working there.
robvoodoo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
maybe no-one should post in these threads until there is some genuine LHC news - and make a policy of ignoring seneca, ubavontuba and whatever the other one's called - there's absolutely zero chance of hearing an interesting opinion in these threads currently :(
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
I think physorg is for people like me, it wasn't old news to me... if you all have such problems with physorg, why do you brilliant geniuses even deign to descend to the gutter with us to show us all how great you are?

I just want to see what is going on in science as someone who doesn't already know it all, been there done that.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2010
..the vast majority of people who've spent their lives in this field agree that the risk is vanishingly small, and are very excited at the new observations these experiments permit...
Agree?

http://papers.ssr...=1533367

One top CERN physicist said that most of CERN�s member-nation governments are "desperately waiting for the right opportunity to shut down the place."

"There is nobody fighting for this to survive, to continue," he said. "We have to fight ourselves�the physicists."

These people haven't done single one simulation to prove their stance. Now the first result done so far after twenty years of LHC preparation proves the opposite. These people maybe succeeded in preparation of LHC experiments, but they're completely and terribly failed in their security analysis - they did none, in fact. They fooled whole rest of civilization.
thetruechaos
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Suck it up. If we create a stable black hole, I'm walking up to the sucker and jumping in head first reveling in the fact that my species created a singularity with a couple of generators and some over complicated sewer pipe. This forum is filled with a bunch of liberal life extensionist freaks that think they are going to live forever. Personally, If I'm going down, I'd prefer it be by black hole then quivering under the sheets at 80 melting away from malignant tumors.

Be a respectable part of society and at least have the NUTS to do what it is humans do. EXPLORE, CONQUER, and ruthlessly DOMINATE our domains. Now get out of the way of people much smarter then you'll ever be, and let them do their freaking job you bunch of google.com degree holders.
Sirussinder
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
I see there are a ton of people completely in denial that the LHC is the unknown and with it come risks, even the experts know this. But I guess there are too many people, with too many agendas, who have a vested interest to push ahead with earth being the casualty. Earth is a footnote to the grand physics experiment.

Experts back in the day said the Titanic was unsinkable. My god, is this proof experts can be wrong? Am I even allowed to question them? It doesn't appear to be the case. Apparently these LHC (vested interest) scientists are gods and are playing god. But if it leads to a new weapon of mass destruction, the money flow is bottomless. Don't tell me the data gleaned from this is for the good of humankind.

The LHC today, unlike the unsinkable Titanic failure is putting everyone at risk, not just an isolated incident.

LHC safety is only based on unproven theories and observations. How encouraging is that, it is not, but don't worry the show will go on for reasons stated.
thetruechaos
3.5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
It is exactly for the extension and improvement of mankind. We do not know the fundamental structure of the universe, and for the same reasons we went forward with the Manhatten project, for the same reasons we experimented with X-rays that killed hundreds, and for the same reasons our great explorers sat out across seas and continents for new discovery we must as well be bold and discover our "undiscovered country." There is always danger, but no great thing was ever accomplished without sweat, pain, and hardwork.

Further more, if you even had a 200 level physics class you would know that these blackholes are unsustainable. Thats the bottom line. You can't squeeze 15,000,000*K into a space 10^10 or greater smaller then a plank length and expect it to magically stay there. That is absolutely ludicris.
eachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
I should probably hesitate to talk about real physics here, But...

On Hawking Radiation: It doesn't matter what sort of asinine theory you come up with that permits the LHC to create micro-black holes. (And I know some physicists who would put string theory in that category.) Hawking Radiation is one of those weird properties of QM. "Empty" space is full of a foam of pairs of particles that come into existence and cancel each other out before they can be observed. But when one particle of a pair falls into a black hole, it appears as if the anti-particle radiates away from the black hole.

The universe's grand bookkeeper sends the bill for the energy represented by the Hawking Radiation to the black hole, and it quickly runs out of mass/energy.

So it doesn't matter how the micro-black hole is created, or what it looks like inside. If you put the entire LHC, and all the land surrounded by it into a micro-black hole, Hawking Radiation would still destroy it instantly.
Skepticus
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
There was a first person who dared to play with fire and learned how to create and control it, who dared to tame wild animals, who dared to brave the vast unknown of the ocean in the first built ships, who dared to take to the air, who dared to open the hidden laws of nature to give us the power of the sun, for good or evil....more ways to die, make war, but brought discoveries that open up and changed the world forever.
The list goes on and on. Experimenting with new things has always been fraught with huge risks. But the rewards are almost always as great. If we sit down and meditate, calculate on everything we gonna do to the nth degree to make sure it will be absolutely safe and hurt none; we would still be in caves eating dead raw carcasses and wild vegs, since any dwellings we made could collapse and kill us; we are too frail to confront and kill big animals without endanger ourselves, and who we are to play God by tinkering with the natural world by farming?
abhishekbt
3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2010
I am with thetruechaos!

Seriously, I bet many of us in physorg will rather prefer to go poof with a black hole than having to bear with one more comment from Seneca (and a few others)!
broglia
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
For me whole story is extremelly unpleasant, too - I really don't want to become famous as a "man, who helped to sink LHC". I seriously appreciate all this incredible work of thousands of technicians and physicists involved. But with results presented I wouldn't wait any minute to stop LHC, being person responsible for safety of this project - the risk of LHC is simply too obvious and the assets of LHC are too distant.

The approach of LHC proponents gave me no other option - there is something rotten in the ignorant approach of CERN to LHC security and I'm not even sure, whether the benefit of society is really what drives activity of these people.
broglia
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
..The list goes on and on. Experimenting with new things has always been fraught with huge risks. But the rewards are almost always as great...
Well, and this is just the problem - the risk wasn't never so universal and large and the reward so low. Even the finding of Higgs boson wouldn't enable us to compute mass of electron more exactly, then the thirty years old Heim's theory does. So, if we understand, how this theory is really working, it can help us to understand electron structure without any blind experiments. The further progress in physics is in deeper understanding of the reality at intuitive level. Curently I can imagine a quite well, what we can expect from LHC collisions and I will be nothing special. We cannot find distinct Higgs boson and many phenomena expected (supersymmetry, monopoles) at LHC were observed at RHIC and Tevatron already. Only mainstream propaganda pretends, they're will be completelly new at LHC.
Benier_Duster
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
For 'seneca' read 'dachpyarvile', the 'terrible twins' of anti-science.
broglia
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2010
..we would still be in caves eating dead raw carcasses and wild vegs..
The relative advance in collider experiments is a product of arm race from cold war, it's separated from needs of society and human civilization has no usage for it. So far, just after seventy years of collider research we have no usage for any of hundreds of particles prepared at colliders. We can wait with high energy collider research safely for another fifty years and after then it could be done in much more secure, safe and cheaper way. It's a simple strategic decision. Our poor civilization has a quite different priorities by now. We wasted twenty years in cold fusion research, fifteen years in antigravity research and ten years in room Tc superconductivity research. I can demonstrate easily, the research interests of mainstream theoretical physics are completelly separated from the needs of contemporary society - it ignores many singnificant findings, while pretending the importance of collider research
Bitflux
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
Thanks for some great entertainment guys/gals. Might I add that every scientific minded person should study Carl Sagan's book "The demon-haunted world" - especially the part about "the fine art of baloney detection"
broglia
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
For example, when we have working simulation of black hole formation, we can study, what will happens in contact with aditional matter. Will it grow? Or it would dissolve again? Without such simulations it has no meaning to convince anybody about LHC safety.

It's evident, LHC proponents aren't interested about science at all - they just want to keep their salary generator running, because it enables them to ask for another grants. If they would be really interested about result of collisions, they would make such simulations already.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
More will be revealed on the fundamental nature of matter in a video now being prepared on "The Life and Adventures of Nellie the Neutron."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
baudrunner
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Okay - first, you need a great deal of mass to create a black hole, more than there is in the sun. Energy is mass, sure, but the energy of fourteen flying mosquitos does not represent enough mass, period. Second - I won't elaborate here, but my theory of the structure of space and how gravity is effected by the components of space(Google "baudrunner" to find out more) agrees with the observation that gravity is more powerful over longer distances, and has very little effect at the distances encountered at the quantum scale. Again, no need to fear super-gravity appearing out of nowhere. The discussions are moot, but I cast aspersion on anyone who opposes Pysorg's right to publish them. Fie!
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
Furthermore, remember that Einstein doctored his relativity equations to agree with his description of a static Universe, which, of course, was proved wrong by the astronomer Hubble years later, who observed that the Universe was expanding.

To arrive at the relativity equations, he had to introduce convenient concepts to describe first what he perceived as anomolous hypotheses of reality, such as, for example, the one where a colossal giant who uses stars for stepping stones takes a leisurely step across our solar system, and where we would see a figure moving slower than the hour hand of a clock if we looked up. That's relativity, and his mathematics grew out of ideas like that. To Einstein, mathematics was a plaything that he could use to describe bizarre ideas that occasionally had a basis in reality. Pointing to them today and saying that the LHC can produce a black hole is like proving the Universe is static. Einstein did it.
ebnv
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
the sky is falling ... the sky is falling
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2010
Suck it up. If we create a stable black hole, I'm walking up to the sucker and jumping in head first reveling in the fact that my species created a singularity with a couple of generators and some over complicated sewer pipe. This forum is filled with a bunch of liberal life extensionist freaks that think they are going to live forever. Personally, If I'm going down, I'd prefer it be by black hole then quivering under the sheets at 80 melting away from malignant tumors.

Be a respectable part of society and at least have the NUTS to do what it is humans do. EXPLORE, CONQUER, and ruthlessly DOMINATE our domains. Now get out of the way of people much smarter then you'll ever be, and let them do their freaking job you bunch of google.com degree holders.

This just shows that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2010
It is exactly for the extension and improvement of mankind. We do not know the fundamental structure of the universe, and for the same reasons we went forward with the Manhatten project, for the same reasons we experimented with X-rays that killed hundreds, and for the same reasons our great explorers sat out across seas and continents for new discovery we must as well be bold and discover our "undiscovered country." There is always danger, but no great thing was ever accomplished without sweat, pain, and hardwork.
I think many of those "hundreds" might've preferred a different fate.

Further more, if you even had a 200 level physics class you would know that these blackholes are unsustainable. Thats the bottom line. You can't squeeze 15,000,000*K into a space 10^10 or greater smaller then a plank length and expect it to magically stay there. That is absolutely ludicris.
In GR, there's no such limitation. So far, GR is the best verified theory of gravity we have...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2010
On Hawking Radiation: It doesn't matter what sort of asinine theory you come up with that permits the LHC to create micro-black holes. (And I know some physicists who would put string theory in that category.) Hawking Radiation is one of those weird properties of QM. "Empty" space is full of a foam of pairs of particles that come into existence and cancel each other out before they can be observed. But when one particle of a pair falls into a black hole, it appears as if the anti-particle radiates away from the black hole.

The universe's grand bookkeeper sends the bill for the energy represented by the Hawking Radiation to the black hole, and it quickly runs out of mass/energy.

So it doesn't matter how the micro-black hole is created, or what it looks like inside. If you put the entire LHC, and all the land surrounded by it into a micro-black hole, Hawking Radiation would still destroy it instantly.
Or, it might not work like that at all...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2010
There was a first person who dared to play with fire and learned how to create and control it, who dared to tame wild animals, who dared to brave the vast unknown of the ocean in the first built ships, who dared to take to the air, who dared to open the hidden laws of nature to give us the power of the sun, for good or evil....more ways to die, make war, but brought discoveries that open up and changed the world forever.

Never before have so few threatened the safety of so many, in the name of "progress."
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2010
I am with thetruechaos!

Seriously, I bet many of us in physorg will rather prefer to go poof with a black hole than having to bear with one more comment from Seneca (and a few others)!

And yet you wonder why we don't trust the likes of you with our lives?
Mr_Man
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
..but anyone in pure science knows they will never be rich..
There are many factors, for which CERN physicists are lowing their detectors like members of family. It isn't just about money. Anyway, their behavior is out of public control already. These people lack self-preservation instincts in similar way, like many sectarians. No evidence or theory would convince them about LHC disaster, until it really happens.

http://www.nature...482a.pdf

..There will not be any blackholes, there is no danger. enough already..
As we can see, no theory, no calculation could convince these people, their work is dangerous - they're all just waiting for their big crush. A version of Stockholm syndrome, maybe. These people are all psychos.


Senica, WHAT is your problem? Are you flaming just to flame? Do you REALLY think all those physicists do not care about endangering people?
Mr_Man
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
I can't believe the Black Hole issue is still being debated. Even if they showed their math that would explain the impossibility that a catastrophic black hole would form none of you (nor I) would understand it.

But it seems more common sense to me anyway. A couple protons colliding, if they were to produce a black hole, there is so little matter there that of course it would just exhaust quickly. Don't compare this to a super massive star that has imploded after a supernova, we are talking about an almost infinite difference in the amount of matter between the two.

With so many people involved, I seriously doubt the project would move forward if there was even a chance of a threat to the planet. I'm willing to bet my lunch money that at least a few of those physicists have family they wouldn't want to endanger, not to mention all of humanity..

So many people are so afraid of advancing our scientific knowledge. It is really a shame.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
@seneca

All (Nature's) information that we 'sense'(as well as 'thought'), including...
all (Nature's) information sensed with enhanced perception...still exists.

It's almost ironic, LHC's strongest argument to exist - is defended with inconsistent logic/math!
May the 'best' prevail! :)
frajo
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
So many people are so afraid of advancing our scientific knowledge. It is really a shame.
I don't think there are many. They've all gathered here because they know that elsewhere nobody will pay any attention to them except maybe calling for an ambulance. I don't want to insult anybody but I really think these people have a major psychological problem.
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
Without being a partypooper, this is what will happen.

Inexplicable signatures.
Inexplicable consistent signatures.

From either standpoint, experimental or theoretical, simply inexplicable.

Frenzy activity! (Check the machine! Oh damn! it's NOT the machine!)

Frenzy activity! (Check the math! Oh damn! The math is fine too!)

And here is where, dear readers, my story ends and yours begins! :) I
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
Experts back in the day said the Titanic was unsinkable. My god, is this proof experts can be wrong?
The Titanic was scuttled because the age of air travel was about to begin, and people needed to distrust ships more than planes. It was a strategic military and economic necessity, as is LHC.
We wasted twenty years in cold fusion research, fifteen years in antigravity research and ten years in room Tc superconductivity research.
"Everything is beautiful in its own Time." Research and discovery must happen in the proper sequence. The LHC's time is NOW. If these other things are possible then their development will only take place when the world is ready for them. Seneca, just picture these technologies emerging at the wrong time. What instabilities would be created? What power bases would be unacceptably lost? The world will not be given over to chaos and destruction, no matter how impatient some of us are.
CSC
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
I find it very odd that just about everyone here assumes that Hawking radiation will destroy any black hole formed, if one is formed at all. There is no experimental evidence for Hawking radiation, it is a fantastic theoretical concept, and probably right, but most theory requires some form of revision when reality strikes it. The point about cosmic rays is valid and provable, so I doubt we are going to see much happen. The LHC is there to separate what is reality from what was a good and interesting idea, string theory for instance, cool math and probably wrong. Hawking radiation?
Giablo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
I find reading the comments on this article a much better read then the article itself.all of the bickering back and forth is doing nothing to stop the LHC and so other then whining to a select group of people the frequent this site, it's not accomplishing a whole lot. IMO.
bugmenot23
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2010
We do not know the fundamental structure of the universe, . . .

Further more, if you even had a 200 level physics class you would "know" that these blackholes are unsustainable. Thats the bottom line. You can't squeeze 15,000,000*K into a space 10^10 or greater smaller then a plank length and expect it to magically stay there. That is absolutely ludicris.


True scientists advance knowledge rather than regurgitating other's theories. How many armchair scientists have we proving their credentials by insulting those who question, or entertain other possibilities. After all, the scientific method requires an open mind and A healthy skepticism.

If you wont seriously consider all possibilities then you aren't sufficiently scientifically minded either. Science become's stale due to Ignorance of this type. We know this, this, this, this, this,. . . So THIS is not possible,. . . Theoretically. . .

Oh yeah. We are smashing particles to confirm these theories. Wait A minute. . .
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
..We are smashing particles to confirm these theories.
Yep, that's the problem. We aren't smashing particles to confirm theories, which predict safe evaporation of black holes. We are smashing particles just to confirm theories, which predict formation of stable black holes.

And this is what scares me. Are scientists a (self)murderers? You can say, they're not - of course. But why, exactly? I cannot see any other interpretation. This logics is undeniable.
bugmenot23
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2010
Pretty sure for many it is primarily an ego/status thing. The mindset promoted by the faithful in this thread.

Superiority complex is considered an illness/imbalance to many (me).

Evidently, so is difference of opinion, . . . opposition of the accepted mainstream viewpoint, but that is nothing new. . .

The Galileo comment was particularly ironic. . .
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
The scientific revolution has made many useful things for civilization. But like every other revolution, it starts to devour its own children. It has no meaning to protest against it, because it's an inherent property of every idea. It's a consequence of supersymmetry, i.e. the phenomena, which should be tested at LHC too. Due the dispersion portion of any energy would spread through fractal foam in any direction, i.e. against original direction too. Every blind extension or any rule would lead to its denial in less or more distant perspective in accordance to Goedels principle. We should be only prepared to it - and our scientists too. The road to hell is always pawed with good intentions.

What I wanted to say, the present situation poses absolutely no surprise for me. I expected it and I predicted it. If we give scientists too much money, they will turn them against their donators and absolutely no power could prohibit it - it's a geometric law of emergent nature. You've been warned
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
The people generally believe, the more scientific research, the better. We can never get enough of science. Uhm, well...

Every player of strategic games like Civilization or WoW knows quite well, it has no meaning to invest into research of resources blindly if the player has no usage for them. Therefore, the prioritization of research is a completely strategic decision.

The worse, the relative advancement in some particular area could become dangerous for another areas of research not just because it serves as a drain of money, but because it becomes source of imbalance and it's potentially dangerous. The researchers simply cannot estimate well, what they're playing with. And it does not matter, whether it is a collider research of artificial virus research.

Nevertheless, the black hole or strangelet scenario is ultimate. Strangelets are self-replicating like viruses, but they cannot be shielded by thin plastic foil, like common viruses. Spraying them with acid won't help us, too.
kraisar
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2010
If the strangelet conversion idea was true we'd have seen this with neutron stars (possibly even objects in our solar system, but definitely in neutron stars). An ultra-high cosmic ray hits a neutron star, creates a stranglet and converts it causing this feared reaction. Given the age of the universe by now most neutron stars should have been converted if strangelets are self-replicating (the more converted, the more that can 'shed' strangelets and so forth. However neutron stars are well described by being made of nuclear matter as it fits better with observations (yes observations) of magnetars and bursts.

As for black holes, ignoring some of these require far-fetch string theory ideas, a neutral black hole formed by the LHC would have the rest mass of 2 protons at most. It'd be VERY VERY small. Even if it didn't decay, it'd take longer than the lifetime of the earth before a collision with an atom (consider the cross-section of such a small particle).
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
..a neutral black hole formed by the LHC would have the rest mass of 2 protons at most..

OK, what will happen, for example, if some speckle of dust or rust falls into path of proton beem, i.e. between all protons inside of collider at single moment? In just one millisecond the whole content of collider will be thrown into single place like hammers from both sides with energy of whole running train - i.e. not just a "few mosquitos".

The occurance of such speckle of dust inside of collider pipe is in fact quite probable there, because the inner surfaces of collider pipe will be continuously eroded by particles - products of collisions all the time. It's one of many risk scenarios neglected in CERN security analysis. I just want to see computer simulations of this event - all these well-minded speculations have no place in science.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2010
The people generally believe, the more scientific research, the better. We can never get enough of science. Uhm, well...


The first casualty will be mathematics. It was fun though - while it lasted.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2010
...a neutral black hole formed by the LHC would have the rest mass of 2 protons at most...

This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass. It depends on how much energy escapes in the collision (it's mass is equivalent to the total energy in the collision, minus any escaping parton radiation).
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
http://www.physor...483.html

Analyzing the commentary here leads to the inescapable conclusion...

Insufficient estrogen. :)
broglia
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
The first casualty will be mathematics.

There is another problem, the scientists aren't unable to follow all existing research into area, which leads into duplication of research. Sometimes less is better. Do you know for example, many data from LEP (old version of LHC) were never analyzed and today are unavailable from various reasons (ageing both SW, both HW)?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1803
frajo
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
If you wont seriously consider all possibilities then you aren't sufficiently scientifically minded either. Science become's stale due to Ignorance of this type.
Do you seriously postulate that "all possibilities" have to be considered? The possibility of gods in heavens, of an earth central to the universe, of a flat earth, of ptolemaic epicircles, of a biblical doomsday? I don't think so. I think you just wanted to say something in favour of the LHC opponents without looking as narrow minded as they do. Didn't work, sorry.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2010
The mindset promoted by the faithful in this thread.
Superiority complex is considered an illness/imbalance to many (me).
You don't see the faith of the doomsayers in their obscure thinking. You don't see the superiority complex of those who insult thousands of international scientists as "criminals". That's one-eyed, sorry.
broglia
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
..who insult thousands of international scientists as "criminals"...
Sorry, but the approach of CERN scientists follows generic model of criminal scientists from various movies, who is knowingly testing just the most dangerous scenarios possible, while pretending, this scenario isn't dangerous at all. If this approach isn't criminal behavior, then I really don't know, what else could fulfill the criminal definition.

All CERN physicists are engaged in this plot, because everybody of them could notify the publicity about convergence of various theories tested at LHC and various disaster scenarios. And no one did it.
broglia
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2010
You don't see the faith of the doomsayers in their obscure thinking.
The problem of CERN isn't just another "Year 2012" problem. It's a problem of divergence of scientific theories and their intepretations regarding LHC safety at public. These theories are existing, real and supported by existing experiments done so far.
JayK
2 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
Do you know what your problem is, broglia? You get all your science from movies. Now go watch some more and leave these kinds of discussions to those that understand the real science. Oh, what is that? Is that your batphone ringing? Or maybe James Bond needs your help! Quick, to the broglia cave!
kraisar
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

Woops right, a brain fart there. But this doesn't really diminish my point. Even if you imagine a total of 14 TeV going into making this black hole that isn't a lot of energy. It'd be smaller than the planck length so I guess you could be generous and say somehow it will be that big or even slightly bigger. It is still a far far far cry away from being the 'size' of even a proton.

OK, what will happen, for example, if some speckle of dust or rust falls into...

Even if you follow this highly unlikely scenario, we're talking a few grams likely (and certainly no more than a kg). Even if you suppose the entire kg got converted to energy somehow and turned into a black hole, it'd be smaller than a proton still by many orders of magnitude. Simply put, these things simply have too small of a cross-section to effectively even interact with regular matter on anything other than huge timescales!
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2010
these things simply have too small of a cross-section to effectively even interact with regular matter on anything other than huge timescales
Yep, this is another assumption of CERN security analysis, which is completely wrong by last theories and/or experiments, because products of collision would always interact by another fields, other then gravity. During recent RHIC collisions a record breaking magnetic field was created - such magnetic field would act to distance, which is definitely larger, then some proton.

http://www.physor...977.html

In addition, from theories & recent astronomical observations follows, when black hole swallows some matter, it will create a magnetic field, which drags additional matter in avalanche-like mechanism, until source of matter is depleted.

http://www.univer...-matter/

We can expect, when some black hole would be created at LHC, the further process will be pretty fast
kraisar
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2010
So you are basically taking an unrelated result (who would have thought a plasma of all things could be charged) and apply it to something different. Next you presume it will immediately somehow interact with something that could 'charge' it as well. Problem is, it would start off neutral. Maybe once it ate something it may get some form of 'charge' but you run into a problem here. Because once it eats something, say a proton it will basically act like a proton and get an electron to orbit it thus shielding the charge effect again. If it ate a negative charge then maybe a proton would get eaten and then it's back to neutral with no real change in size. For all intents this black hole would be more elusive than a neutrino and we only see those because there are such huge numbers of them. Sorry to say, but just eating a proton or so won't somehow generate a gargantuan magnetic field...the process is completely dissimilar to the quark-gluon plasma result of RHIC.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
My conviction is, if we would behave in completely open and responsible way (i.e. without any apparent lies toward publicity), then the Nature cannot harm us in any way.
Assuming I read this mismash of words correctly, what you're saying is, if we're all honest, nothing in nature can kill us.

Ok then....
This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass.
From where does this energy and additional mass come from? You do understand the conservation principles don't you?
We can expect, when some black hole would be created at LHC, the further process will be pretty fast
By what calculation?

There's a running trend with you LHC opponents, lots of big words, no math, no scientific reasoning or logical proofs for your stances.

Provide just one means by which to even hint at your stance that I can't flatly disprove and I'll stop calling you a kook.

LuckyBrandon
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2010
I could have sworn I read an article at some point on here that a super tiny black hole has already been created for something like 30 billionths of a second in a much much smaller collider. Based on that, it is VERY likely that black holes will be made, and be several orders of times larger than that one made in the, by comparison, mini collider.
BUT, several orders of times larger in this case means it may last a billionth of a second instead of 30 billionths of a second...still no need for worry...
If I'm wrong of course, I'll be eating my words over the course of years in what is actually a day while we get sucked in....
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2010
..you are basically taking an unrelated result.. and apply it to something different..
Nope, this is a quite normal extrapolation of well known behavior of black holes to products of LHC collisions.
it may last a billionth of a second instead of 30 billionths of a second.
Maybe you should take a look at the simulations, presented in this article. In these results, micro-black holes are infinitely stable. In accordance with this, Randall/Sundrum and some others are believing, they could constitute a substantial portion of dark matter. Such things couldn't be possible, if micro-black holes would evaporate in some fraction of second.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3356
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2308
http://www.space....day.html
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2010
Next you presume it will immediately somehow interact with something that could 'charge' it as well. Problem is, it would start off neutral.

In this article RHIC collisions created the most powerful magnetic fields known so far and you're still assuming, the black holes formed at LHC will be innocent neutral marbles?

http://www.physor...977.html

..From where does this energy and additional mass come from? ..
Unpleasant property of black holes is, once created, they don't require any additional source of energy and mass to swallow matter from their neighborhood - they will created it just by this accretion. They're growing like viruses into account of their environment. Regarding the magnetic field formation during accretion, I've no calculations, but you can read these articles.

http://www.nasa.g...eld.html
http://www.scienc...858.html
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2010
There's a running trend with you LHC opponents, lots of big words, no math, no scientific reasoning or logical proofs for your stances

The running trend of LHC proponents goes as follows: Nope, no black hole can be formed in LHC. Even if such black holes will be formed by pure accident, they would evaporate fast. Even if such black holes wouldn't evaporate fast, they would interact so slowly with Earth, they're effectively harmless(?!?). Even if they would interact fast, there's nothing to worry about, CERN scientists have backup plan definitely...

And of course, nothing from the above is supported by simulations and calculations - as Choptuik said, his simulation is very first one regarding black hole formation during collisions. Sorry, but what I can see is rather gloomy picture of complete amateurism.
kraisar
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
The running trend of LHC proponents goes as follows: Nope, no black hole can be formed in LHC. Even if such black holes will be formed by pure accident, they would evaporate fast. Even if such black holes wouldn't evaporate fast, they would interact so slowly with Earth, they're effectively harmless(?!?). Even if they would interact fast...

They wouldn't interact fast. Being neutral they would be more elusive than a neutrino. Once again I don't see how you can justify carrying over a result from a quark-gluon plasma into a black hole in terms of magnetic fields. First off the bubbles of various parity violating regions were predicted via known physics, so nothing new there, second the magnetic field arises from the very large nuclei passing so close and colliding and it is this generated field that allowed them to detect the effects. There's nothing in there that would say a black hole would get charged up from two protons colliding; it is completely different.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
Don't thank me.
Mathematicians have made two assumptions.

1.)Math is harmless.
2.)Proof that math is harmless.

Statement 1.) is true.
Statement 2.) is unprovable - there is no proof within current mathematics.

We, therefore, (in layman terms), say, when in doubt, the precautionary principle applies.

We are abandoning the human endeavor called mathematics.
For safety sake. It's 'evil' outweigh it's 'good'.

Although the precautionary principle is complete and inconsistent, making it immune to Gödels' Incompleteness Theorem, we throw caution to the wind (no pun intended) and relinquish our throne to that of a 'lesser' principle - the precautionary principle.

We foresaw the current, present situation. We forestalled our own culpability, and instead, demanded, expected, and required that, a part of human nature called interpretation, through denial, be non-existence.
That was our inexcusable defense. Who are we to say that mathematics has the right to exist, along with Nature?

seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2010
They wouldn't interact fast. Being neutral they would be more elusive than a neutrino..
Why they should be neutral? All strangelets are assumed to be of positive charge. During RHIC collisions neutral particle formation was never observed. And resulting black hole object can be detected pretty easily by their magnetic field and jets. You talking about your dreams only, which have nothing to do with reality.

http://www.physor...977.html
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2010
This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

Woops right, a brain fart there. But this doesn't really diminish my point. Even if you imagine a total of 14 TeV going into making this black hole that isn't a lot of energy. It'd be smaller than the planck length so I guess you could be generous and say somehow it will be that big or even slightly bigger. It is still a far far far cry away from being the 'size' of even a proton.
The presumes a theory of quantum gravity and it asserts its size is equal to the diameter of its event horizon, when the event horizon isn't even physical! You might just as easily reason that its size is equivalent to the reach of its gravity (it's infinitely large too?).
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2010
Even if you follow this highly unlikely scenario, we're talking a few grams likely (and certainly no more than a kg). Even if you suppose the entire kg got converted to energy somehow and turned into a black hole, it'd be smaller than a proton still by many orders of magnitude. Simply put, these things simply have too small of a cross-section to effectively even interact with regular matter on anything other than huge timescales!
Now, you're ignoring the energy density within the earth and particle/wave duality.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic
This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass.
From where does this energy and additional mass come from? You do understand the conservation principles don't you?
What, you didn't know? It's simple E=m/c^2. The mass/energy is from the kinetic energy of the collision, plus the rest mass/energy of the protons.
hush1
Apr 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
What, you didn't know? It's simple E=m/c^2. The mass/energy is from the kinetic energy of the collision, plus the rest mass/energy of the protons.

7 TeV plus the mass of two protons is not anywhere remotely close to ten times more mass let alone tens of thousands of times the mass.

I'd suggest it is you who does not understand relativity as you seamlessly switch back and forth between special and general while confusing terms from both.

Physics - where Mathematics takes on new meaning. :)

Only if you can actually understand it, which the majority of posters here obviously do not.
kraisar
3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010
That won't stop them from acting like they know it. They probably haven't ever even tried to calculate something simple like the lifetime of the muon at tree level.
To address the thing about charged black holes, that is easy enough to rule out by the fact the solar system is still here. If charged mini-black holes were likely at all to be produced they would interact very strongly with a body. Since cosmic rays routinely trump our highest energy experiments and have been for billions of years, if one were to be formed it would experience a strong braking force from magnetic fields and other interactions with charged particles and ultimately interact with whatever body it happened to be on. It's the same reason why any other charged particle loses so much energy by the time it reaches ground level compared to at the top of the atmosphere. That only leaves the neutral ones and once again, being neutral and very vanishingly small their cross-section will make neutrinos look easy.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
Couple with that the fact that vaccuum energy would prevent collective charge on an unltradense body, that's if a blackhole can even have an imbalanced charge. The physics do not support charged blackholes, merely axial charges which are only manifest with accretion due to ultradensity.

The aether theorists like to assume that energy density is of no consequence within a singularity. Current mathematics and observations entirely disagree with non-limited density charge interactions.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2010
That won't stop them from acting like they know it
It's just the CERN scientists, who are acting, like they know, product of LHC collisions are completely safe. Whereas from article above it's evident, no one computed the collisions simulation until now. This article is the first attempt - and its results were positive: yes, stable black hole can be formed in LHC collisions. While CERN physicists claimed the opposite for whole decade...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010
Whereas from article above it's evident, no one computed the collisions simulation until now.

No, the models and calculations have been run again and again since before we commisioned the RHIC as that was the first collider that we had any form of uncertainty in regards to odd particle and BH production.

What happened here was someone like you, a detrator (but most likely infinitely more skilled in the art), took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC. This was improperly extrapolated to the probability of a BH formation at the LHC. The "destruction" is still left up as total assumption, and not supported by the statements or findings of the paper on which the abstract is based.

In short: GO READ THE PAPERS YOU THINK SUPPORT YOUR ERRONEOUS STANCE.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
This isn't true. It could have 10's of thousands of times more mass...

Woops right, a brain fart there. But this doesn't really diminish my point. Even if you imagine a total of 14 TeV going into making this black hole that isn't a lot of energy. It'd be smaller than the planck length so I guess you could be generous and say somehow it will be that big or even slightly bigger. It is still a far far far cry away from being the 'size' of even a proton.

This isn't necessarily true either. As thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, we're all of a sudden talking about multiples of your 14TeV!

Supposing you're representative of the scientists working on this project, is there any remaining doubt as to why we shouldn't trust you?
JayK
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010
This isn't necessarily true either. As thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, we're all of a sudden talking about multiples of your 14TeV!

And you fail, ubavontuba. Go take your sign and your soapbox and stand on the streetcorner with seneca.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
What, you didn't know? It's simple E=m/c^2. The mass/energy is from the kinetic energy of the collision, plus the rest mass/energy of the protons.

7 TeV plus the mass of two protons is not anywhere remotely close to ten times more mass let alone tens of thousands of times the mass.

Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?

Plus, you do know that thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, right?

I'd suggest it is you who does not understand relativity as you seamlessly switch back and forth between special and general while confusing terms from both.
Oh, you mean like Stephen Hawking did?

Supposing you're representative of the scientists working on this project, is there any remaining doubt as to why we shouldn't trust you?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
To address the thing about charged black holes, that is easy enough to rule out by the fact the solar system is still here. If charged mini-black holes were likely at all to be produced they would interact very strongly with a body. Since cosmic rays routinely trump our highest energy experiments and have been for billions of years, if one were to be formed it would experience a strong braking force from magnetic fields and other interactions with charged particles and ultimately interact with whatever body it happened to be on. It's the same reason why any other charged particle loses so much energy by the time it reaches ground level compared to at the top of the atmosphere. That only leaves the neutral ones and once again, being neutral and very vanishingly small their cross-section will make neutrinos look easy.
This is actually true, except you're mistaken about the cross section. It's absorption cross section is proportional to its mass AND its relative velocity.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010

Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?
Do you know what mass a particle containing 7 TeV would have? Here's the math since you're too simple to do it. 7 TeV / c^2. Go ahead and calculate that in atomic units and tell me how massive it is.

Plus, you do know that thousands of black holes could occur with each event, and their relative momentums could carry them into each other, right?

You do realize that the vast majority of collisions in all colliders are single nucleus collisions right?

Oh, you mean like Stephen Hawking did?
And you don't understand what Hawking was calculating.

Supposing you're representative of the scientists working on this project, is there any remaining doubt as to why we shouldn't trust you?
If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.
Slotin
1.2 / 5 (24) Apr 08, 2010
.No, the models and calculations have been run again and again since before we commisioned the RHIC as that was the first collider that we had any form of uncertainty in regards to odd particle and BH production.


"Our calculation produced results that most were expecting, but no one had done the calculation before. People were just sort of assuming that it would work out," Choptuik says.

Well, everyone can see, you apparently didn't read even the article, we are disputting by now. Anyway, it's your turn - if you believe, Mr. Choptuik is lying and someone else has done the computer simulations of black hole formation at LHC before, feel free to provide us a link to these simulations. FI'll accept no other babbling instead of this evidence - just provide link(s) and stop BS'ing us. You should provide at least two links (..."calculations have been run again and again") and after then we will discuss their relevancy regarding to various theories, which are tested at RHIC/LHC
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2010
Couple with that the fact that vaccuum energy would prevent collective charge on an unltradense body, that's if a blackhole can even have an imbalanced charge. The physics do not support charged blackholes, merely axial charges which are only manifest with accretion due to ultradensity.
Here we get to the meat of it.

So, you're essentially saying that any mass accrual sets up a magnetic field that strongly attracts more mass, that increases the magnetic field that even more strongly attracts more mass...
Skeptic_Heretic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
it's your turn - if you believe, Mr. Choptuik is lying and someone else has done the computer simulations of black hole formation at LHC before


1)http://www.spring...KKU9.pdf
2) http://www.redorb...mulator/
And you're done.
So, you're essentially saying that any mass accrual sets up a magnetic field that strongly attracts more mass, that increases the magnetic field that even more strongly attracts more mass...

No, I'm saying that the only time magnetic charge is manifest is by detecting the magnetic field stripping of accreting matter. The BH remains neutral at all times due to vaccuum flux. What are your credentials, this is introductory education.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2010
a detrator... took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC
This is a complete BS, no RHIC datasets were used in these simulations. The Choptuik's article even doesn't contain "RHIC" word, you naive liar... :-) It's typical ab-inicio simulation.

http://arxiv.org/...80v1.pdf

..GO READ THE PAPERS YOU THINK SUPPORT YOUR ERRONEOUS STANCE..
Stop advising and pretending, you know something about subject. You didn't read it at all and it's a second time during last few posts, you've been proven lying.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2010
Do you know what mass a particle containing 7 TeV would have? Here's the math since you're too simple to do it. 7 TeV / c^2. Go ahead and calculate that in atomic units and tell me how massive it is.
Oh brother. Hurt feelings much? Notwithstanding, you completely failed to understand the consequences of these collisions.

You do realize that the vast majority of collisions in all colliders are single nucleus collisions right?
Ah, but this is the first time we've been talking about mutually attractive, condensed matter. It's a whole 'nuther thing.

And you don't understand what Hawking was calculating.
Really? I wonder who else noticed he apparently missed the kinetic energy between the infalling virtual particle and the black hole?

If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.
Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2010
No, I'm saying that the only time magnetic charge is manifest is by detecting the magnetic field stripping of accreting matter. The BH remains neutral at all times due to vaccuum flux.
Ah, but isn't this magnetic field surrounding the "neutral" micro black hole attracted to say, iron? Isn't the earth's core largely comprised of iron?

What are your credentials, this is introductory education.
Says the twit who couldn't recognize fibrous rock and couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010
One poster, 2 accounts, same viewpoint, same inability to read.

This is a complete BS, no RHIC datasets were used in these simulations. The Choptuik's article even doesn't contain "RHIC" word, you naive liar... :-)
I know you didn't read the paper that fast and secondly you asked for two black hole creation simulations that you asserted were never done. I provided 2. So who's the naive liar?
Ah, but this is the first time we've been talking about mutually attractive, condensed matter. It's a whole 'nuther thing.
Which completely invalidates your zero inertial reference frame foolishness that is the basic underlying statement of why LHC collisions are special according to your argument.
Ah, but isn't this magnetic field surrounding the "neutral" micro black hole attracted to say, iron? Isn't the earth's core largely comprised of iron?
Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the field is generated by said core?
Skeptic_Heretic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.

Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.
And you are?
Says the twit who couldn't recognize fibrous rock and couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!

Comming from the twit who assumed that the same "fiberouos" piece of sandstone on Mars was a petrified tree.

You've been called out and established as a troll and looking at the general lack of comments from other posters, I can only assume that they've given up attempting to redress your foolishness, Alizee/Slotin/ubavontuba/Alexa.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
One poster, 2 accounts, same viewpoint, same inability to read.
Naw, that would be you, as evidenced by the way you instantly rate yourself and your opposition.
Which completely invalidates your zero inertial reference frame foolishness that is the basic underlying statement of why LHC collisions are special according to your argument.
You're confusing me with another poster. Try keeping the context by only replying to one post at a time.
Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the field is generated by said core?
The magnetic field of the black hole's accretion disk is generated by the earth's magnetic core? How does that work?
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2010
..And you're done.

BlackMax simulation package can downloaded from there

http://www.hepfor...lackmax/

It's described here:
http://arxiv.org/...12v4.pdf

This package doesn't no simulations of particle collisions at all. Instead of it, it computes decay modes of black hole preset modes. Try it again.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2010
Before further discussion with you I'm expecting your stance to the sentence "(Choptuik) took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC" regarding the fact, his article doesn't contain "RHIC" word.

Without relevant explanation I wouldn't discuss with you anymore. I'm not wasting time with liars.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
Says the twit who couldn't recognize fibrous rock and couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!

Comming from the twit who assumed that the same "fiberouos" piece of sandstone on Mars was a petrified tree.
Saying it resembles something and saying it is something are not the same thing.

You've been called out and established as a troll and looking at the general lack of comments from other posters, I can only assume that they've given up attempting to redress your foolishness, Alizee/Slotin/ubavontuba/Alexa.
As I've stated before (and obviously unlike you), I only have the one account. I'd ask the moderators to verify this, if I knew how.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
So let's go back to your initial assertion and see if you can exemplify your point.

Where does the above researcher state that Black Hole formation will be catastrophic? As his initial assertion is that we'll never see black holes at the LHC even if they can be formed, where is he stating that they'll interact with ANYTHING? This is especially damning to your train of contrary references as in order for us to be unable to detect it it would have to interact with NOTHING.

As you two gents are entirely unable to comprehend a simple statement, like "Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the [Earth's] field is generated by said core?" I don't expect much in response. As such, I'm entirely done debating established physics with two (one) laymen who have nothing better to do than attempt to halt the scientific progress of the species with doom and gloom predictions akin to the "Mayan Apocalypse".
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
So let's go back to your initial assertion and see if you can exemplify your point.

Where does the above researcher state that Black Hole formation will be catastrophic? As his initial assertion is that we'll never see black holes at the LHC even if they can be formed, where is he stating that they'll interact with ANYTHING? This is especially damning to your train of contrary references as in order for us to be unable to detect it it would have to interact with NOTHING.
That's not what he says, he says it would be difficult to detect. Of significance, it wouldn't have much time in the detector.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2010
As you two gents are entirely unable to comprehend a simple statement, like "Are you trying to tell us black holes have an iron core or are you unaware that the [Earth's] field is generated by said core?" I don't expect much in response.
The only one who ever suggested micro black holes have an iron core is, you!
As such, I'm entirely done debating established physics with two (one) laymen who have nothing better to do than attempt to halt the scientific progress of the species with doom and gloom predictions akin to the "Mayan Apocalypse".
Says the twit who couldn't do more than a 1+1 mass calculation regarding collider physics!

Supposing you're representative of scientists in general, how are you any better than these laymen you so despise?
frajo
4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
I really like this kind of rhetorics where one is shooting his own foot:
If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.
Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.
And this one, teaching us a new definition of "order of magnitude":
Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?
And this one which I'd assume to be simply a typo if it came from a different user:
It's simple E=m/c^2.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
That's not what he says, he says it would be difficult to detect. Of significance, it wouldn't have much time in the detector.
You remember your basic physics rules, right? An object at inertial rest will remain at inertial rest unless acted upon by a force.

If it is "hard to detect" and we can only detect it via force or energy interaction, what's going to remove it from the detector, Timmy?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2010
7,000,000,000,000 eV / 89875517873681764 m/s^2

7.7 * 10^-5 ev/c^2

1 amu equals 931.494028 x10^6 eV/c^2

So now that I've done ALL the math for you. How much will that BH weigh at creation assuming zero energy loss? 2.00000000000000000000000000000000032 amu.

I hope you learned something, Moron. Just because it "sounds" like a lot doesn't mean it is a lot.

Back to physforums for you:
http://www.physfo...ic=21660
http://www.allque...uba.html
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2010
Uba, there's this thing called the conservation of mass/energy. We wind these protons up until they reach a collision energy of 14 TeV. This energy includes the relativistic masses of the protons because collision energy is calculated from momentum, which is velocity times Lorentz-corrected mass. 14 TeV of energy is equal to 24.957 x 10^-24 kg, which would create a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of about 3.7 x 10^-56 meters. A proton has a radius of about 0.8 x 10^-15 meters. Somehow, I doubt something that big will get sucked down a hole that small.
Skepticus
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
If one can account for all the masses of the saliva wasted here, you will have enough mass to create a black hole that swallow the whole universe..:-)
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2010
Further, the maximum charge on a black hole with an event horizon is constrained by the mass and angular momentum of that black hole. Basically, the charge squared plus the square of the angular momentum divided by the mass of the black hole must be less than the square of the mass of the black hole. Since the mass of our black hole is so exceedingly small, it would also have to have an exceedingly small charge. There's virtually no danger of interacting with other matter.

Btw, you can do all these calculations yourself, with readily available information.
JayK
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
@Thrasymachus: no he can't, he isn't smart enough and he has to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
@Thrasymachus: no he can't, he isn't smart enough and he has to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

Mouth breathers who live in their parents basements while trolling science forums typically do not travel to the gym.
croghan27
4 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
GEEZE Gyus (of all genders): from the posting guidelines.

Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks and name calling. Do not make comments that are threatening, obscene, profane, contain hate speech or degrade others. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
seneca
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
Since the mass of our black hole is so exceedingly small, it would also have to have an exceedingly small charge

Even small charge will accelerate the interaction of black hole with neighboring matter in many orders of magnitude, because electromagnetic force is 10E+41 stronger, then the gravity. The accretion of matter is the source of additional magnetic field, which is independent to actual charge of black hole and it acts to distance.

http://www.univer...-matter/

So we can expect, whenever some black hole would be created at LHC, the further process will be pretty fast and we couldn't avoid it in any way.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
Even small charge will accelerate the interaction of black hole with neighboring matter in many orders of magnitude, because electromagnetic force is 10E+41 stronger, then the gravity. The accretion of matter is the source of additional magnetic field, which is independent to actual charge of black hole and it acts to distance.

10^41 multiplied by virtually nothing is still virtually nothing.

You're not getting it. A BH created in the LHC interacting with even something as small as a proton is akin to a dog chasing and catching a car. He might get to it, but he's not going to be able to eat it.

That and you're completely disregarding how small the BH would be. Even a maximum magnetic interaction would be offset by the strong nuclear force repulsion of the opposite charged atomic component.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2010
..10^41 multiplied by virtually nothing is still virtually nothing..
Even (charge of) single proton or electron can act to surprisingly large distance - remember the famous Millikan's experiment with oil droplets. The actual size of electron or proton plays no role in such experiments - it's all about scope of electrostatic force.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
..10^41 multiplied by virtually nothing is still virtually nothing..
Even (charge of) single proton or electron can act to surprisingly large distance - remember the famous Millikan's experiment with oil droplets. The actual size of electron or proton plays no role in such experiments - it's all about scope of electrostatic force.

Range doesn't matter, it's about strength and the fact that the BH wouldn't last long enough to interact with anything even if it had a charge. Secondly, once your favorite phenomina begins, jet suppression, all interacting matter will be overwhelmed by intense repulsive forces being expelled from any accretion disk.

So even if you're right, you're wrong.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2010
and the fact that the BH wouldn't last long enough to interact with anything even if it had a charge
Sorry, but aren't they just CERN scientists, who are trying to verify various theories of stable micro-black holes?

http://cerncourie...rn/34938

Didn't Choptuik just computed, the formation of stable microscopic holes follows from relativity and the assumption of extradimensions? Aren't just extradimensions suposed to be proven at LHC?

http://www.scienc...1812.htm

Maybe CERN physicists don't believe in stable black holes, but in fact they're doing everything for their preparation at LHC.

And this is just what makes the criminals from them. They know quite well, if they would admit it openly, publicity would never give money for such adventurous experiments. In such way, layman publicity was tricked - and your stance just proves it repeatedly.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2010
The posts of yours only demonstrating, you're stupid/uninformed enough for being cheated too - or you're smart enough for to get engaged in this cheating, too.

Make a choice, please.

And don't forget, you've been proved openly lying already ("a detrator... took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC"). You're probably believing, people around you are quite stupid, aren't you?

Now, try to estimate, what will happen, if thousands of people like you would collect for to get ten billions of dollars for their research.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
I really like this kind of rhetorics where one is shooting his own foot:
If I was a representative of the LHC then I wouldn't waste my time here debating this with you.
Ah, so you admit you're not qualified to make your arguments.
And this one, teaching us a new definition of "order of magnitude":
Oh brother. Gev's versus TeV's... You do know that TeV is like an order of magnitude greater, right?
And this one which I'd assume to be simply a typo if it came from a different user:
It's simple E=m/c^2.
Ha Ha Ha! You did notice that Skeptic_Heretic didn't catch any of that, didn't you?

To be clear, it's like 3 orders of magnitude, and the proper equation is: E=mc^2, but I sometimes prefer M=e/c^2.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
That's not what he says, he says it would be difficult to detect. Of significance, it wouldn't have much time in the detector.
You remember your basic physics rules, right? An object at inertial rest will remain at inertial rest unless acted upon by a force.

If it is "hard to detect" and we can only detect it via force or energy interaction, what's going to remove it from the detector, Timmy?
Uh, ever hear of this new-fangled force exerted by the earth, called gravity?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2010
7,000,000,000,000 eV / 89875517873681764 m/s^2

7.7 * 10^-5 ev/c^2

1 amu equals 931.494028 x10^6 eV/c^2

So now that I've done ALL the math for you. How much will that BH weigh at creation assuming zero energy loss? 2.00000000000000000000000000000000032 amu.

I hope you learned something, Moron. Just because it "sounds" like a lot doesn't mean it is a lot.
Oh brother. Gee, what happened to your 1+1?

This just proves that math, without understanding, is less than useless. Your calculation is meaningless, because you obviously fail to understand the concepts involved in the production of these black holes.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2010
Uba, there's this thing called the conservation of mass/energy. We wind these protons up until they reach a collision energy of 14 TeV. This energy includes the relativistic masses of the protons because collision energy is calculated from momentum, which is velocity times Lorentz-corrected mass. 14 TeV of energy is equal to 24.957 x 10^-24 kg, which would create a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of about 3.7 x 10^-56 meters. A proton has a radius of about 0.8 x 10^-15 meters. Somehow, I doubt something that big will get sucked down a hole that small.
Perhaps you've never heard of the particle/wave duality concept? You do know it's possible to remove mass/energy from an ocean wave with a Dixie cup, don't you? Now imagine that Dixie cup doubling in size with every dip. Now consider: How many dips until it empties the whole ocean?
Bloodoflamb
Apr 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2010
You can't swallow part of a proton, because even the quarks which make it up are bigger than the event horizon of this hypothetical black hole. Wave/particle duality doesn't make it easier for the black hole to swallow particles, it makes it harder, because the Compton wavelengths of the elementary particles is far larger than the event horizon of the particles. Further, energy/mass can only be extracted from a wave/particle in quanta whose minimum level is determined by Planck length/time. Even the smallest possible quantum of energy/matter is far too large to be absorbed by such a small event horizon.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2010
To take your Dixie cup analogy, the cup is floating on the same surface the wave travels upon. In order for it to take any mass/energy from the wave, the wave has to have a high enough amplitude with a short enough wavelength to "crest" the cup, it's speed always being a constant "c." No such wave is possible because there's a limit to how much you can shorten the wavelength, and at that limit there is no amplitude high enough to cause such a cresting.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2010
And regarding further forces the black hole might generate beyond the gravitational and electric force, one must remember that all black holes have only three properties, mass, electric charge and angular momentum. Magnetism, as a force, is caused by angular or accelerated motion of electric charges. But both its charge and its angular momentum are limited by its mass, and since its mass is so tiny, any magnetic field it emits will likewise be tiny. Charged black holes created by cosmic ray collisions would have vastly stronger magnetic fields due to their vastly higher kinetic energy, so once again, as we're all still here, it's not a problem
OckhamsRazor
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
I'm pretty sure this 'LHC-induced' black hole argument has gone the way of politics and religion when it comes to topics to avoid talking about for fear of heated debate :P

If there was a real fear and absolute proof of black holes being a problem, do you really think the scientists would be anywhere near this machine or advocating its importance? A lot of homework was done prior to building the LHC, and more to follow. Why are some of you so afraid of a hypothetical, microscopic black hole that hasn't the power to sustain itself let alone destroy the planet?

If they'd come across any valid evidence that their machine had a high risk of spitting out our apocalypse, it would be switched off right away. However much you think these people are, as seneca would say, "criminals" there is no way any one of them would inflict doomsday just to see a few nifty collisions. This is becoming mass hysteria.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2010
Well? We all have imagination.

So let's imagine we are all gather here and the discussion is not about black holes. It is the year 1912, April 14th. We are discussing about mans greatest feat - the Titanic. It's a hot topic.

The proponents expound - it's unsinkable!, and whip out a whole library of congress of knowledge to back up their bold claim.

The opponents refuted adamantly - BS! "Unsinkability" is unthinkable and a singularity! - Your Physics 'abhorts' it - Physics abandons you! It is the figment of (our)or some other poor mathematicians imagination!

Proponents of 'unsinkabilility' retort: Exactly! The concept is rooted in mathematics - the firmest of foundations!

Opponents bluster back: Exactly! And mathematics will remain the firmest of foundations, apart from your descriptions, INTERPRETATIONS!,perceptions, data, observations and methodology! Go back from where you came from - to reality! Or refute imagination! Good luck with that!

24 hours later, Nature appeared. :)
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2010
The Fable above explained:
LHC is the Titanic.
Black holes are 'unsinkability'
There is no catastrophe - unless finding something other than what one seeks is catastrophic. :)
Sanescience
3 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2010
LHC is a ginormous black hole for MONEY, and has destroyed the chance for thousands of smaller projects that could have advanced science to the benefit of man far more than the ultra esoteric results of the LHC will any time soon.

On the topic of cosmic rays, at least 1% of them are heavy atoms (many being iron.) Astronauts in orbit can see light flashes when they close their eyes from collisions of these heavy ions with the fluid in their eye.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2010
You did notice that Skeptic_Heretic didn't catch any of that, didn't you?
It's not his job to educate you. But it's your job to publish an erratum as soon as you notice an error of yours.
Your writing simply is not consistent. It is confused instead. And sometimes I've the impression you try to confuse people. Which, of course, is of no avail on PhysOrg.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2010
This is becoming mass hysteria.
I don't see any mass movement. It's just a very unsilent but very small minority (maybe consisting of one person only). They are, however, interesting from a psychological point of view.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2010
It is the year 1912, April 14th. We are discussing about mans greatest feat - the Titanic.
You are comparing the common lying of the advertising business to the scientific quest for cognition. I'm a bit astonished you don't see how inadequate this comparison is.
croghan27
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
You are comparing the common lying of the advertising business to the scientific quest for cognition. I'm a bit astonished you don't see how inadequate this comparison is.


frajo - while I have no problem with CERN or the LHC - I do have a problem with their advertizing or PR people. They are promising that this particular experiment will do everything except walk the dog and it at least as important as anything tha has happened - EVER!
Bloodoflamb
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
Perhaps you've never heard of the particle/wave duality concept? You do know it's possible to remove mass/energy from an ocean wave with a Dixie cup, don't you? Now imagine that Dixie cup doubling in size with every dip. Now consider: How many dips until it empties the whole ocean?

How fast does the Dixie cup explode after being filled?
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
@frajo

The 'story' is a fairy tale. It is imagination. I take your comment to heart. My insufficient imagination shows. I believe some people have the imagination to draw an adequate comparison.

"It is the year 1912, April 14th. We are discussing about mans greatest feat - the Titanic"

That is a mind-set setter. Placing you in the mind-set of people less gescheit and more naive than today. The assumption was, that emotions/feelings were more or less the same, regardless of where they were directed or placed.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2010
This just proves that math, without understanding, is less than useless.
It's far superior to no math and no understanding.
Now imagine that Dixie cup doubling in size with every dip. Now consider: How many dips until it empties the whole ocean?
Do your own math this time.
Uh, ever hear of this new-fangled force exerted by the earth, called gravity?

Ah yes, your greatest display of lack of understanding. Since you're using the above article as your new guide, since your prior guides don't support your hypothesis when you actually read them, we'll go directly by that.

Since you're talking gravity that means the BH should be quite observable, but your reference above says they won't be observable. So which is it?

As a secondary, that BH can't travel fast enough under the influence of gravity to cause problems for the Earth, especially when the electromagnetic forces of matter will repel any "charged" BH and inertia still exists. Back to basics kid.
Sci_Fi_Si
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2010
LOL!

Well it's been quite a fun read. Here's the deal. Let's wait until the LHC forms it's first black hole which lasts for nano seconds.

Then when the Earth and the rest of the Universe at large hasn't vanished up it's own bottom and life continues as normal - Maybe then - all the crack pots, looney bins, rabble rousers, rioters and panic insighters and ignoramouses can come back and write a public globally accessible appology.

If anyone honestly thinks that two proton's colliding with each other can cause the Solar System to collapse in on itself then I'm glad the public isn't funding any of your ideas.

As I was told at Uni when I was studying Astrophysics "Never argue with an idiot - an on looker might not be able to tell which one of you it is."

Sound advice.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2010
Then when the Earth and the rest of the Universe at large hasn't vanished up it's own bottom and life continues as normal - Maybe then - all the crack pots, looney bins, rabble rousers, rioters and panic insighters and ignoramouses can come back and write a public globally accessible appology.
No, they'll be too busy trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn't build the 28 TeV collider they're planning.
Crucialitis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
It's in a vacuum.
No growth.
End of discussion.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
If there was a real fear and absolute proof of black holes being a problem, do you really think the scientists would be anywhere near this machine or advocating its importance?.
Yes, for example Busza, Jaffe, Sandweiss, and Wilczek regarded a one-in-5,000 risk of destroying Earth as "comfortable." Such probability corresponds the risk of Down's syndrome or the risk of melanoma syndrome development during human lifetime.

http://www3.inter...abstract

You apparently have no idea of what scientists are capable off. In addition, until now they had no simulations, so they have no estimation of real LHC risk.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
It's in a vacuum. No growth. End of discussion.
No product of LHC collisions will exist in vacuum only. They must always pass the detectors, for being observed at all. The stance of many people regarding LHC safety corresponds the pure naive religion.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
If we can’t make mistakes, then we can’t do science..

http://www.easter.../?p=1615

But in certain cases, only one mistake is allowed. The high-energy collisions cannot be done at proximity of Earth, until we want to survive our experiments. If we cannot carry out these experiments safely, then the human civilization is not mature enough for such experiments anyway.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 09, 2010
Are you too dense to read, seneca? Any black hole created by the LHC will be too small to capture any subatomic particle, including photons. Its size also limits the electric charge it can carry, and its angular momentum, thereby limiting the magnetic field it can project, making any interaction with surrounding matter extraordinarily weak. There is literally no danger from a black hole that small, even if it didn't evaporate into nothing due to Hawking radiation, which it assuredly would.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2010
any black hole created by the LHC will be too small to capture any subatomic particle, including photons.
Photons aren't subatomic particles, but bosons. Black hole would interact with neighboring matter by their charge and magnetic field. The source of magnetic field can be not just the black hole itself, but even every other particle, falling into it. During RHIC collisions such objects with extreme magnetic field were prepared already.

If you wouldn't too dense to read previous discussion together with sources linked, you would know about it already, because I'm just repeating by now. You apparently have no idea, what happens during LHC collisions, if you even cannot distinguish photon from proton.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
Further, the maximum charge on a black hole with an event horizon is constrained by the mass and angular momentum of that black hole. Basically, the charge squared plus the square of the angular momentum divided by the mass of the black hole must be less than the square of the mass of the black hole. Since the mass of our black hole is so exceedingly small, it would also have to have an exceedingly small charge. There's virtually no danger of interacting with other matter.
Btw, you can do all these calculations yourself, with readily available information.

I tend to think the Reissner-Nordstrom/Kerr-Newman metrics for charged black holes are conceptual errors. That's to say, I don't think a black hole can be charged.

Besides, it's not the "matter" that's a concern, it's the energy density.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
.There is literally no danger from a black hole that small, even if it didn't evaporate into nothing due to Hawking radiation, which it assuredly would...
The purpose of LHC collisions is just to test various theories involving extra-dimensions, which would hinder evaporation of black holes under formation of stable micro-black holes. The purpose of LHC experiments isn't prove the evaporation of black holes by Hawking radiation as you probably believe - but exactly the opposite: to prove, black holes may exist in their stable state. And whole this article is about this model - so you're on completely wrong place here with such arguments.

http://cerncourie...rn/34938
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
. That's to say, I don't think a black hole can be charged.
On of purposes of LHC collisions is to prove existence of magnetic monopoles. During RHIC collisions the objects with record breaking magnetic field intensity in quark-gluon condensate were obtained, so your belief is apparently wrong.

http://www.physor...423.html

By astronomical observations virtually every black hole exhibits strong magnetic field, so I cannot understand people, who are believing, black holes in LHC would be an exception.

http://www.space....tic.html
http://www.newsci.../dn11157
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 09, 2010
No, the purpose of the LHC is to recreate conditions similar to those existing during the first few billionths of a second of the Universe. They're actually looking for all kinds of stuff, and no, they don't know exactly what they'll get. That's why it's an experiment. Every black hole that's been (indirectly) astronomically observed has a powerful magnetic field because they are all several times more massive than our own sun. Their mass allows them to have a big charge and a lot of angular momentum, which generates the magnetic field. Any possible black hole created by the LHC will be so much less massive it wouldn't be able to have much charge or spin at all, and therefore couldn't have much of a magnetic field. I did some of the equations for you above. And of course I know the difference between a photon and a proton. One's an elementary particle, the other's not. Both are too big to fall into our black hole's event horizon.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
Oh, and ubu, you can think those metrics are a conceptual error all you like. That just makes you unscientific and more than a little loony. They are the valid solutions to Einstein's field equations for singularities with event horizons. Black holes must have the ability to have some sort of charge because they can consume charged matter, and the law of conservation of charges requires it.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
and no, they don't know exactly what they'll get. That's why it's an experiment
There are dozens of theories, predicting formation of stable black holes in LHC, which are supported by previous experiments at RHIC & Tevatron. CERN physicist know wery well, what they should expect, because black hole formation was observed already.

http://adsabs.har......6193B
http://cdsweb.cer...64?ln=cs
http://tinyurl.com/y5st45f

Frankly, guys, I needn't to read all your BS, as I'm expert in this area and I've dozen of publications about it collected already. I've counterargument to every claim of yours. For every claim about LHC safety I can demonstrate the number of CERN experiments planned, which are trying to prove exactly the opposite.
You apparently missed whole scientific program of this research. It's purpose isn't really to prove, black hole cannot be formed during LHC collisions. It's purpose isn't really to prove, such objects should evaporate ASAP
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
Yeah, you're an expert alright. Let me know when you've actually got some of your own work in this area published, rather than relying on hacks or blatantly misinterpreting real scientific speculation. You don't even know the basic field equations for black holes. Oh, and close the door on your way out, the last guy left it open and a couple of trolls found their way in.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
Yeah, you're an expert alright.
I'm not supposed to read, black hole cannot swallow photon or proton, because they're "both too big to fall into our black hole's event horizon".

How did you come into such BS, kid? From some TV show? Can you imagine, what every physicist will think about you after reading of such sentence? How old really you are?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
The last refuge of the truly defeated, eh? Cast dispersions on your opponent's age. Notice how you plead your expertise, where I never have had to. All I had to do is show you how very small the event horizon of this purported black hole would be, about 10^-56 meters, using equations that are well tested and publicly available, far smaller than the radius of the proton, or the quark or the photon. A black hole can't consume part of those elementary particles, it has to take 'em all, or not at all. Since it's too small to consume the whole particle, it won't consume anything at all. More evidence it can't consume anything? At 10^-56 meters, it's event horizon is almost as much smaller than the Planck length (10^-35 meters) as the Planck length is to a standard meter. It's just too small to consume anything.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2010
If black holes at LHC cannot swallow protons due their small size, they couldn't be prepared just by proton collisions, could they?

..Cast dispersions on your opponent's age..
And what about your previous talk regarding "trolls" and "little loonies"? I'm just applying the same "arguments" against you. Why are you trying to apply double standards?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
I don't call people trolls or loonies until they've proved themselves so. And do you really think black holes created by stellar collapse are as big or bigger than the star that formed them? Not only are they usually far less massive than their parent star due to mass ejection during the collapse, but their event horizons are far smaller than their parent star's diameter. Our sun, for instance, if all its mass were turned into a black hole, would have about a 3 km radius. In fact, that's the rough 'back of the envelope' calculation for black hole radii. r= 2.95*M/mass of our sun, where M is the mass of the black hole in question.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
You can't swallow part of a proton, because even the quarks which make it up are bigger than the event horizon of this hypothetical black hole. Wave/particle duality doesn't make it easier for the black hole to swallow particles, it makes it harder, because the Compton wavelengths of the elementary particles is far larger than the event horizon of the particles. Further, energy/mass can only be extracted from a wave/particle in quanta whose minimum level is determined by Planck length/time. Even the smallest possible quantum of energy/matter is far too large to be absorbed by such a small event horizon.
Again, you're limiting its size to a non-physical boundary.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
If small black hole can be formed by much larger sun, why even smaller black hole couldn't be formed by larger proton? It seems, your logics supports my stance instead of yours one.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
To take your Dixie cup analogy, the cup is floating on the same surface the wave travels upon. In order for it to take any mass/energy from the wave, the wave has to have a high enough amplitude with a short enough wavelength to "crest" the cup, it's speed always being a constant "c." No such wave is possible because there's a limit to how much you can shorten the wavelength, and at that limit there is no amplitude high enough to cause such a cresting.
In this case, it's more like the Dixie cup is embedded in the floor, like a drain. Remember, the event horizon is a non-physical boundary. It doesn't "float." It hasn't a frequency. It hasn't a phase. It isn't even a force (though it's a result of a force).
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
It's not even close to the same thing. Stellar sized black holes have no trouble eating matter because they are far more than large enough to consume its elementary particles. A black hole formed from colliding protons with a mass of 14 TeV/c^2 has an event horizon far smaller than the Planck length, which means that not only can it not exist in our universe, but even if it could, it could only consume part of an elementary particle in its initial stages. But you can't consume part of an elementary particle. If you could, it wouldn't be elementary.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
And regarding further forces the black hole might generate beyond the gravitational and electric force, one must remember that all black holes have only three properties, mass, electric charge and angular momentum. Magnetism, as a force, is caused by angular or accelerated motion of electric charges. But both its charge and its angular momentum are limited by its mass, and since its mass is so tiny, any magnetic field it emits will likewise be tiny. Charged black holes created by cosmic ray collisions would have vastly stronger magnetic fields due to their vastly higher kinetic energy, so once again, as we're all still here, it's not a problem
Oh brother. Even the LSAG committee admitted micro black holes could be stable and neutral. If you refuse to accept this possibility, then there's no point in further argument. You might as well insist they can't possibly exist (like many other LHC proponents do), despite numerous physicist's opinions to the contrary.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
Actually, uba, it is the event horizon that matters, even though it's not physical, because that's the boundary beyond which light cannot return. At these small masses, it doesn't matter whether the dixie cup floats or is an embedded drain. It's "hole" or event horizon is smaller than the particles of fluid that's doing the waving, or smallest possible unit of length.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
If there was a real fear and absolute proof of black holes being a problem, do you really think the scientists would be anywhere near this machine or advocating its importance? A lot of homework was done prior to building the LHC, and more to follow. Why are some of you so afraid of a hypothetical, microscopic black hole that hasn't the power to sustain itself let alone destroy the planet?

If they'd come across any valid evidence that their machine had a high risk of spitting out our apocalypse, it would be switched off right away. However much you think these people are, as seneca would say, "criminals" there is no way any one of them would inflict doomsday just to see a few nifty collisions. This is becoming mass hysteria.
So you'd think. But, when numerous and blatant errors were discovered in their 2003 safety report, did they stop and re-evaluate? No! Instead, they desperately tried to justify their 2003 report with a completely ridiculous fabrication!
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
You did notice that Skeptic_Heretic didn't catch any of that, didn't you?
It's not his job to educate you. But it's your job to publish an erratum as soon as you notice an error of yours.
Your writing simply is not consistent. It is confused instead. And sometimes I've the impression you try to confuse people. Which, of course, is of no avail on PhysOrg.
Oh brother. Why don't you hold Skeptic_Heretic or any other LHC proponent to the same standard?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
Uh, ever hear of this new-fangled force exerted by the earth, called gravity?

Ah yes, your greatest display of lack of understanding. Since you're using the above article as your new guide, since your prior guides don't support your hypothesis when you actually read them, we'll go directly by that.

Since you're talking gravity that means the BH should be quite observable, but your reference above says they won't be observable. So which is it?
Uh, the effects of gravity can be observed, but not gravity itself. Jeesh!

There's more to it that you missed too.

As a secondary, that BH can't travel fast enough under the influence of gravity to cause problems for the Earth, especially when the electromagnetic forces of matter will repel any "charged" BH and inertia still exists. Back to basics kid.
Uh, the slower they are, the more dangerous they are!
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
Are you too dense to read, seneca? Any black hole created by the LHC will be too small to capture any subatomic particle, including photons. Its size also limits the electric charge it can carry, and its angular momentum, thereby limiting the magnetic field it can project, making any interaction with surrounding matter extraordinarily weak. There is literally no danger from a black hole that small, even if it didn't evaporate into nothing due to Hawking radiation, which it assuredly would.
Ah, here's the meat of the wave argument:

Any available energy can be removed from a photon, without necessarily "destroying" the photon.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
Oh, and I never said that black holes couldn't be neutral. I said black holes intrinsically three properties, mass, charge and angular momentum. Neutral charge is a kind of charge. And I'm pretty sure that no black hole is stable over a long enough time frame, and the less massive it is, the shorter that time frame becomes.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2010
..This is becoming mass hysteria...
It just balances massive propaganda, following the LHC restart. I really would recommend you to avoid double standards there.
Neutral charge is a kind of charge.
Please, avoid further BS. I simply don't believe You a single word.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2010
Every black hole that's been (indirectly) astronomically observed has a powerful magnetic field because they are all several times more massive than our own sun. Their mass allows them to have a big charge and a lot of angular momentum, which generates the magnetic field.
This isn't true. Their magnetic fields are externally generated by infalling mass/plasma.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2010
Their magnetic fields are externally generated by infalling mass/plasma.
Magnetic field of black holes doesn't differ from magnetars - it's just much stronger. There is a smooth transition between neutron stars, quark stars and black holes. If magnetars can have magnetic field as such, why not black holes?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2010
You said it yourself, available energy. Energy is only available in packets called quanta. The smallest possible quanta of energy that could potentially be absorbed is far to large to be absorbed by an event horizon that small. And the magnetic fields they generate are not entirely due to infalling mass/plasma. Magnetic fields are generated by spinning charges. Charged black holes that spin have magnetic fields. You really ought to read up on black hole physics before you start worrying about the properties of hypothetical man-made ones.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
Oh, and ubu, you can think those metrics are a conceptual error all you like. That just makes you unscientific and more than a little loony. They are the valid solutions to Einstein's field equations for singularities with event horizons. Black holes must have the ability to have some sort of charge because they can consume charged matter, and the law of conservation of charges requires it.
There are plenty who would argue with you on this. But even if it did have a charge, it would quickly neutralize itself by absorbing oppositely charged particles.

All you're doing is saying its initial absorption properties are even stronger!
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2010
Yeah, you're an expert alright. Let me know when you've actually got some of your own work in this area published, rather than relying on hacks or blatantly misinterpreting real scientific speculation. You don't even know the basic field equations for black holes. Oh, and close the door on your way out, the last guy left it open and a couple of trolls found their way in.
And here I was thinking you were better than this...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
Actually, uba, it is the event horizon that matters, even though it's not physical, because that's the boundary beyond which light cannot return. At these small masses, it doesn't matter whether the dixie cup floats or is an embedded drain. It's "hole" or event horizon is smaller than the particles of fluid that's doing the waving, or smallest possible unit of length.
Oh brother. So you think it's absorption cross section is limited to the size of its event horizon? Maybe you think things can't fall down in lesser gravity?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2010
You said it yourself, available energy. Energy is only available in packets called quanta. The smallest possible quanta of energy that could potentially be absorbed is far to large to be absorbed by an event horizon that small.
If this were true, how could the black hole form to begin with?
And the magnetic fields they generate are not entirely due to infalling mass/plasma. Magnetic fields are generated by spinning charges. Charged black holes that spin have magnetic fields. You really ought to read up on black hole physics before you start worrying about the properties of hypothetical man-made ones.
Wikipedia:
Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature.

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
ChemicalX
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
@Thrasymachus
The smallest possible quanta of energy that could potentially be absorbed is far to large to be absorbed by an event horizon that small.

Does this quanta of energy have a spatial size? How does it fail to fit within the event horizon? Explain this to me.

[/blockquote]
Sanescience
3 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2010
I hesitate to point out at this late stage in the discussion that a black hole is a theoretical explanation of when equations "break down" and are not constructs of quantum theory. This whole idea of BH at the quantum scale is a miss application of equations that just don't work at the quantum level.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2010
Yeah I'm done with this conversation. It's become boring.

If you wouldn't too dense to read previous discussion together with sources linked, you would know about it already, because I'm just repeating by now. You apparently have no idea, what happens during LHC collisions, if you even cannot distinguish photon from proton.

Funny of you to tell someone to read the attached links, especially when you don't even read your own source materials.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2010
Says the individual, who called Choptuik "..a detrator, who took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC".

Whereas Choptuik's article doesn't contain "RHIC" word.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780

Why the biggest liars are often most loud in accusation of other people from lying? Answer is easy, psychopaths have no control over their vision of reality - they're living in their virtual world. Such people kill the other people from fear, they will be killed too.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2010
Why the biggest liars are often most loud in accusation of other people from lying? Answer is easy, psychopaths have no control over their vision of reality - they're living in their virtual world. Such people kill the other people from fear, they will be killed too.

http://prl.aps.or.../e111101
Read it.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
LOL, just try to find and quote the sentence, proving your claim:

"Choptuik took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC"

You're psychopath & compulsive liar, face it. I recognized it immediately, when I read this sentence. It's virtually impossible to discuss with such people, because they've have absolutely no problem in fabrication of reality, which suits their need.

In addition, try to demonstrate, you've free access to the article, you've linked.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2010
You're psychopath & compulsive liar, face it. I recognized it immediately, when I read this sentence. It's virtually impossible to discuss with such people, because they've have absolutely no problem in fabrication of reality, which suits their need.

Psychopath and compulsive liar. Interesting analysis. Seeing as you've stated you've read the paper word for word, go ahead and link the 8th paragraph on page 3.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2010
It's vain effort, because I don't believe you a single word.

Just quote the sentence at 8th paragraph on page 3. It's your claim, so it's your job to prove your lies. I'll do not your job for you.

Anyway, from character of Choptuik work follows, the claim of yours "he took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC" is a complete, utter BS. Anyway, what I did was, I searched the preprint for "RHIC" word and I found none. I'm perfectly sure about it.

Every your post is an apparent lie, because you're pilling lie after lies in an effort to make your stance more relevant. In addition, try to demonstrate, you've free access to the article, you've linked. I'm pretty sure, you have none.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2010
Anyway, what I did was, I searched the preprint for "RHIC" word and I found none. I'm perfectly sure about it.
Ok so you didn't read the paper, you "searched" the preprint.

Link the preprint.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
I linked it twice-times here already. And I read it many times. In fact, a person who read it could never claim "Choptuik applied Einstein's equations recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC", because it's a naive BS without meaning, sucked up from fingertip.

You apparently never bothered to visit any article, I linked here.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
No, you've linked the preprint of the arxiv article referenced in the above abstract several times. Not Choptuik's paper on RHIC collision physics and gravitational interaction on the planck scale.

So please, link your preprint of the correct article.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
LOL, another desperate lie... :-))

It's the same article you linked and recommended for reading to me:

http://prl.aps.or.../e111101

You're desperate person, do you know about it? I recommend you to visit a reliable psychiatrist. Please, stop to annoy normal people in public discussions.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2010
As you can see, for disapproval of single apparent nonsense of yours a whole dozens of posts are required. This is why I'm avoiding to engage in discussion with freaks in public forum. These people are living in separated reality and they never accept the stance of other people.

And so far we discussed just about factual claim, which can be disproved easily. Try to imagine, what would convince you about LHC risk, which is indeed speculative. You would rather accept a bullet in your head then to admit the opposite stance. Psychopathic religious people like you are completely useless for Socratic discussion - they have no backup plan for acceptation of new reality, when arguments will change it.
Sirussinder
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2010
Seneca your the only sane person here. No one can produce or has cold hard evidence supporting LHC safety. The reason is it is impossible because we are dealing with the unknown.

The LHC scientists are wackos for they are putting the earth at risk and writing it off as a slim chance that they could be wrong in their unproven calculations and observations.

BLACK HOLE PRODUCTION AT THE LHC::
A REVIEW OF THE RISKS

http://tiny.cc/fhd2s

And the precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
Obviously LHC scientists are breaking this rule:

http://tiny.cc/mb1rr
Sirussinder
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2010
WORKING LINKS:
Seneca your the only sane person here. No one can produce or has cold hard evidence supporting LHC safety. The reason is it is impossible because we are dealing with the unknown.

The LHC scientists are wackos for they are putting the earth at risk and writing it off as a slim chance that they could be wrong in their unproven calculations and observations.

BLACK HOLE PRODUCTION AT THE LHC::
A REVIEW OF THE RISKS

http://www.risk-e...risk.pdf

And the precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
Obviously LHC scientists are breaking this principle:
http://en.wikiped...rinciple
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 10, 2010
I see the trolls are well fed in this thread.. ;-)

You know what's the most pleasing thing about all this?

That at the end of the day, the LHC experiments will be finished, Earth will still be there - unharmed, we might be a bit smarter, and all the doomsayer psychos will be gone silently - having allready found other things they can "chew on"...

Howgh.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2010
Try to imagine, what would convince you about LHC risk, which is indeed speculative. You would rather accept a bullet in your head then to admit the opposite stance.Psychopathic religious people like you are completely useless for Socratic discussion - they have no backup plan for acceptation of new reality, when arguments will change it.
There's a reason why Socrates rather consume hemlock than escape. Because a true philosopher refuses to fear death in search of knowledge. Something that you fail to do. If you care to enjoy a Socratic discussion, then engage in one and stop the idiotic and unfounded doomsaying.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
Are you still insisting, Choptuik is "..a detrator, who took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC"?

Such compulsive liar has no right to talk about Socrates, who died for truth.
the LHC experiments will be finished, Earth will still be there - unharmed
The scientists will build another, larger collider and whole situation will just repeat, until Earth will not be really destroyed.
daywalk3r
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2010
The scientists will build another, larger collider and whole situation will just repeat, until Earth will not be really destroyed.
So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)

That is really so nice of you.. But unfortunately, the stone age (where this kind of a stance belongs) is long long due. No offence to the stone people, of course.. ;-)
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2010
So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)
No. We're saying: Move research that could conceivably destroy the earth, off world.

That is really so nice of you.. But unfortunately, the stone age (where this kind of a stance belongs) is long long due. No offence to the stone people, of course.. ;-)
Oh brother. It'd be a boon to space exploration!
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2010
Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!
Nobody prohibits scientists in preparation of experiments in free cosmic space at safe distance from Earth. The better, such experiments wouldn't be so expensive - we could save money for cooling, vacuum pumps, isolation against vibrations and collider could serve for additional scientific purposes - for example for gravitational wave detection. And of course, such collider could be a much larger due the lower energy lost via synchrotron radiation, thus enabling higher energy of collisions. The terrestrial conditions are quite inappropriate for large scale collisions from many reasons.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
As if,.. as only if, translation lacked equivalency. :)

No more hints. ;)
Rynox77
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
My prediction: No world-destroying black hole. If I'm wrong, you can gloat.
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2010

If Einstein is right, then the CERN LHC is dangerous...

http://www.notepa...-mit-pro
Sirussinder
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2010

CERN they want to make black holes. Now they are not talking about it. WHY?
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2010

LHC Scientists are saying Hawking is completely right and Einstein is completely wrong when it comes to black holes.

What a load of crap. It is all about the convenience to wash away any questions on safety concerns about producing black holes.

They want to produce black holes and they do not want the public to know.

I am all for science and discovery, but the LHC is WRONG and should be stopped.
PS3
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
Hawking Radiation is not proven and even if it was we have no clue what could happen at the end of mBH life.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2010
It is all about the convenience to wash away any questions on safety concerns about producing black holes
Of course. And it can be demonstrated easily: virtually all theories tested at LHC are violating classical model of Hawking radiation toward lower values in less or more advanced way (jet supression, supersymmetry, extradimensions, WIMPs, ..). Choptuik's simulation is just one model of many others in this connection.

In this way, CERN scientists are apparently lying to publicity. Their expectations are in direct contradiction to their safety proclamations.
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
My prediction: No world-destroying black hole. If I'm wrong, you can gloat.
The question isn't what you're believing in / but how can you support your stance. Because virtually every scientific model tested at LHC (and existing experiments too) contradicts your stance. If Hawking model is correct, then the phenomena like quark pair formation or jet suppression shouldn't occur at all. We should realize trivial boolean logic, existing behind all these complex theories and their complicated math. If some theory predicts jet suppression and experiments are proving it, then such observation logically prefers formation of stable black hole formation over Hawking's model of black hole evaporation.

If you're wrong, we can only evaporate, that's the problem. You don't offer us any acceptable alternative.
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
Annoying thing is, everything, what CERN physicists are testing leads only to disaster scenarios. I don't care about Higgs boson, supersymmetry or extradimensions, if it all only increases the stability of dense objects, prepared at LHC. I just want to see mainstream peer-reviewed theory, which predicts, LHC experiments are safe in rigorous way. I just want to see the light at the end of LHC tunnel. Is my stance so absurd and illogical?
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)
No. We're saying: Move research that could conceivably destroy the earth, off world.

After the LHC that's the next reasonable step, however if the experiemnts are as catastrophic as you suggest creating a blackhole in our upper orbit would only serve to delay the death of the planet by maybe a few minutes. Again, that's only if you're correct. Even doing this out by pluto or the oort cloud would have the same result. There's no safety to be had by doing this anywhere else unless we're capable of leaving the solar system.

Too bad we'll need the information from the LHC to gain that sort of technological insight.
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
How various scientific theories contribute to the disaster scenarios of LHC? Well, lets analyze it.

Higgs field is a virtual field responsible for so called Yukawa coupling. It's responsible for stabilization of dense clusters of particles, like top-quark pairs, tetraquark observed in recent years. In this way it contributes to the formation of stable black holes.

Extradimensions are formed by compactified space-time, which prolongs the path of Hawking radiation near event horizon of black holes, thus decreasing their effective surface/volume ratio, thus slowing speed of black hole evaporation to arbitrarily low level. It's the main aspect of stable black hole formation at LHC.

Supersymmetry is the effect, responsible for creation of protective layer of dark matter particles (so called WIMPs) above surface of dense objects. It increases both tendency of dense matter to clustering, both decreases the speed of their radiative evaporation. In this context it complements above theories.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2010
Too bad we'll need the information from the LHC to gain that sort of technological insight.
It's another lie of yours. We do not need any LHC experiments for building of collider in free space. We have many years of experience with another colliders already. The informations from LHC collisions would not help any known industrial segment, the segment of cosmic flights the less.

Frankly, I'm really tired by negating of your apparent lies. It's evident, you're believing in LHC importance so much - but where you're getting all your arguments? It's all just dreams of yours & lies.

From where you got the claim Choptuik is "..a detrator, who took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC"?

From nowhere. You simply sucked up it from fingertip. And the argument about importance of LHC for gaining technological insight is the argument of the same category. You just "invented" it.
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
The LHC controversy would become crystalline clear, if all persons involved in it would say only rock-solid truth and the things, which follows logically from another facts. All the existing problems with LHC are resulting from trivial fact, people around it are lying, lying.., lying again.

If even scientists cannot tell the truth - who else should be capable of it?

Does supersymmetry theory contribute to the risk of stable black hole formation at LHC? If yes, supersymmetry research must be stopped.

Does Higgs field theory contribute to the risk of stable black hole formation at LHC? If yes, Higgs research must be stopped.

Does theory of extradimensions contribute to the risk of stable black hole formation at LHC? If yes, extradimensions research must be stopped.

Have we anything else to research at LHC?
Downpayment_Blues
3 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2010
I believe I posted this one before. All the black holes in the universe were once planets like with one with their own Large Hadron Collider :)

Bwahahaha I'm evil >:)
typicalguy
2 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2010
My understanding is that Einstein's theory only supports LHC black hole formation if string theory's extra dimensions actually exist. Since I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels.

The arguments regarding cosmic rays is actually quite a convincing reason to believe this won't actually be a problem. While it is true that there are differences between the collisions in this experiment and those of cosmic rays, over billions of years there would be enough collisions to replicate the conditions necessary to create these mini black holes.
rah
3 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2010
Scientists have recently discovered that all black holes are the remnants of Earth like planets which had evolved to the point of building machines which created small black holes...
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
The LHC is not the only way to study the subatomic world as people at CERN would have people believe. They hype it up and make it appear to be, but it isnt. The only thing is it is the fastest route to discovery, but at the expense of everyone and everything else.

I am all for scientific advancement but until there are more provable facts and less questions, the LHC should be kept to low levels.

There should be no urgent rush to high TEV experiments with heavy particle collisions. That would be absolutely stupid right now.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
the LHC should be kept to low levels

The only problem is, until LHC will be working, we have absolutely no control over energy level of experiments. The unenforceable rule is not rule at all.
all black holes are the remnants of Earth like planets which had evolved to the point of building machines which created small black holes
This is just a hypothesis, but its testable if we would find an increased concentration of black holes in the middle zone of galaxies, where conditions are most suitable for spontaneous evolution of (not so) intelligent life.

seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
Since I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels
From certain perspective string theory is just a silly interpolation between relativity theory (which predict, black hole will be stable definitely)
and quantum mechanics (which predicts, they should evaporate). Therefore there is always space for creation of conditionally stable black hole, which could grow into account of terrestrial matter faster, then the speed, in which they should evaporate. After all, existence of stable atom nuclei or planets should serve as an tangible evidence, both theories can lead to stable compromise at different space-time scales.

The only question is, if such stable compromise can repeat at higher mass energy density scale, then the atom nuclei. I can feel, it's quite probable - in this case the matter would travel from less dense phase into droplets of more dense phase in similar way, like the matter between different stars.
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
Agreed, that would be ideal to shut it down completely.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels
Technically, you should be concerned JUST BECAUSE mainstream theories aren't reliable - or not? I can see, for many people the feeling of safety is more important, then the real vision of reality. But should we really follow our convenience, when the theories say the opposite?

What such theories are good for, if we don't believe in their warning? Just because some people are impatient and they want to collide particles right now? Actually for nothing - we could wait for LHC findings another twenty years, with compare to cold fusion research, for example.

From my perspective the people supporting the LHC are behaving like pure idiots, separated from reality. People have so many other urgent problems to solve - and we are wasting time with discussion about something, which we can miss comfortably. Just because group of people created illusion of their indispensablenes
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2010
For me it's symptomatic, CERN scientists are refuting obstinately to organize public scientific conference about LHC safety, as Prof. Rossler proposed.

This stance is strange by itself, because scientists are like doing conferences about everything remotely possible or even impossible.

This stance just indicates, group of CERN physicists remains separated even from the rest of scientific community - not just from the rest of layman society. They're dangerous ignorants, convinced about their truth in sectarian way and they're avoiding of public confrontation.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
For example, CERN physicists are refuting to apply peer review of their publications, claiming the "external peer review is less stringent than our internal peer-review process" and that "only people "qualified" (i.e. checked for loyalty) to truly review the work are within the collaboration."

http://www.nature...482a.pdf

They're publishing collectively, despite the list of authors exceeds many thousands of items - such cheating is indeed advantageous for most individuals, because scientists are honored for number of publications and their citations.

CERN community is saying, it's "..a cognitive bubble that you can't escape - that you don't want to escape" - another typical sign of sectarian society, characterized by brain washing and sacrificing identity.

Well - and we all paying this from our taxes...
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2010
So basicaly, what you are saying is: "Stop all research, because there is a chance that at some point we could make a mistake, and destroy the Earth by it!" (?!)
No. We're saying: Move research that could conceivably destroy the earth, off world.

After the LHC that's the next reasonable step, however if the experiemnts are as catastrophic as you suggest creating a blackhole in our upper orbit would only serve to delay the death of the planet by maybe a few minutes. Again, that's only if you're correct. Even doing this out by pluto or the oort cloud would have the same result. There's no safety to be had by doing this anywhere else unless we're capable of leaving the solar system.

Too bad we'll need the information from the LHC to gain that sort of technological insight.
That's not true. If it ate an asteroid, say, the black hole would assume the mass and momentum of the asteroid. That's to say, it'd maintain the same stable orbit.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2010
My understanding is that Einstein's theory only supports LHC black hole formation if string theory's extra dimensions actually exist. Since I don't think that string theory is accurate, I'm not concerned with black hole formation at these energy levels.

The arguments regarding cosmic rays is actually quite a convincing reason to believe this won't actually be a problem. While it is true that there are differences between the collisions in this experiment and those of cosmic rays, over billions of years there would be enough collisions to replicate the conditions necessary to create these mini black holes.
Who's to say this hasn't happened? You do know there are regions of dark matter where normal matter is apparently suppressed, right? You do know there are whole dark matter galaxies, where not a single star shines, right?
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2010
Dangers at the CERN LHC

http://www.notepa...-mit-pro

bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2010
Is this not an experiment to directly detect a black hole? Currently Black Holes are conjecture or remain hypothetical based only on playstation physics (aka math models) and indirect observations. In any case, to allocate significant resources to such an experiment must have a compelling reason and checking a few theories and looking for a God particle just doesn't ring true.
What was the sales pitch? Bombs, Bangs? Sure was not to feed the hungry or heal the sick!
Sirussinder
1 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
Is this not an experiment to directly detect a black hole? !


Yes they are hoping to produce and detect mini black holes. 1 black hole per second is what they estimate. Go read about it.
OckhamsRazor
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
Frankly, guys, I needn't to read all your BS, as I'm expert in this area and I've dozen of publications about it collected already. I've counterargument to every claim of yours. For every claim about LHC safety I can demonstrate the number of CERN experiments planned, which are trying to prove exactly the opposite.
You apparently missed whole scientific program of this research. It's purpose isn't really to prove, black hole cannot be formed during LHC collisions. It's purpose isn't really to prove, such objects should evaporate ASAP


Just because you can argue anything doesn't make you automatically right. I can sit here and argue that what Hitler did is what animals do in nature based on survival of the fittest. It doesn't make me (or him) right. The empty can rattles the most. You're just trying to fuel this hysteria - but for what purpose? Has it gone on long enough just to become about you being right, or are you genuinely concerned about our fate?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
All you aether theorists getting your panties in a bunch because all of science looks at you as though you're the Christian dark ages of physics.

Come up with anything of merit that is experimentally observable and perhaps we'll start listening.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2010
Most of the recent spate of LHC-denialists seem to ignore the fact that Einstein wasn't a deity, he was just really good at deduction. Most probably have no idea that a great deal of his math was based upon statistically derived constants that were updated on a semi-yearly basis by others that were working diligently in the QM/QP area. There were massive amounts of cumulative mistakes in their race to be the first to "discover" something, but many times their discoveries had to be redacted, including Einstein's.

A lot of science has a "Best Use By" date. Perhaps some of you should be more aware of that.
hush1
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2010

A lot of science has a "Best Use By" date. Perhaps some of you should be more aware of that.


Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.
Hope this comment is immune to staff administration "off topic" interpretation as well.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.
Hope this comment is immune to staff administration "off topic" interpretation as well.

I'd assert that Mathmematics is not a science in its form but rather a tool of science and a logical framework, ie: a yard stick by which to judge observation.
hush1
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
As great as my desire is, to discuss Physics and Mathematics, I can not. It will be declared "off topic" from the staff administration.
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.

Did you understand the statistically derived constants part of my post and actually think about it before you posted? Statistically derived constants are not "math", they are derived from observation, which makes it applied science, not pure mathematics. Few have ever said that the LHC would not create black holes with certainty. Almost all of those that are educated in this area are aware and have every confidence that the black holes will evaporate so quickly that the amount of data they'll get on them will be difficult to parse and detect with certainty.
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
@hush1: after the post in this thread (http://www.physor...92.html) you should be ashamed to even post on this site. No wonder the admins reject most of your posts, you obviously have no clue what you're doing. But let me guess, you just finished a calculus course so you think you actually have something to contribute?
hush1
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
As much as I desire to reply to your comment, I can not. It has to make sense first.
hush1
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
No wonder the admins reject most of your posts, you obviously have no clue what you're doing.


Yes, no clue. Censorship was the furthest thought - actually was never a thought until your statement appeared. I sure I will be informed shortly, though.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
Mathematics, I assert, is largely immune to this.
Hope this comment is immune to staff administration "off topic" interpretation as well.
I'd assert that Mathmematics is not a science in its form but rather a tool of science and a logical framework, ie: a yard stick by which to judge observation.
That's the point of view of (most?) physicists. Mathematicians oth like to share the point of view of CF Gauss who declared mathematics to be the queen of science (and number theory to be the queen of mathematics).
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
All you aether theorists getting your panties in a bunch because all of science looks at you as though you're the Christian dark ages of physics.
Yes, evolution works in circles and every revolution devours its children.

http://www.physor...267.html

It's a super-symmetry phenomena, in fact - the forces which motivated progress of human knowledge at the beginning are becoming a brake or "dark matter" of the further evolution. The same things occurs during energy spreading at water surface with distance: tiny Brownian waves are spreading like capillary waves and after transform into longitudinal waves again.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2010
..Gauss who declared mathematics to be the queen of science (and number theory to be the queen of mathematics).
The discussion above illustrates, physicists are willing to ignore mathematical models immediately, whenever they would contradict their own interests.
You're just trying to fuel this hysteria - but for what purpose?
We should realize, it's just mainstream physicists, who ignores their own theories for the sake of their undisturbed experiments. We use theories just to predict future, it's the way of our interaction with future. Not CERN physicists are ignoring these voices from future intentionally.

http://www.nytime...lhc.html

We will not get any other warnings, face it. No mysterious forces or phenomena would stop LHC collider - only the predictions of theories and precautionary principle can do that.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple
acenes
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
My goodness, some people do seem to have a huge amount of fee time on their hands, don't they?

Personally, I hope that they do create a black hole at CERN and we're all sucked into it to our doom.

Then at least then there will be no more drivel such as above.

BTW, I am "acenes", the anti-seneca. Put us to together and we will both vanish is a puff of logic.

And wouldn't that be nice?
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
You cannot compete with LHC-deniers, because you have neither math, neither theories denying the formation of stable black holes in robust way. You can only repeat: no, no, no black holes were prepared yet - so that LHC is safe. But virtually every theory tested at LHC predicts, such black hole should be formed, even CERN scientists are expecting it. The difference is in what we can expect from LHC collisions and in what we can believe only.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 12, 2010
No mysterious forces or phenomena would stop LHC collider - only the predictions of theories and precautionary principle can do that.
And what can stop YOU? and/or all the other hysteric/paranoic doomsday "experts"?

Note: "Shutdown of LHC" nor "Move LHC off Earth" is accepted as an answer to this question.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 12, 2010
You cannot compete with LHC-deniers
Exactly.

They are like their very beloved black holes..
No matter what you throw at them, they just suck it up and the information bit of it gets unreversibly destroyed in the process.

;o)
seneca
1 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
"Move LHC off Earth" is not accepted as an answer to this question.
Why not? It's the natural solution of this problem. CERN proponents present the LHC like undeniable portion of reality - whereas such thing could be shutdown quite easily - simply unplugging it from electric grid. It's evident, CERN physicists just defend their existence in similar way, like dictators in totalitarian countries. Their strategy is to build accelerator and present its subsequent running like necessary thing. During this time they build another, even larger one and whole situation will just repeat, until really some disaster happens. With such approach the destruction of Earth is just matter of time and no one could avoid it. It's evident, scientific community constitutes a problem for the rest of society, because it's apparently out of control already.

If you don't believe me, just present us some mechanism, which would retract scientists from further experiments.
seneca
1 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
So far we all are pretending, we could stop collider experiment anytime, before some black hole strikes.

But are we really capable to do so? Do we have some mechanism for it? Or are we all just predestined to perform larger and larger experiments, until we destroy everything?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2010
All you aether theorists getting your panties in a bunch because all of science looks at you as though you're the Christian dark ages of physics.

Come up with anything of merit that is experimentally observable and perhaps we'll start listening.

Says the "scientist" who couldn't do more than add 1+1 in collider physics.

Supposing you're an example of a "real" scientist, is there any wonder we don't trust scientists?
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
Says the "scientist" who couldn't do more than add 1+1 in collider physics.

Supposing you're an example of a "real" scientist, is there any wonder we don't trust scientists?

So gross misrepresentations of your assumed truth are passing for science?

Such a useless troll you are.
broglia
2 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
Says the person, who called Choptuik "a detractor, who took Einstein's equations and applied them recursively to RHIC datasets attempting to prove the creation of a BH at the RHIC" - albeit his article doesn't contain a single "RHIC" word? Says the person, who quoted nonexisting paragraphs from this article? Says the person, who adviced others to read article without having access to it?

Such an useless liar you are.
DLuckyE
4 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
They're almost continuously running collisions at CERN, I think we'd know by now if a black hole would eat the earth.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2010
They're almost continuously running collisions at CERN, I think we'd know by now if a black hole would eat the earth.
This isn't true. At a minimum, problems would take years to become apparent.

Personally, I wouldn't expect the danger to become apparent in my lifetime.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2010
They're almost continuously running collisions at CERN, I think we'd know by now if a black hole would eat the earth.
The formation of black holes at LHC is a quantum mechanics phenomena and as such it has probabilistic character like radioactive decay of atoms (which is somewhat inverse process). You can wait whole billions of years for decay of single thorium atom, but it will occur anyway at the end. The fact we didn't observe it during first few months of LHC experiments doesn't really mean anything in this connection.
Shaffer
4 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2010
...I just want to see the light at the end of LHC tunnel. Is my stance so absurd and illogical?


Yes, absurd, AND illogical. The LHC tunnel is round, and therefore has no end.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
...I just want to see the light at the end of LHC tunnel. Is my stance so absurd and illogical?


Yes, absurd, AND illogical. The LHC tunnel is round, and therefore has no end.

The light at the end of the tunnel is jsut a packed wave of subluminal protons commin' at ya.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2010
Typical sign of physical trolls is the claiming something, which has no support in mathematical models and/or even contradicts them - the formation of stable black hole during collisions is the example of physical trollism of CERN proponents.
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2010
Strong quake hits northwest China - something strange happens there..

http://tinyurl.com/yyq9xmk

PS3
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2010
Typical sign of physical trolls is the claiming something, which has no support in mathematical models and/or even contradicts them - the formation of stable black hole during collisions is the example of physical trollism of CERN proponents.


So to trying to create mBH without Hawking Radiation being proven is a great idea??
broglia
3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
CERN proponents are claiming instead, LHC is safe, because tiny black holes should evaporate by Hawking radiation. Of course, the absence of Hawking radiation makes whole model a lottery about destiny of Earth.

We shouldn't experiment with it, until we don't know, how these black hole will interact with material of Earth. I presume, Choptuik's simulation could be easily adopted to such purpose, but we need another, more detailed simulations and more advanced models for comparison.

In my opinion, micro-black holes cannot grow unlimitelly in similar way, like common atom nuclei - but during this grow they could still release a dangerous amount of energy in analogy to cold fusion of atom nuclei.
Sirussinder
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2010
CERN proponents are claiming instead, LHC is safe, because tiny black holes should evaporate by Hawking radiation. Of course, the absence of Hawking radiation makes whole model a lottery about destiny of Earth.

We shouldn't experiment with it, until we don't know, how these black hole will interact with material of Earth. I presume, Choptuik's simulation could be easily adopted to such purpose, but we need another, more detailed simulations and more advanced models for comparison.


Exactly, and of these armchair physorg egotistical trolls commenting can prove the LHC is safe regardless. The reason is there is no proof, only assumptions of safety based on observation and unproven theories, like Hawking's evaporation.

If one is going to throw in unproven theories, then the LHC scientists need to include the Einstein black hole theories, which now makes the LHC dangerous. But I see there are people would could rather say Hawking is right and Einstein is wrong so the LHC is safe
Sirussinder
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2010
Edit fix:
Exactly, and none of these armchair physorg egotistical trolls commenting can prove the LHC is safe regardless.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2010
If one is going to throw in unproven theories
It's fascinating easy to identify your ilk by just one fundamental misconception like "unproven theories".
seneca
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
By Poppers methodology of science every theory is unproven by its definition. In this methodology this "misconception" is a fundamental concept, instead.

Are you trying to tell us, one of main pillars of contemporary scientific method is a "misconception"? Do you propose some alternative? A "proven theories" instead, for example?
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2010
"Unproven theories" is a misconception as it implies "proven theories". As long as you don't understand the fundamental difference between "unproven theory" and "not falsified theory", you are no scientist.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
"Unproven theories" is a misconception as it implies "proven theories".
Whereas by Popper's methodology no theory can be proven definitely, so that "unproven theory" is fundamental concept there...;-) As you can see, while we both considering Poppers methodology, we can get to opposite conclusion just by using of different rhetoric. You cannot get to your conclusion, without considering the mine one on background. With the same logic you could say, the "shinning sun" is a misconception, because it implies, the sun may not shine at all..
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
Whereas by Popper's methodology no theory can be proven definitely, so that "unproven theory" is fundamental concept there...
No. There is no symmetrie of certainty.
"Unproven" is not a fundamental scientific term as it is deduced from "proven" which is not a scientific term.

And of course the sun does not shine at night. The "shining sun" is not a statement about the sun but a statement about one's visual perception.

seneca
Apr 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
No. There is no symmetrie of certainty.
"Unproven" is not a fundamental scientific term as it is deduced from "proven" which is not a scientific term.

And of course the sun does not shine at night. The "shining sun" is not a statement about the sun but a statement about one's visual perception.
You mean the sun doesn't shine at night? My goodness! And all this time I just thought it was the earth, turning away!
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
..I just thought it was the earth, turning away!
This is just an unproven theory of yours - you never were on the opposite side of Earth to verify it. But if you would, you would have nothing to test there - in this way, whole our reality is deeply tautological. We are believing in things, which we can be never sure and we can't even test it reliably, being individual. The behavior of sun could be tested only if we consider whole civilization covering Earth as a single observer - in this way the behavior of sun remains just an intersubjectivelly accepted truth.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
..I just thought it was the earth, turning away!
This is just an unproven theory of yours - you never were on the opposite side of Earth to verify it. But if you would, you would have nothing to test there - in this way, whole our reality is deeply tautological. We are believing in things, which we can be never sure and we can't even test it reliably, being individual. The behavior of sun could be tested only if we consider whole civilization covering Earth as a single observer - in this way the behavior of sun remains just an intersubjectivelly accepted truth.
Thsi isn't true. There are all sorts of ways to determine the sun is shining while the earth is turned away. Most obvious: The moon (it often reflects sunlight onto the earth's nightside).
seneca
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
Well, it could be a sort of fluorescence, or something similar...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
Well, it could be a sort of fluorescence, or something similar...
Nope. Then it would shine all the time, not just when it's situated to reflect the sun.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2010
And it really does, as it's visible as a Moon's daylight. As you can see, my "theory" is working properly.

http://farm4.stat...4d74.jpg

In fact, just a quite rare event, like Moon eclipse could falsify my naive interpretation.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
And it really does, as it's visible as a Moon's daylight. As you can see, my "theory" is working properly.

http://farm4.stat...4d74.jpg

In fact, just a quite rare event, like Moon eclipse could falsify my naive interpretation.

Did you miss the part where he stated "not just when situated to reflect the sun."

And yes, there have been multiple lunar eclipses by which to falsify your theory.

My theory uses television. I can watch live daylight broadcasts from Japan when situated in the US.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2010
I can watch live daylight broadcasts from Japan when situated in the US
The usage of remote observation could become a claptrap for every theory because of violation of locality - expanding Universe will change during this. For example, physicists are believing, the gravitational lensing is a relativistic effect. But they never visited center of gravity lens with clock to make sure, space-time is curved there and lensing really occurs there at the same moment.

If they would, they would probably see, no lensing can be observed from inside of gravity lens, so it has nothing with relativity.

I know, we are discussing quite abstractly here, but the same principle applies to LHC collisions. The situation of cosmic rays, which are moving toward Earth in high speed is really different from situation of protons, which are colliding in head-to-head arrangement. In such speed and energy density the non locality of cosmic rays may play a quite significant role as a factor of LHC safety
PS3
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2010
and no, they don't know exactly what they'll get. That's why it's an experiment
There are dozens of theories, predicting formation of stable black holes in LHC, which are supported by previous experiments at RHIC & Tevatron. CERN physicist know wery well, what they should expect, because black hole formation was observed already.

http://adsabs.har......6193B

Frankly, guys, I needn't to read all your BS, as I'm expert in this area and I've dozen of publications about it collected already. I've counterargument to every claim of yours. For every claim about LHC safety I can demonstrate the number of CERN experiments planned, which are trying to prove exactly the opposite.
You apparently missed whole scientific program of this research. It's purpose isn't really to prove, black hole cannot be formed during LHC collisions. It's purpose isn't really to prove, such objects should evaporate ASAP


And that's all folks.
Seneca just owned you:)
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2010
This result is undeniable geometrical consequence of long-term concentration of capital for research. Every sufficiently advanced research becomes a threat for civilization, which had initiated it originally, because it advances its ability to handle it. CERN physicists cannot influence such outcome: they're just following these money blindly like matter is following gravitating object. Scientists would research anything, if you give them enough of money for it: nuclear weapons, artificial viruses or black holes, whatsoever... They're like robots without responsibility.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
The usage of remote observation could become a claptrap for every theory because of violation of locality - expanding Universe will change during this. For example, physicists are believing, the gravitational lensing is a relativistic effect. But they never visited center of gravity lens with clock to make sure, space-time is curved there and lensing really occurs there at the same moment.

If they would, they would probably see, no lensing can be observed from inside of gravity lens, so it has nothing with relativity.
This is wrong. Gravitational lensing, is well established.

The situation of cosmic rays, which are moving toward Earth in high speed is really different from situation of protons, which are colliding in head-to-head arrangement. In such speed and energy density the non locality of cosmic rays may play a quite significant role as a factor of LHC safety
This part is true though.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2010
And that's all folks.
Seneca just owned you:)

No, seneca is a serial plagiarizer with no expertise in anything other than lying and spamming. I've proven her plagiarizing in other places, all she does is rewrite others' work and/or copy and pastes it directly. It doesn't indicate any sort of actual knowledge or intelligence.

Besides, seneca touts the Aether theory that answers anything, everything and proposes to tie your shoes for you. That is enough to make her/it a laughingstock anywhere.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2010
seneca is a serial plagiarizer
Can you prove it - or you're just a serial backbiter? Anyway, keep the physics, this is not a facebook or social club.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2010
http://www.physor...713.html

There is the first example of your plagiarism. How hard would it be to find another 20? Google it yourself.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2010
If you would read the rules of forum policy, you would read there, the posting of links to nonreferenced sources of information like private webs and blogs is prohibited. You should not include links in signatures or links to irrelevant materials. Linking to obviously "crackpot" sites and private blogs is prohibited. Comments that contain irrelevant links (including links in signatures) will be deleted as well.

And as I told you many times, all my posts referring to my blog as a original source were deleted from there by moderators - so your confusion is simply synergistic product of forum policy and insufficient intellectual ability to understand it.
JayK
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2010
And yet I posted it and wasn't deleted. Strange, that.

But it also would have been advantageous for you at least to say that you weren't the author of the information, you were just copy and pasting it. You didn't give fair citation to the original author, you didn't even try. Your fall back position to "waaaa, they won't let me" is BS. There is no reason to trust anything you write nor anything you have written. You're dishonest and you're making up excuses for it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2010
And that's all folks.

JayK
just owned you:)
seneca
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2010
..it also would have been advantageous for you at least to say that you weren't the author of the information, you were just copy and pasting it..
Why the hell should I do it, if it's simply not true? Try to visit the original article about CCD - I attached the evidence, I'm its author at the end of it. Anyway, I appreciate your guarding of my intellectual property over the web.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2010
And after viewing that blog, I have to admit I feel sorry for you. I think I'll just stop responding to your copy-paste extravaganzas. It is clear that you're desperate for some kind of acknowledgement and/or attention, since most of the time you just talk to yourself on your blog. Arguing with you is now equivalent to kicking a whelp.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2010
.. most of the time you just talk to yourself on your blog
Not at all, I'm using my blog as an online notebook - just for copy&paste purposes, you mentioned. I'm not avoiding discussion with other readers, but when I find some link relevant to the discussion, I'll simply add it to the comments section like bookmark. Occasionally, when I collect sufficient amount of new info about subject in such way, I write another post about it. It's quite elaborated workflow.

Repetition is mother of wisdom - and frankly, I don't know, why I should waste my time by writing all my notes again and again, if clipboard is working well. I don't need any kind of acknowledgement from anonymous trolls, because I'm sure, I'm perfectly true with my extrapolations.

For example, if some people are willing to believe in black hole model of universe, I can ask, why they're refuting dense aether model of vacuum? Whether every black hole isn't formed by dense matter? Everything plays well together.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
Contemporary scientists maintain an illusion, all new ideas must be developed in formal way and supported by abstract math. It's understandable approach, analogous to stance of priests in Holy Church era, who required only scholastic approach to thinking. It's just a part of mainstream ideology, which is trying to keep superiority of scientific community over the rest of layman society.

But they're completely wrong. For example, it's quite difficult to distinguish between heliocentric and geocentric models by using of formal math, because both models are supplying nearly same predictions - their math is poorly conditioned. But these models could be distinguished easily by using of robust logics applied to observation of Venus phases, Lunar shadows, etc.. This is the way, in which Galileo defeated the geocentric model, after all - he didn't computed anything about it.

Now the situation just repeats regarding aether model. And once again, most of people are refuting to admit it.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
Mainstream physicists cannot believe, they got into situation of Holly Church of medieval era, which occupied the stance, which was basically hostile toward the rest of society and further progress in human understanding.

We all know, the Church was center of learning in the same way, like modern science, but this learning wasn't based on understanding of connections of reality in intuitive way, but it was completely formal. All people were affected by this scholastic - they couldn't understand anything, even when they faced the simple and intuitive explanation. In similar way, most of people today consider understanding of physics as a matter of many years learning of formal math - this is a complete BS, indeed. By using of nonformal logic it's quite easy to reliably predict things, which formal math isn't even able to decide, because the intuitive and formal approaches are basically dual. Each approach is good exactly in the point, where the second one fails.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
The interesting point here is, both disbelief in aether, both disbelief in heliocentric model was based on absence of reference frame and/or Earth motion. Just at the first case this stance was supported by Michelson-Morley experiment, whereas at second case it was supported by lack of stellar parallax.

With consideration of this difference, the whole situation in mainstream science is exactly analogous to situation of Galileo before four hundred years. It's all about seeming absence of reference frame and absolute motion of Earth toward it, again.

The stance of mainstream science is even much conservative by now, then the stance of Holly Church in Galilei times, because we have absolute motion of Earth measured already - it's Doppler anisotropy of cosmic microwave background radiation. Whereas annual parallax was measured conclusively only by Bessel in 1838.

http://www.astro....-DT.html
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2010
Are you really comparing AWH to the heliocentric model? Really?
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
In analogy with Holly Church the mainstream science considers only research, which supports contemporary dogma & theories. In this way, most money goes to LHC research, which is serving as a salary machine for narrow community of people and its basically useless for the rest of society - or it could even become dangerous for it. While the findings of extreme practical importance, like the cold fusion (Fleischmann&Pons), room Tc superconductivity (J.F.Prins) or antigravity (Podkletnov) are ignored widely by mainstream physics.

These analogies are just indicating, the evolution of human society could be predicted easier, then we're maybe expecting. We should realize, I'm not hostile to mainstream science more, then toward Holly Church - I'm just describing, what everyone can see around us. For me the mainstream science is just an neutral object, supporting extrapolations of my theory towards social evolution.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
Are you really comparing AWH to the heliocentric model?
Indeed, there are much more analogies. For example, heliocentric model was elaborated by Copernicus, but it was ignored by mainstream and forgotten for more then one century. Dense aether theory is not my invention, too - it was proposed by Oliver Lodge before one hundred years - but it was completely ignored and forgotten by mainstream science in the same way.

http://www.scribd...of-Space

Once again, I'm just describing similarities and connections, which everyone could verify for himself. You're not required to believe in anything here.
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2010
Both models are AdS/CFT dual by their very nature.

Just try to think about it: geocentric model described, how Sun is revolving around Earth, whereas the heliocentric model, the later one is assuming exactly the opposite. Mainstream physics represented by general relativity considers vacuum as a empty space surrounding massive bodies. Dense aether theory considers Universe as a massive body, forming the observable matter inside of it - well, illustratively speaking.

But both models were considered a many years before in ancient Hellenic Greece already. Old Greeks believed in both heliocentric model, both in aether model(a plenum) quite naturally.

In this extent they were a much farseeing and opened to thinking, then the mainstream physicists today.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2010
If you would read the rules of forum policy, you would read there, the posting of links to nonreferenced sources of information like private webs and blogs is prohibited.

They also say to not bring up pseudoscience, but you're the champ of violating that rule.
broglia
Apr 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
It depends, how to define the pseudoscience.

Pseudo-science: Fake Science
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2010
Would you prefer to be a Scientist or to be logical?

This is just the problem with aether - it's psychological and sociological barrier. It cast doubts to whole status of mainstream physics. How is it possible, it cannot recognize the massive stuff behavior in behavior of vacuum - or even oposes it??

I know very well, the acceptance of aether concept attacks whole modern scientistic religion and authority of scientists. Even layman people could have problem to admit, they're fooled whole years, while spending money for people, who are capable of such misunderstandings. It's a controversy of whole society, not just scientific community. The acceptance of such view is unpleasant for virtually everybody here and I know about it very well. The people tend to rationalize their mistakes obstinately, from this the notion of "pseudoscience" follows.

http://en.wikiped...cientism

But frankly, what is really nonscientific on aether concept? It's just physical model like many others
Shaffer
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2010
Strong quake hits northwest China - something strange happens there..


It's called: Solar Minimum is over....
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2010
Some people are saying, frequency of earthquakes increases, some others not. But it seems, quakes are now more randomly widespread over Earth surface, i.e. in areas, which were occupied by dense populations of people for many years without deeper problems. Like if they would be triggered by some random process in all directions.

http://www.washin...570.html

http://www.accuwe...akes.asp

http://news.disco...eep.html
broglia
2 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
But LHC still probably isn't the source of these problems. What is more interesting is, the Solar minimum caused the cooling of atmosphere, but the temperature of ocean is still raising. It looks like something is heating it from bottom up.

http://www.skepti...tent.gif

Shaffer
not rated yet Apr 20, 2010
But LHC still probably isn't the source of these problems. What is more interesting is, the Solar minimum caused the cooling of atmosphere, but the temperature of ocean is still raising. It looks like something is heating it from bottom up.

http://www.skepti...tent.gif



At least it wasn't the LHC - According to your chart there it started around June of 1981....

Hmmmm....

That's when I was born...Yeah BABY!!!
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
Some people are saying, frequency of earthquakes increases, some others not. But it seems, quakes are now more randomly widespread over Earth surface, i.e. in areas, which were occupied by dense populations of people for many years without deeper problems. Like if they would be triggered by some random process in all directions.

http://www.washin...570.html

Haiti Earthquakes:1751, 1770, 1842, 1946, 2010

Chile Earthquakes:Over 40 reported since 1575

China Earthquakes: almost a yearly occurance.

What new large magnitude quakes are you referring to? These are all on established faults, in accordance with established reciprocity.
Slotin
1 / 5 (21) Apr 20, 2010
Yes, it could still be a random fluctuation. But there is a coincidence with travelling geomagnetic pole and various evidences of global warming across solar system, for example.

Positivist scientists are usually waiting, until some coincidence becomes so obvious, it could be modelled mathematically. But many effects manifest much earlier as a fuzzy, but still logical coincidence of more events. Formal math cannot handle large N-body systems well and physicists are earning money by math - it's criterion of relevancy in their relevancy and superiority over layman opinion (until such math doesn't predict stable black holes at LHC, indeed).

In this way, modern physicists cannot often recognize many apparent coincidences well - they're simply trained in quite opposite approach and whole their philosophy is adopted to it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
Formal math explains ALL systems perfectly. If math doesn't explain the system, then we don't know enough about the system.

Math is quantitative, not qualitative. Simply because you can't form the equation doesn't mean that the equation doesn't exist.
Slotin
1 / 5 (22) Apr 20, 2010
If math doesn't explain the system, then we don't know enough about the system.
This is just the positivist view.

But for example the system of only three(!) massive (gravitating) particles cannot be described in formal math completely. The formal math fails quite apparently here. It's because in notion of Aether theory such system is surprisingly high-dimensional, in fact.

Does it mean, we don't know enough about the system? I would say... not - because such model can still be solved numerically by using of computer to arbitrary degree of precision and this solution is even surprisingly simple in iterative, recursive scheme. We "just" cannot express such implicit solution by equation, that's all.

I'd guess, even if we could express such system by equation, the resulting formula would be so complex and nested, we couldn't evaluate it without computer anyway, to derive some testable prediction from it the less.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
If math doesn't explain the system, then we don't know enough about the system.
This is just the positivist view.

By positivist do you mean someone who is correct or someone who is positive that you're wrong?

Wait, nevermind, one in the same.

Secondly, any calculation that a computer can do, humanity can do, so your insertion that a computer somehow makes the math funny and not real is wholly stupid.
Slotin
1 / 5 (22) Apr 20, 2010
The formal math faces analogous problem in geometry, for example during proof of so-called Kepler's conjecture. It's the problem of most compact arrangement of few spheres, again.

http://en.wikiped...njecture

Whereas everybody could see, such requirement leads to hexagonal arrangement of face-centered cubic lattice, the formal proof of such simple geometry is suprisingly complex and it has a computer assisted solution only. The even more surprising is, such complexity manifests just in 3D space in analogous way, like the famous Poincare conjecture. Certain miraculous complexity in interaction of just 3D spheres exist here.
Slotin
1.2 / 5 (22) Apr 20, 2010
your insertion that a computer somehow makes the math funny and not real is wholly stupid
Look, this thread is overly long and you just started to lie again, because I never said this - it's just silly impertinent misinterpretation of my post, which isn't worth of further discussion.

So I'm finishing with this thread.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2010
Just one question:

If space is comprised of discrete particles, what lies between these particles?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2010
The formal math faces analogous problem in geometry, for example during proof of so-called Kepler's conjecture. It's the problem of most compact arrangement of few spheres, again.

http://en.wikiped...njecture

Whereas everybody could see, such requirement leads to hexagonal arrangement of face-centered cubic lattice, the formal proof of such simple geometry is suprisingly complex and it has a computer assisted solution only. The even more surprising is, such complexity manifests just in 3D space in analogous way, like the famous Poincare conjecture. Certain miraculous complexity in interaction of just 3D spheres exist here.

Except for the fact that can be figured by exhaustion, jsut as Hale did in 98.

So again, your statement that formal math cannot explain everything is wrong.
broglia
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2010
Formal math cannot solve even most of trivial problems of hydrodynamics, which are solved by using of computers routinely. This is different world, which requires completelly diferent knowledge.

After all, Choptuik's simulation is the stuff of similar cathegory: should we be killed by black hole only because some scientists cannot derive/predict it in formal way?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2010
Formal math cannot solve even most of trivial problems of hydrodynamics, which are solved by using of computers routinely.

Computers do everything using formal math. It is the only language that is understood by computers. Again, you're wrong.

Simply because it's not easy to calculate by hand, or efficient timewise, it can still be done by hand or via exhaustion, by hand.

You're not allowed to make up imaginary dividing lines between "formal" math and informal math because of your self-perceived skill level.
broglia
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2010
You're confusing formal and numeric models. Formal model provides system of equations, which may be solved numerically. Numeric models are merely a simulation. For example, you can solve three-body or fluid motion problem with using of computer without having any formal representation of it. In most cases, such formal representation even doesn't exist. You needn't to know, how to derive or integrate, how to solve systems of equations, because these equations doesn't exist at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2010
You're confusing formal and numeric models. Formal model provides system of equations, which may be solved numerically. Numeric models are merely a simulation. For example, you can solve three-body or fluid motion problem with using of computer without having any formal representation of it. In most cases, such formal representation even doesn't exist. You needn't to know, how to derive or integrate, how to solve systems of equations, because these equations doesn't exist at all.

Then you couldn't model it on a computer.

If you're going to try to argue what formal math is, especially within the realm of statistical modeling, ensure that you're not arguing foolishness with a metrologist/electrical engineer.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2010
And jsut so you're aware the only difference between a formal model and a numerical model is the standard of time between measurements.

Formal is contiguous and derivitive, numerical is time stepped and derivitive. Both use formal math, and only a moron would think that numerical models cannot be drawn in formal math when in fact numerical models MUST be in formal math.

And if you think you can model a liquid without a formula you're engaging in pseudoscience of extreme measure by merely creating an animated gif that looks the way YOU think it would look, as opposed to doing the math and describing what it will actually look like.

Formal models leave no room for interpretation while informal models can be continuously adjusted, granting higher degrees of inaccuracy.
Numerical models are the same only subdivided over an axis.

And in most cases 1 type IS the other type. IE: Interest calculations are both formal models and numerical models.

Again, showing your ignorance
broglia
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2010
..if you think you can model a liquid without a formula you're engaging in pseudoscience ..
Of course you can.

http://en.wikiped..._methods

The main point is, you're computing fluid flow from fundamental physical laws directly - so you're not required to derive any integro-diferential equations (like Navier-Stokes equations, which introduces approximations due the required simplicity of resulting formulation) and to think, how to solve them (which introduces another approximations due the criterions of numerical solution stability).

These two steps are simply ommited from nonformal numeric solutions, which enables you to solve physical system as exactly, as possible. Illustrativelly speaking, you're not required to compose equations just for subsequent decomposition of it in process of their numeric solution.

BTW Please, avoid remarks about ignorance, if it's evident, it's just you who has no idea about real situation in this area.
broglia
Apr 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2010
My point has been made, and your evidence further reinforces it. This exchange is complete, I refuse to feed your troll habit.
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2010
How do f'ing computers work? I don't want to talk to no scientist, yo mudderfarkers are lying, and getting me pissed!

http://www.youtub...gl0pOQfs

Forward to 1:48 for the hilarity. This thread is also another prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2010
How do f'ing computers work?
I don't know about f'ing - but these common ones are just adding zeros and ones - such level of formal math is affordable.

http://www.escape...dex.html

Could you solve it by using of formal math? In particle dynamics such model is quite trivial. With using of heavilly parallelized computers simmilar to GPU's used in graphic cards we can make these simulations quite effective.

I do believe, the future of physics is in low level particle approach, because most of people don't like learning of math, but they still want to model & predict various complex phenomena.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2010
Could you solve it by using of formal math?

Since it runs on a computer, which just adds zeros and ones, it's already being done via formal math.

Are you really this systemically ignorant of reality?
Alizee
Apr 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2010
LOL. You apparently don't know, what the formal math is - which explains all the previous nonsensical discussions of yours.

FORMAL math finds a FORMAL solution in form of general formula, i.e. the equation or function with parameters, so it can be written on paper. It doesn't adds anything, zero and ones the less.

Formalized mathematics consists of mathematical theorems and proofs stated in a formal language, with enough detail that a computer program (called a proof assistant) can mechanically verify all of the steps, thereby certifying correctness.

You are defining "Formulaic Math". Thank you, go away.
Alizee
Apr 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2010
Do you understand the difference between formal and numeric solution? If you're claiming, it's the same, then I'm expert in formal math without problem, because I can just a write a computer programs.


You would have to be capable of formal math to be able to write the program, as some of us do quite often.
Alizee
Apr 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 27, 2010
I put the textbook definition up there for you, now you want to argue it?
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2010
I'm pretty sure, most of programmers have no idea, what the derivation or integration of real functions means (not saying about higher algebra like tensors), while still performing various particle collision simulations in their games routinely.

You have some mighty big cahones to completely dismiss programmers with such massive errors in your own posts. You obviously have never written a program, but you did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. Good for you.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.