LHC lawsuit case dismissed by US court

Sep 13, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
So far, the LHC has reached an energy of about 3.5 trillion electron volts, or half of its full energy. Image credit: CERN.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A Hawaiian man's lawsuit to try to prevent operations of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been dismissed due to a failure to show a "credible threat of harm," according to the judge. And, as ruled in 2008, the judge again concluded that the US government is not the correct party to bring the suit against since the US doesn't control LHC operations.

Walter Wagner, a retired nuclear safety officer, along with Spanish journalist Luis Sancho, filed the lawsuit in March 2008 before the LHC was turned on. The LHC, located on the border between France and Switzerland, was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). As a collaboration among thousands of scientists from more than 100 countries, the LHC is the largest and most powerful in the world. After an electrical fault initially shut down the collider when it was first turned on in September 2008, it has been operating successfully since November 2009.

The LHC was designed to investigate many exotic areas of science, such as supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and . Wagner filed the lawsuit due to his concern that the LHC would produce or a strange form of matter that could destroy the Earth. While he attempted to stop the LHC before it began operating, the US originally dismissed the suit in 2008 on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over the LHC operations.

But Wagner appealed the case, and now, for the second time, the court has dismissed the lawsuit for similar reasons. The judge noted that the LHC is owned, managed, and controlled by CERN, not the US. "The US government enjoys only observer status on the CERN council, and has no control over CERN or its operations," the judge wrote in the final decision. "Accordingly, the alleged injury, destruction of the Earth, is in no way attributable to the US government's failure to draft an environmental impact statement."

Even if the US court could have an impact on LHC operations, the judge also concluded that Wagner did not demonstrate sufficient standing in the court for the case to proceed. "At most, Wagner has alleged that experiments at the (the 'Collider') have 'potential adverse consequences.' Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing."

Wagner told Cosmic Log, a science blog at MSNBC, that he plans to seek a review of the court's ruling, since the law allows review requests to be filed up to 45 days after the August 24 ruling.

plans to continue operating the LHC through 2011 at half-power, or 3.5 trillion electron volts. Then, after one year of scheduled maintenance, the power will be increased to the maximum 7 trillion electron volts in December 2012.

The full (five-paragraph) court ruling is available here.

Meanwhile, a monitoring system that provides real-time updates on the LHC's potential for destruction is available at www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com.

Explore further: Education Dept awards $75M in innovation grants

More information: via: Symmetry Magazine and Cosmic Log
-- A Lawyer's View of the Risk of Black Hole Catastrophe at the LHC, PhysOrg.com, January 22, 2010.

Related Stories

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 ...

Particle accelerator to be ready in '07

Dec 16, 2006

Nuclear research officials in Geneva, Switzerland, expressed confidence that the Large Hadron Collier particle accelerator would be ready for use in 2007.

Large Hadron Collider 7 TeV experiment on March 30

Mar 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- With beams routinely circulating in the Large Hadron Collider at 3.5 TeV, the highest energy yet achieved in a particle accelerator, CERN has set the date for the start of the LHC research ...

LHC to Restart in 2009

Dec 08, 2008

CERN today confirmed that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will restart in 2009. This news forms part of an updated report, published last week, on the status of the LHC following a malfunction on 19 September.

CERN boss wants to bid for linear collider

Sep 16, 2009

CERN’s director general Rolf-Dieter Heuer will push for the linear collider, the next big experiment in particle physics after the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to be built at the Geneva lab. Heuer made his call to situate ...

Recommended for you

How myths and tabloids feed on anomalies in science

3 hours ago

There are many misconceptions about science, including how science advances. One half-truth is that unexpected research findings produce crises, leading to new theories that overturn previous scientific knowledge.

Research band at Karolinska tuck Dylan gems into papers

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —A 17-year old bet among scientists at the Karolinska Institute has been a wager that whoever wrote the most articles with Dylan quotes before they retired would get a free lunch. Results included ...

A simulation game to help people prep for court

Sep 25, 2014

Preparing for court and appearing before a judge can be a daunting experience, particularly for people who are representing themselves because they can't afford a lawyer or simply don't know all the ropes ...

User comments : 203

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2010
… ever is uneven any LHC'ing but never was not even one LHC'st unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all LHC's are always without theory because with practum is also not the real LHC …
CreepyD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2010
Do they have to pick Dec 2012 for the planned time to go to full power, wont that just increase all the negative press it's getting even more?
TheQuietMan
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2010
Truth, I look forward to it powering up. There is a lot to be learned, and the alarmists tend to be loonies and off base IMO.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2010
Do they have to pick Dec 2012 for the planned time to go to full power, wont that just increase all the negative press it's getting even more?
On the contrary - when they stop the LHC because of superstitious rumors the negative press will increase.
danman5000
2 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2010
Not that I believe any of that end of the world nonsense, but the December 2012 date does seem a pretty ominous choice, doesn't it?
gwrede
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2010
Do they have to pick Dec 2012 for the planned time to go to full power, wont that just increase all the negative press it's getting even more?
On the contrary - when they stop the LHC because of superstitious rumors the negative press will increase.
Maybe they should pin it at Dec 13? Anyway, they'll see delays, so the actual date will be in 2013.

Probably won't help much...
Bob_Kob
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2010
Yeah I can't help but feel the eerie connection between the LHC and december 2012. Did they also build it on an indian burial site?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2010
well being that it is in europe, it is no where near any native american burial sites, nor is anywhere near India. So regardless of whether or not you were being very crass with your use of the word Indian, the answer is no.
fmfbrestel
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2010
The LHC issued an incredibly comprehensive review of all of the risks, including micro-black holes and strangelets. They examined every conceivable possibility for their creation (with charge, without charge, relativistic speeds, low speeds, and all combinations) and then explained why every scenario possesses 0 threat to the planet. If you want to be troll, don't read it. If you are concerned but are capable of critical thought, you should read it. It is easily found with google.
StarDust21
5 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2010
I guess that goes to show there are stupid people everywhere
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2010
The December 2012 thing makes me chuckle. I hope they did it on purpose just for the extra press. Think of how many more people are going to be paying attention to what goes on there just because it's in December of 2012.
dlau
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2010
People like Wagner who think Earth can be in danger by LHC are just idiots, not to mention that we have no control over CERN in what they do. Get a life or just get a better understanding of real science, not science fiction.
RHouston
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2010
The real fools are those who, like the 3-judge panel, believe that Big Science is always right and could never endanger the environment or planet. Like CERN, BP was allowed to give its project full safety approval without regulation or oversight, thanks to a similar court ruling. The result was a disaster that took months to stop, but an LHC disaster would be irreparable.

CERN's LHC safety report, touted in a prior comment, is a self-serving whitewash that has been shown to be badly flawed. See the critique by physicist Rainer Plaga, Ph.D., at http://arxiv.org/...8.1415v3 . A rebuttal of CERN's arguments by the co-plaintiff is at: http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=6 and an extensive report, "Critical Revision of LHC Risks," is available at http://lhc-concer...ge_id=91 .
Bob_Kob
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2010
well being that it is in europe, it is no where near any native american burial sites, nor is anywhere near India. So regardless of whether or not you were being very crass with your use of the word Indian, the answer is no.


Boy is my face red!...
fmfbrestel
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2010
"The energy needed to break up a strangelet is similar to that needed to break
up a normal nucleus, which is of the order of one to a few million electron
volts. Similar energies would be reached in a heat bath with a temperature of
ten to several tens of billions of degrees Celsius. However, heavy-ion
collisions are known to produce heat baths that are far hotter, reaching
temperatures exceeding 1 trillion degrees Celsius [3]. Basic thermodynamics
would require most strangelets to melt in such a heat bath, i.e., dissociate into
the known strange particles that decay within a nanosecond. For this reason,
the likelihood of strangelet production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions can
be compared to the likelihood of producing an icecube in a furnace."
--- LHC Safety Assessment Group
fmfbrestel
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2010
Furthermore, the RHIC has been colliding gold ions at relativistic speeds for a good long time now. RHIC creates just as many strange quarks as the LHC will, but at a much lower temperature. The lower the temperature, the higher the chance of strangelet production. This means that as far as strangelets go, if any collider were to destroy the earth with strangelets, it would be RHIC, not LHC.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2010
I'm in a state of disbelief that anyone gives the 2012 date any creedence.

When my calendar ends on Dec 31st 2010, I'll buy a new calendar, have a few drinks, maybe host a party....

I won't be anticipating the end of the world.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (53) Sep 14, 2010
The LHC issued an incredibly comprehensive review of all of the risks, including micro-black holes and strangelets. They examined every conceivable possibility for their creation (with charge, without charge, relativistic speeds, low speeds, and all combinations) and then explained why every scenario possesses 0 threat to the planet.


Then why did they bother building the thing if they are capable of having all the answers a head of time.

[This question is posed as the devil's advocate's retarded nephew, and is in jest]
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (54) Sep 14, 2010
.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (52) Sep 14, 2010
@fmfbrestel, Your not agreeing with a "."?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2010
That this court determined it doesn't have jurisdiction, does not imply a fault with all of Wagner's assertions.
RHouston
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2010
The prior quote from the LSAG safety report and comment about RHIC assert that strangelet production at the LHC is impossible because of higher heat and energy than at RHIC. Such arguments seem disingenuous, for they are contradicted by CERN's own documents (see: http://www.cerntr...m/?p=125 ). The lack of strangelet production at RHIC can be interpreted as due to inadequate energy to produce enough strange quarks that could reassemble to form a stable strangelet.

Most of the LHC ring is colder than outer space. The high heat in energetic lead collisions is expected to deconfine quarks, which then may reassemble into exotic particles. CERN's own statement about ALICE acknowledges this: "The ALICE colaboration plans to study the quark-gluon plasma [resulting from high heat] as it expands and cools, observing how it progressively gives rise to particles..."
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2010
First off, the temperature of the superconducting coils has absolutely zero relevance and you know it. Talk about disingenuous!
The lack of strangelet production at RHIC can be interpreted as due to inadequate energy to produce enough strange quarks that could reassemble to form a stable strangelet.


Technically true, but also (seemingly intentionally) misleading. RHIC is producing strange quarks, but you say they cant produce enough of them to make strangelets however, LHC with its increased power will make more and destroy the earth. Unfortunately, quantity of strange quarks is not the limiting factor in stable strangelet production; time and temperature are the limiting factors. The strange quarks have less then 1 nano second to form a strangelet, but cannot due so until their temperature has fallen to an acceptable range. The higher energies of LHC will therefore make it less likely that LHC produce strangelets then RHIC.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Sep 15, 2010
@Noumenon

I feel threatened by punctuation
fmfbrestel
4 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2010
"Distillation mechanism
Strangeness distillation has been proposed specifically as a mechanism for strangelet production. This mechanism assumes that a baryon-rich quark-gluon plasma is produced in a heavy-ion collision, which cools by evaporation from its surface. Due to the large baryon chemical potential in this plasma, an ¯s quark would be more likely to pair with an u or d quark, than an s quark with an ¯u or ¯ d. As a consequence, the cooling of the plasma would lead to an excess of s quarks in a baryon-rich lump, which may finally become a strangelet. We note that this production process would be more likely for large baryon chemical potential, and thus would be less likely for heavy-ion collisions at the LHC than at lower center-of-mass energies."
--- LHC Safety Assessment Group; Strangelet Addendum
fmfbrestel
4 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2010
"Moreover, there is by now significant empirical evidence against a dynamical picture of heavy-ion collisions in which strangeness distillation could be operational. In particular, empirical evidence from RHIC strongly supports explosive production scenarios, in which, for instance, collective flow gradients increase with center-of-mass energy [17]. The short lifetime of the produced systems (of the order of 10 fm/c) is not expected to allow for an evaporation process. Moreover, the explosive collective dynamics is expected to favor bulk emission rather than surface emission [17]. So, there is no evidence for a distillation mechanism capable of strangelet production at RHIC, and this suggestion for strange particle production has been abandoned for the LHC."
--- LHC Safety Assessment Group; Strangelet Addendum
fmfbrestel
4 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2010
Yes, the plasmas will eventually give rise to complex particles. Particles will be created in order of highest binding energies. Strangelets, by definition (as required to assume doomsday scenario chain reactions) have a very low binding energy coupled with their low potential energy (the property which leads to the doomsday scenarios). Unfortunately strange quarks are ridiculously unstable, and will not be able to survive long enough to see temperatures compatible with strangelet production.

Plainly said: if the LHC is going to destroy the planet, stangelets will not be the destructive mechanism. I would be more worried about more conventional threats like governments appropriating stored anti-mater for weapon programs. (although the LHC would have to run for centuries to produce enough anti-mater to blow up anything substantial)
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2010
... or i could also try to spell matter correctly... This forum could really use a post editing tool.
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2010
"1) The company has been testing its machine, the Large Hadron Collider, at low energies with protons and now it has scheduled the first real experiment with hadrons the 11/9." -- guy whose lawsuit was dismissed.

Hilarious stuff. 'they have been testing with protons, but now they are going to start using HADRONS! OH NOES!' protons ARE hadrons. really guys if you want a laugh go check out his website. It is so chalk full of logical fallacies that it will make your head spin.
BozoChavez
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
On the contrary, strangelet denier brestel. Statements by CERN participants not eventually only acknowledged that mini black holes were going to be produced at CERN after all, after some time claiming they were not, but now there are similar assurances that strangelets will be produced after all, contrary to earlier assertions echoed here rather anachronistically. There is a detector for strangelets in the LHC, as you should well know.

All your unproven confidence that nothing will go wrong, when no one really knows what will result, has already been shown to be too optimistic when it comes to the ordinary material design of the collider, let alone its potential effects. The darn thing fell apart when cranked up for the first time.

Clearly there are many acts of cover up going on at CERN to shield the magnificent operation from public gaze and the doubts of its critics, to to mention ad hominem attacks on the critics (always a very bad sign) rather than what they theorize.

BozoChavez
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
The last possibility has happened in only one instance so far and resulted in a complete fiasco, that is, in the case of Plaga, with Giddings and Mangano trying to answer his theoretical paper and making a complete botch of it by mistaking one equation for another.

The confident assertions of supporters of CERN that there is nothing to worry about are thus plain silly, given all these retractions, not to mention the ongoing retractions of safety arguments over more than a decade and their replacement with others, presumably likely to be retracted as well, once we know more.

Let's face it the only good theory about the LHC is Eric Johnson's conclusion after writing his long history of the affair, which everybody here should read before arguing further.

It is the theory that experts especially of the small boy type that make up CERN should undergo outside review before being allowed to open their box of matches and set the curtain alight to see what happens.

BozoChavez
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
This theory is simply a principle of good parenting on which all mature and responsible members of the public can rely on.

If I may be allowed to say so, perhaps the reason people don't subscribe to it here is that they have no children.

I wonder how many posting here are bona fide parents?
fmfbrestel
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2010
The CASTOR detector is designed to detect "strange matter" Of course LHC is going to produce strange quarks, and those strange quarks will combine to form some strange barrions, but there is a very important distinction between a strangelet that could (hypothetically) initiate an ICE-9 conversion of all matter into strangelets, and other combinations of quarks which contain some of the strange variety. Strange particles have been created and observed in RHIC and other lower power accelerators for a long time. CASTOR will be observing these strange particles.
There are also a number of strange particles commonly referred to as 'strangelets' but are incapable of the ICE-9 conversion. These have energies higher than their non-strange counterparts and as such are entirely benign.
fmfbrestel
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2010
But if you want to concede the strangelet's I would be more then happy to start discussing micro-black holes with you. but lets set to rest one doomsday scenario at a time hu? Who's really being intelectually dishonest here? Someone who (in an entirely seperate post) takes one quote out of context, and makes fun of the author to lighten things up after making very serious arguments just previous -- Or the guy who sums up all of my posts as simply "ad hominem" and then goes on to make no fewer then 4 ad hominem attacks himself.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2010
Who's really being intelectually dishonest here?

Do you realize you're asking this question of a person who willingly named themself "BozoChavez"?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2010
lol, I just clicked on the last link in the article. Funny, although I am surprised that made the editing cut.
RHouston
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2010
After snowing us with multiple quotes of pontificating sophistry from the LSAG report, It seems that commenter Brestel has apparently conceded that "strange matter" and "strangelets (a bit of the same) might be produced at the LHC and detected by its CASTOR unit. But rest assured, he claims that such would be "entirely benign."

That's another debatable issue, involving several factors, such as charge and stability. The 2008 LSAG report retreated from the 2003 safety report by conceding that negative strangelets such as could accrete matter were possible, citing a 2007 study from China. The latest study from the same Chinese physicists concludes, "With the present knowledge, strange quark matter and strangelets are metastable or absolutely stable for some parameters in the reasonable range..." (X.J. Wen et al., J. Phys. G. 2009; 36: 025011),

BozoChavez
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2010
Well dear fmf, not to be too ad hominem (who was being ad hominem, by the way? oh, you mean my comparing CERN physicists with small boys lighting the living room curtains when the parents are out? Seems a very valid metaphor/simile to me. Are you trying to suggest they have responsibly responded to the problem visible to all attentive outsiders?) but your own satisfaction in trying to answer the strangelet objection is yet again a failure to rise to the level of overall principle here, and understand that on that level a) we have not yet completed a definitive permanent model of the universe b) your thinking depends on many assumptions which may not be true and c) physicists who evade oversight cannot be trusted with the fate of the world, however much we like admire and identify with them and their project.

BozoChavez
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2010
By the way BozoChavez is a heroic figure whose name I take in vain but proudly. Anyone who doesn't know that is owning up to a severe lack of appreciation of a major slice of culture.

The last line of the article is a schoolboy jape of a level of facetiousness that betrays the utter lack of seriousness of this and all other journalists on this issue.

What is needed is for any reporters and editors dealing with this topic to read at least Eric Johnson's essay and stop transcribing CERN's pr as if they were stenographers.

Would you at least agree with that?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2010
Im going to ignore the personal attacks, and move on to the only two actual arguments presented:

"With the present knowledge, strange quark matter and strangelets are metastable or absolutely stable for some parameters in the reasonable range..."


First off it's out of context. The true context of that passage refers to their stability in a mathematical model, not in what LHC will be capable of producing. We all know that stable strangelets are bad. No one here is suicidal. The question being debated is whether LHC has the ability to destroy the world, NOT whether strangelets are theoretically possible.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2010
Secondly, you argue that we cannot trust physicists. They are blind to their own ambition, and care only for personal achievement, consequences be damned.

I would argue that if you truly hold this opinion, you may already be beyond help. They are human beings. They have families. Many of them (despite the media's projections) have a strong religious faith. They're pay is ridiculously tiny compared to doctors in other fields. They are just like you and I, except their life's training has been in physics and mathematics.
Serious challenges have been brought regarding the safety of the LHC, and the physicists have dealt with those challenges scientifically. They are NOT blind to the concerns raised by Wagner and Sancho. Are the then, intentionally misleading us? Maybe they have an escape plan so they can watch the destruction from space? No seriously, explain to me their motivation for deceiving us.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2010
Lastly, once again. If LHC was capable of the destruction of our earth, we would not be here discussing it. RHIC and many other lower power colliders would have ended us long ago. You claim my arguments are uncertain while offering nothing in dispute. The added power and heat LHC will bring to collisions will only further suppress strangelet production.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2010
After snowing us with multiple quotes of pontificating sophistry from the LSAG report, It seems that commenter Brestel has apparently conceded that "strange matter" and "strangelets (a bit of the same) might be produced at the LHC and detected by its CASTOR unit. But rest assured, he claims that such would be "entirely benign."


You have really showed us your ignorance on this topic now. I haven't APPARENTLY conceded it, I EXPLICITLY conceded it. All those things, which i mentioned have already been produced in other colliders. All of them. The only thing not produced was a strangelet with the properties to destroy normal matter. And as i just mentioned above, LHC will produce an environment more hostile to their production then any of the other colliders. If you want to dispute this claim, please do.
RHouston
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2010
The LSAG claim that "added power and heat" of the LHC would further "suppress strangelet production" is merely a self-serving conjecture. If heat were totally suppressive then no new particles of any kind would form. The power argument was already disproved in the first results reported from the LHC: the increase in energy over the Tevatron's record resulted in an unexpected large increase in the production of particles containing strange quarks (kaons and hyperons).

Particle physicists of CERN are human and thus prone to bias and belief in whatever serves their personal interests. The LSAG report was written by CERN employees and chaired by a longtime LHC advocate (Ellis). Independent multidisciplinary review is needed.

The quoted Chinese conclusion about strangelet stability was relevant to the LHC. It was preceded by: "These parameters may be further constrained from future heavy-ion collision experiments and/or astronomical observations."
fmfbrestel
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
increased strange quark production is not the same as increased ability of those quarks to form strangelets. A strangelet is a form of matter with a lower energy state then standard matter. They are then able to convert standard matter to this lower energy state. This lower energy state is critical to both the destructive potential of strangelets AND the conditions needed to create it. The higher the temperature of the plasma, the more impossible it is for the quarks to cool down to the point of strangelet formation before they decay. They do not survive long enough in RHIC to form strangelets, and they will cool down even less in LHC before decay.
Again, the Chinese conclusion is one based in a theoretical model. All it states is that given the right conditions strangelets can form and be stable. NOT that LHC will produce them, or their necessary conditions.
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2010
Sorry for lack of paragraphs and possible grammar errors, its late.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2010
By the way BozoChavez is a heroic figure whose name I take in vain but proudly. Anyone who doesn't know that is owning up to a severe lack of appreciation of a major slice of culture.
Looks like the internet has never heard of a "Bozo Chavez". So who exactly are you referring to?
BozoChavez
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2010
On the contrary Brestel it is you who are making no proper response to the corrections made to your posts. CERN has detectors ready for strangelets and you grind on again about the conditions in the LHC being less conducive for their formation than RHIC. Tell CERN that then, if you don't work there, which judging from your sense of identification with physicists when trite truths about their nature as typical human beings subject to confirmation bias etc are noted, may be the case (that you work there).

CERN is acting off the leash and you haven't yet justified this public irresponsibility which arrogates the risktaking involved, which is clearly some risk of sending us all down the plughole in one way or another. However small the risk (and there is no way of estimating a risk if the expected result is unknown) the consequence of failure are so dire that we must take it into account, don't you see? This is risk evaluation 101, Brestel.
BozoChavez
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2010
Thank you for asking, Skeptic Heretic. Bozo Chavez was a major figure in zydeco, the accordion based black music of the Lousiana swampland and thereabouts. I agree his renown has faded somewhat on the Internet, but not in the hearts of all who cherish one of the most rousing and driving forms of music contributed by black Americans to world culture.
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2010
They have a detector for strange matter, which we know they will produce. That isn't a point of contention.

Do you have anything to add to why LHC will be conducive to strangelet production in a way that RHIC is not? I grind on it, because no one seems to be able to form an actual argument against it, and its a damn strong argument.
"off the leash"? "public irresponsibility"? those are the claims that have no backing. You tell me how LHC is taking a greater risk then what RHIC is doing today, and then we can talk about irresponsibility.
BozoChavez
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2010
"Many of them (despite the media's projections) have a strong religious faith.".

Not a good recommendation for a realistic physicist, by the way.
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2010
I have a sense of identification with them because I'm a human being and so are they. You seem to classify them under the heading demon. They obviously arent blind to risks, they have actively engaged in debates about the risks. So are they just the dumbest group of physicists ever, or are they really bent on world destruction?
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2010
"Not a good recommendation for a realistic physicist, by the way."

Why? is it easier to demonize them if you think they are all atheists? You're the one making the infinite harm risk reduction analysis, so i assume you have a very strong faith yourself. Without it your soul has a small chance of being eternally punished.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2010
BTW, thanks for the compliment, but no, i do not work for CERN. And i have a very strong desire to see the earth continue existing, because i have more of a quiet deistic faith, which puts me at risk of eternal damnation. So i would like to continue living.
frajo
4 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
CERN is acting off the leash and you haven't yet justified this public irresponsibility which arrogates the risktaking involved, which is clearly some risk of sending us all down the plughole in one way or another.
Funny how your breed never wastes one single word on the worldwide nuclear overkill capacities under the finger tips of non-scientist like politicians and generals. No risk there?
BozoChavez
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
Brestel, you reverse every thought! A physicist who is religious is an embodiment of contradiction. Atheist is a recommendation, not demonizing.

You dont seem to understand the simplest principle - that physicists are human, and thus typically subject to group psychology. We all are, if we don't take special measures to correct our course.

The important point is simple. CERN is evading public review of a risk it is taking on all our behalf. All 6 billion of us.
BozoChavez
1.7 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
If you are not aware of the fact that CERN has evaded national and international control and review in its structure and its behavior, then what do you think is the issue? CERN has not responded to its critics, except with claims which have not stood up, reports with holes in them, and blatant propaganda for reporters to transcribe which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And apologists on Web threads, some of them assigned by CERN, like calling the critics crackpots more than answering their concerns, though in your case you try and should be commended for it. Understandable for any organization trying to retain its funding in the face of public ignorance, to be sure, but still not responsive to the public interest of the entire human population of the planet.

Saying RHIC is also risky is hardly an answer to the problem. We need proper review by outsiders in public. Why argue against this? Are you fearful of the result? Fair enough, but it still should be done.
BozoChavez
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2010
"No risk there?"

You are absolutely right - it is a huge problem. So? Why do you project a separate view on someone who professes one view?
Keep to the issue.

However much we as physicists (or physicists manque) love exploring the physical unknown we have to review the process of escalating collider power at some point, and early is better.
fmfbrestel
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
"The important point is simple. CERN is evading public review of a risk it is taking on all our behalf. All 6 billion of us."

How? How have they evaded public review?

I have never said that the public does not deserve straight forward answers. 1 i think CERN has done that. 2 You have failed to refute any of the major claims of safety that CERN has put forward. All you have done is claim them to flimsy. HOW ARE THEY FLIMSY? all you do is assert danger at every step and refuse to actually make any stand. I am done with this. You have one last chance to make a serious attempt to actually refute something before i simply label you a troll and go do something else.

How is LHC any more dangerous then RHIC? It IS an important question because RHIC hasnt destroyed the earth. I have made solid arguments to the fact that LHC is actually LESS dangerous then RHIC, and all you have done is... is.... NOTHING! Bring something to the table or go home.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2010
"Brestel, you reverse every thought! A physicist who is religious is an embodiment of contradiction. Atheist is a recommendation, not demonizing."
Wow your ignorance is staggering. Put down the Dawkins book and come back to reality.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2010
You are absolutely right - it is a huge problem. So?
Ok, we agree.
Why then are you cruisading against the LHC and not cruisading against nuclear overkill capacities?
Why do you project a separate view on someone who professes one view?
Keep to the issue.
At issue is your credibility.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2010
Thank you for asking, Skeptic Heretic. Bozo Chavez was a major figure in zydeco, the accordion based black music of the Lousiana swampland and thereabouts. I agree his renown has faded somewhat on the Internet, but not in the hearts of all who cherish one of the most rousing and driving forms of music contributed by black Americans to world culture.

Ah, ok so you were referring to the blind Acadian. Good obscure reference, however, why do you think the conspiracy theory of 2012 is worth any of your time?
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 16, 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?
fmfbrestel
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2010
I've been much of the voice in defense so far on this thread, but im done. It's not worth the energy. Not like you're going to actually do anything about it anyway. You just want something to be afraid of, and angry with. Something to occupy your minds until 2012 so you won't pay attention to how our corporations are reaping profits while 25% of our population is either unemployed or underemployed. It is the enemy from without that keeps a population tame.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2010
I've been much of the voice in defense so far on this thread, but im done. It's not worth the energy. Not like you're going to actually do anything about it anyway. You just want something to be afraid of, and angry with. Something to occupy your minds until 2012 so you won't pay attention to how our corporations are reaping profits while 25% of our population is either unemployed or underemployed. It is the enemy from without that keeps a population tame.

You're right, it's not worth the energy. These morons don't have the courage of their convictions. But you should know that your efforts are not unappreciated by others, especially those who have engaged these idiots on this topic in the past.
RHouston
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2010
I cited the recent studies from China in terms of the potential danger of strangelets: that some might be stable and negatively charged. Brestel objected that its a theoretical model that doesn't specifically address the LHC. In actuality, the Chinese based their model on currently known information.

European physicists, one of whom is the director of the CASTOR detector at the LHC, have published several papers on the possible production of strangelets in the heavy ion experiments at LHC. They point out that strangelets might form as decay products from Centauro-type fireballs at the LHC - a mechanism not mentioned in the LSAG safety report. See their paper, "Model of Centauro and strangelet production in heavy ion collisions" at: http://arxiv.org/.../0301003

All heavy ion collisions at the LHC and RHIC should be forbidden as a potential peril to the planet, especially in light of the new Chinese reports.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2010
All heavy ion collisions at the LHC and RHIC should be forbidden as a potential peril to the planet, especially in light of the new Chinese reports.
As long as you can't plausibly explain
why you attack the LHC because of its individually perceived potential peril for the planet
but don't attack the worldwide nuclear overkill capacities because of their potential peril for the planet
one has to conclude that
your motivation is not the perceived potential peril for the planet but another agenda that you hide from us.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 17, 2010
All heavy ion collisions at the LHC and RHIC should be forbidden as a potential peril to the planet, especially in light of the new Chinese reports.
As long as you can't plausibly explain
why you attack the LHC because of its individually perceived potential peril for the planet
but don't attack the worldwide nuclear overkill capacities because of their potential peril for the planet
one has to conclude that
your motivation is not the perceived potential peril for the planet but another agenda that you hide from us.
I fail to see the logic in this.

Perhaps you think we should stop prosecuting rapists because of all the drug dealers?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2010
I fail to see the logic in this.

Perhaps you think we should stop prosecuting rapists because of all the drug dealers?

No, because we actually do prosecute drug dealers.
SentientMarine
5 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2010
Given about 20% of the collision is availble for detection and quite a large portion of the debris of differing charge to mass ratios will travel along the beam line.

My question is how much damage to the beam line from debris is the machine able to safely accomodate?
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2010
All heavy ion collisions at the LHC and RHIC should be forbidden as a potential peril to the planet, especially in light of the new Chinese reports.
As long as you can't plausibly explain
why you attack the LHC because of its individually perceived potential peril for the planet
but don't attack the worldwide nuclear overkill capacities because of their potential peril for the planet
one has to conclude that
your motivation is not the perceived potential peril for the planet but another agenda that you hide from us.
I fail to see the logic in this.
It's called analysis.
Perhaps you think we should stop prosecuting rapists because of all the drug dealers?
Certainly you try to evade my question: Is the potential peril of the planet really of concern for you? If yes, why does one (perceived) risk bother you more than another one? What is your discriminating criterion?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 17, 2010
I fail to see the logic in this.
It's called analysis.
Perhaps you think we should stop prosecuting rapists because of all the drug dealers?
Certainly you try to evade my question: Is the potential peril of the planet really of concern for you? If yes, why does one (perceived) risk bother you more than another one? What is your discriminating criterion?

Time constraints.

And, nuclear weapons aren't an active threat, but rather are a static threat (lower priority).
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2010
Time constraints.

And, nuclear weapons aren't an active threat, but rather are a static threat (lower priority).
Use of a single nuclear weapon has global effects. A majority of the crop failures world wide in the late 40's have been somewhat tied to the debris sent into the atmosphere from primarily conventional weapons. The testing in the 50's and 60's had large rammifications on the yields from South America and Eastern Europe for the same reason.

Nuclear weapons are one of the largest most pressing threats we face today, primarily because they're entirely preventable.
BozoChavez
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2010
Good. Thank you for demonstrating the lack of viable points defenders of the LHC (CERN's current project of rushing off the cliff to an unknown outcome) have to offer, by folding up your tent while engaging in diversionary tactics to cover up your exit, including claiming that you find the discussion insufficiently worthy.

The issue is immediate and involves infinitely dire consequences so even the smallest risk should be reviewed by competent and wiser outside reviewers. Apparently you are not part of science yourself or you would be aware that all science is reviewed before publication in good journals, with the exception of the few journals which exist to counter the influence of peer reviewers who defend the status quo for spurious personal reasons.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2010
Whenever I am forced to make a choice between risking instantaneous annihilation in order to learn something potentially revolutionary and wasting a bunch of time and money I've already spent (doesn't happen too often, but oh well), I'll choose the risk. After all, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it, and if I'm right then the payoff could be pretty big.
SentientMarine
2 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2010
Hello. While I wait to see if there is a reply to my earlier question on debris contamination of the LHC beam line. I can't help but think the case on choice is rather similar to the flippant way BP had contaminating the Gulf. The company had a cap on damages so it is like an all or nothing win and no loss position. The fishing stop and compensation might be a long term benefit.

What if this scenario:-
The beam line corrodes beyond the estimate
A beam dump puts the energy at point distance
A water source lake or aquifer target goes plasma
Fusion occurs and the load nuclear fuel is vast
Geneva and the LHC go bang
(naturally every tinpot will want one then)
Geneva and the LHC burn like a star
(new physics and uncertainty)
Carbon nitrogen triple bonded compounds pollute the world (glucose can offset the long term effects which include paralysis)
The world is shaken and the oceans wash the shores
EM pulse blinds the nuclear powers.

The end of science. Hmm is that good?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2010
Time constraints.

And, nuclear weapons aren't an active threat, but rather are a static threat (lower priority).
Use of a single nuclear weapon has global effects. A majority of the crop failures world wide in the late 40's have been somewhat tied to the debris sent into the atmosphere from primarily conventional weapons. The testing in the 50's and 60's had large rammifications on the yields from South America and Eastern Europe for the same reason.

Nuclear weapons are one of the largest most pressing threats we face today, primarily because they're entirely preventable.

Well then, you worry about them.

As for me, they are a lower priority. Although dangerous, they generally don't represent a threat of extinction... for the entire world.
RHouston
2 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2010
Nuclear weapons should indeed be abolished, but the more pressing issue is the start of lead collisions at the LHC in November. Whereas full-scale nuclear war between Russia and the US has been estimated to kill potentially 200 million people, the human race and the planet would survive.

A strangelet disaster or black hole disaster at the LHC, however, has the potential of killing all 6.8 billion people (1000 times the Holocaust) and destroying the Earth itself. Therefore, the LHC is a far greater menace than nuclear weapons.
otto1932
not rated yet Sep 18, 2010
"Many of them (despite the media's projections) have a strong religious faith.".

Not a good recommendation for a realistic physicist, by the way.
Some religionists believe Armageddon with the messiah is a good thing. Or jihad.
Certainly you try to evade my question: Is the potential peril of the planet really of concern for you? If yes, why does one (perceived) risk bother you more than another one? What is your discriminating criterion?
I think bioweapons are the most dangerous. Let's make a big list and debate them all at once. Topicum extrapolatum ab absurdius.

Besides, countries need nuclear weapons to defend themselves against other countries that have nuclear weapons.
ziprar
3 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2010
I think this is hilarious. The guy sues LHC in american court :D
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2010
Besides, countries need nuclear weapons to defend themselves against other countries that have nuclear weapons.
Bullshit. Mutually assured destruction is a preventative, not a defense. Countries need nuclear weapons to prevent their nuclear armed enemies from using their nuclear weapons.

Everyone can identify a mushroom cloud and fears seeing one. Very few people understand that a mushroom cloud anywhere in the world affects everyone on the planet.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2010
Bullshit. Mutually assured destruction is a preventative, not a defense. Countries need nuclear weapons to prevent their nuclear armed enemies from using their nuclear weapons.
I was being a little facetious, as this was the public perception as to why they needed to foot the bill for escalation, and not in fact the actual reason it occurred.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki demonstrated to all the non-nuclear powers just what those who possessed these weapons were capable of. This, it can be argued, was viable deterrence.

Your comment about nukes being 'entirely preventable' is a little puzzling. Uranium is readily available and the dissemination of tech and knowledge on how to build a bomb is inevitable. The only way to prevent proliferation is war. Iran can support itself while remaining totally isolated, and still build many bombs.

Just for the record, many munitions such as barometric bombs will produce mushroom clouds, as well as industrial accidents of sufficient magnitude.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2010
Your comment about nukes being 'entirely preventable' is a little puzzling. Uranium is readily available and the dissemination of tech and knowledge on how to build a bomb is inevitable. The only way to prevent proliferation is war. Iran can support itself while remaining totally isolated, and still build many bombs.
Entirely preventable as when one is educated as to how they work and the potential rammifications of their use, they're far less likely to use them.(Exceptions noted)
Just for the record, many munitions such as barometric bombs will produce mushroom clouds, as well as industrial accidents of sufficient magnitude.
Yeah and usually when you see those, you're already dead due ot the O2 removal from the local area.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2010
Whenever I am forced to make a choice between risking instantaneous annihilation in order to learn something potentially revolutionary and wasting a bunch of time and money I've already spent (doesn't happen too often, but oh well), I'll choose the risk. After all, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it, and if I'm right then the payoff could be pretty big.
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2010
Whenever I am forced to make a choice between risking instantaneous annihilation in order to learn something potentially revolutionary and wasting a bunch of time and money I've already spent (doesn't happen too often, but oh well), I'll choose the risk. After all, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it, and if I'm right then the payoff could be pretty big.
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
Guilty of generalizing.
The method of inductive reasoning has had and still has a certain amount of historical importance.
SentientMarine
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2010
I wonder if we have asked enough questions or the right questions. The other problem is the inability to get questions to scientists available to test ideas.

A simple question I have put to "Ask the Physicist" is where is the proton. To me it seems logical that the start and finish point for a proton fired at a target is to start and be retained by the accelerator. Seems illogical but quantum strangeness allows for certain conditions such as transfer of information. A simple count of target impacts and percentage count of contained particles would give an answer.

Certainly anyone could give what they think is the logical answer but the question is has the test count actually been done.

I am sorry that the focus is just on the large accelerator when it is possible that our knowledge may not be complete enough to go that far. How much is too fast, too much and too far in advance of what we should still be looking for.

The problem is not enough answers.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life
So how about you show us where this process has resulted in a "strange goo" situation so we can definitively determine that the LHC is a genocidal weapon, rather than worrying about a science experiment while dismissing the threat of nuclear weaponry.
BozoChavez
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2010
The problem is not enough answers.


CERN has been completely unresponsive to criticism on the level of scientific argument for a year and a half, with scientists peddling outdated safety rationales in public and evasion being the strategy of pr. The public safety report at http://public.web...-en.html is blatantly out of date, still quoting the drivel about cosmic rays which Martin Rees exploded in 2003, error acknowledged by CERN in its safety report to scientists in 2008.

The big problem is that the outcome is unknown, which makes it difficult to work out safety measures anyway other than ratchet up slowly, which the LHC has been doing. What is needed is some means of detecting mBHs. Maybe one has drifted down to the center of the Earth and is slowly supping on our only home in the universe as we speak. We will know in a few years.

It is important to know how to guard against Mother Nature swallowing us whole.
BozoChavez
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2010
eg tha public safety report page http://public.web...-en.html has the miserable effrontery to say that

"Strangelet production at the LHC is therefore less likely than at RHIC, and experience there has already validated the arguments that strangelets cannot be produced."

Presumably they gave the job to some attractively ectomorphic intern. Enough said: scienceguardian.com should do another of its expert updates before ALICE ups the ante.
daywalk3r
3 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2010
The big problem is that the outcome is unknown
If the outcome was known, there would be no reason to build the LHC in the first place.
What is needed is some means of detecting mBHs. Maybe one has drifted down to the center of the Earth and is slowly supping on our only home in the universe as we speak. We will know in a few years.
Classic. History tells us that fear of the unknown was allways prominent in human minds. Abused countless of times by introduction of the "unknowable", with the aim to gain almost absolute control and power over the unknowing. People are affraid of various creatures or entities, while the only "proof" they have about their existence are tell-tales.

Why am I mentioning this? Because the principle behind the fear of LHC is the same. Mass hysteria triggered mostly by made-up tales about evil strangeletz and super-evil BH's eating up the Earth if we dare to eat the "apples from the Tree of Knowledge!" (©Jigga) :)

No scientific facts, just fantasy..
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2010
Whenever I am forced to make a choice between risking instantaneous annihilation in order to learn something potentially revolutionary and wasting a bunch of time and money I've already spent (doesn't happen too often, but oh well), I'll choose the risk. After all, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it, and if I'm right then the payoff could be pretty big.
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
Guilty of generalizing.
The method of inductive reasoning has had and still has a certain amount of historical importance.
It's not inductive at all. Clearly, Thrasymachus placed the value of information above the existence of every living person, and all the known life in the universe.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2010
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life
So how about you show us where this process has resulted in a "strange goo" situation so we can definitively determine that the LHC is a genocidal weapon, rather than worrying about a science experiment while dismissing the threat of nuclear weaponry.
Who are you addressing? I've never used the strange matter argument.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2010
CERN has been completely unresponsive to criticism on the level of scientific argument for a year and a half, with scientists peddling outdated safety rationales in public and evasion being the strategy of pr. The public safety report at http://public.web...-en.html is blatantly out of date, still quoting the drivel about cosmic rays which Martin Rees exploded in 2003, error acknowledged by CERN in its safety report to scientists in 2008.
Martin Rees calculated a 1 in 50 million chance it could destroy us, but I hadn't heard that he had anything to do with the cosmic ray argument.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2010
...
This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
Guilty of generalizing.
The method of inductive reasoning has had and still has a certain amount of historical importance.
It's not inductive at all.
You used the plural "proponents". Thrasymachus' comment is reporting of his personal stance only. This means you have been using induction from the opinion of one single person to the opinions of many other persons.
Clearly, Thrasymachus placed the value of information above the existence of every living person, and all the known life in the universe.
No. He referred to his own life, not to other people's lives. His stance is perfectly sound as everybody (except children or certain other people) is entitled to decide about his own life.
Your eagerness prevents you from reading properly.
Hesca419
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
No scientific facts, just fantasy.
That's not true. It was scientific fact which forced CERN to concede the cosmic ray argument from the 2003 report, to the 2008 report (although they worked overtime trying to salvage it with a miserably ridiculous argument about neutron star/white dwarf binaries).

If they can so easily be blatantly wrong about that argument (which essentially is nothing more than BASIC physics), what makes you think they can get any of it right?


They issue retractions. They correct their errors. When your point of view is sufficiently discredited, do you do the same?
(Hint: your posts in this thread prove the answer to be "No.")
Hesca419
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
No scientific facts, just fantasy.
That's not true. It was scientific fact which forced CERN to concede the cosmic ray argument from the 2003 report, to the 2008 report (although they worked overtime trying to salvage it with a miserably ridiculous argument about neutron star/white dwarf binaries).

If they can so easily be blatantly wrong about that argument (which essentially is nothing more than BASIC physics), what makes you think they can get any of it right?


So, scientists at CERN are too error-prone and imperfect to run or build a proper particle accelerator safely. Yet, this accelerator has the power to destroy all life in the universe. Perfectly sensible. I guess we should stop building skyscrapers and bridges... we just aren't good enough to do it right, and the risk is so great!
Want to go back to the Dark Ages? After you, please.
daywalk3r
3.1 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2010
No scientific facts, just fantasy.
That's not true. It was scientific fact which forced CERN to concede the cosmic ray argument from the 2003 report, to the 2008 report (although they worked overtime trying to salvage it with a miserably ridiculous argument about neutron star/white dwarf binaries).
The point was, that none of the doomsday scenarios are based on proven scientific facts.

All stem from various speculations, unproven theories, and a bajillion of "what if this / what if that" conditions. Well, that's certainly not convincing enough for me, and all I can say is:

What if God was real? Then we better no eat fruits from the Tree of Knowledge, or we shall all burn in hell!

- If that's how your logic works - fine. But then there is hardly anything more to discuss (in a scientific context) on this topic. Really.

On the other hand, if you have any factual scientific evidence supporting your doomsday claims, then by all means, go and present it to the public, please!
daywalk3r
3.2 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2010
If they can so easily be blatantly wrong about that argument (which essentially is nothing more than BASIC physics), what makes you think they can get any of it right?
For people who actually know (relatively) enough about the subject, it is not a matter of trust or belief when it comes to judging the results of a report. They actually read it and then judge by themselves! Providing constructive feedback in the process by pointing out any errors or possible flaws (aka peer-review).

I say it again, if you have any solid evidence/theory/(facts?) that backs up your claims about a doomsday caused by the LHC, then I strongly encourage you to write a paper and submit it for peer review.

If what you provide is sound and based on facts rather than pure speculation, it should generate positive feedback and you might even achieve what you so strive for..

And if not, then I suggest to try a career as a Sci-Fi writer. One can tell the basics and a talent are well present :)

Cheers.
gwrede
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
A Hawaiian man's lawsuit to try to prevent operations of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been dismissed due to a failure to show a "credible threat of harm,"
Let's just say, that the future community (or Establishment) simply needs to demand literacy of anyone who wants to litigate.
otto1932
not rated yet Sep 19, 2010
Sci-Fi? Well let's think about this...
-In order to join the galactic country club, earthers need to create their own planet-sized black hole. For transportation. And as the Terran biosphere is about trashed and the sun is warming anyway, a black hole maker is built and Plans are made to move to mars where it's cooler. A brand new city on the hill.

When Lawrence of Arabia was asked why he liked the desert he replied "Because it's clean." Mars looks very clean.
RHouston
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
Regarding the call for "scientific evidence" of risk, some may recall that earlier I posted links and references to several papers that indicate the LHC poses potential hazards to the global environment. One was by Rainer Plaga, Ph.D., a German government physicist formerly with the Max Planck Institute for Physics. See his paper on "Potential Catastrophic Risks" at: http://arxiv.org/...8.1415v3 .

A group of scientific critics of the LHC have issued an extensive paper rebutting CERN's safety report at: http://lhc-concer...-int.pdf

My recent comments referenced published papers by European physicists, including some at CERN, that the LHC could produced strangelets, and recent studies by Chinese physicists who concluded that some strangelets could be negatively charged and "absolutely stable." There's a combination that could really ruin one's day.
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
For people who actually know (relatively) enough about the subject, it is not a matter of trust or belief when it comes to judging the results of a report. They actually read it and then judge by themselves! Providing constructive feedback in the process by pointing out any errors or possible flaws (aka peer-review).


Precisely. Read the links to papers provided, and you will then be qualified to comment. Hopefully with a little more appreciation of the fact that all that is being asked is an outside review of the theoretical basis for proceeding with confidence, and an assessment of what safety measures should be taken.

Completely uninformed rejection of this wise caution because you are confident of CERN expertise is uncalled for, because of their poor performance to date.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2010
You used the plural "proponents". Thrasymachus' comment is reporting of his personal stance only. This means you have been using induction from the opinion of one single person to the opinions of many other persons.
He's not the only proponent to espouse similar sentiments. Therefore, it's specific to Thrasymachus and those who are sympathetic to his proclamation.
No. He referred to his own life, not to other people's lives. His stance is perfectly sound as everybody (except children or certain other people) is entitled to decide about his own life.
Your eagerness prevents you from reading properly.
That his reference also applies to everyone's life is inferred in the general argument.

And, he specifically used the word "annihilation" which implies a broader tragedy than one death:

annihilation: 1. total destruction.

source: http://www.thefre...hilation

And, at the very least he is suicidal, which still demonstrates unreasonableness.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2010
They issue retractions. They correct their errors.
That's not true. As I already pointed out, instead of simply retracting the cosmic ray argument, they worked overtime to salvage it (with an absurdity!)
When your point of view is sufficiently discredited, do you do the same?
Yes. I've done so on multiple occasions.
(Hint: your posts in this thread prove the answer to be "No.")
Really? Which ones, specifically, and how so? (I'm bettin' you won't have a concise response)
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
]Martin Rees calculated a 1 in 50 million chance it could destroy us, but I hadn't heard that he had anything to do with the cosmic ray argument.


See Our Final Hour p 122 and following. He says that cosmic rays routinely crash into other atomic nuclei in space, proving there is no problem until accelerators "100x" more powerful than planned in 1983 came along. Then he notes that symmetrical collisions in the colliders would leave no net motion, so strangelets might grab ambient material, and consume the entire Earth if other assumptions are wrong. The symmetrical angle is what vitiates the arguement that the earth survives cosmic rays all the time without turning into a black hole. But you are right, he didn't specifically reject Cosmic Ray 1 himself then in his book. Just by implication. His remarks were addressed to strangelets.

BozoChavez
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
Rees continued, as you say, ubavontuba: Physicists' lack of anxiety are "little more than subjective assessment". The Brookhaven and CERN reports estimated 1 in 50 million chance of final extinction. This wasn't good enough in Rees' view then. He said no go ahead should be allowed until the public was shown that the risk was acceptable.

However, he has kept quiet since, as a good president of the Royal Society should. But he is being replaced now, so let's see if he gets back to being a troublemaker.

Either way, he has more authority than software designers on Web threads.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
So, scientists at CERN are too error-prone and imperfect to run or build a proper particle accelerator safely.
Obviously.
Yet, this accelerator has the power to destroy all life in the universe.
Perhaps.
Perfectly sensible.
How so?
I guess we should stop building skyscrapers and bridges... we just aren't good enough to do it right, and the risk is so great!
Buildings and bridges fail all the time, killing dozens, hundreds, even thousands. Fortunately, they're too localized to be comprehensively destructive. Should the LHC fail just one time, it could be catastrophic to the world.
Want to go back to the Dark Ages? After you, please.
Are you stupid? Why would you equate conducting these tests safely with going back to the dark ages? Maybe you think if we suspend the LHC your cell phone will suddenly stop working?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2010
The point was, that none of the doomsday scenarios are based on proven scientific facts.
So you think conservation of momentum is unproven now?
All stem from various speculations, unproven theories, and a bajillion of "what if this / what if that" conditions.
Which is how their arguments read (after all, they don't call it "Theoretical Physics" for nothing).
Well, that's certainly not convincing enough for me, and all I can say is:

What if God was real? Then we better no eat fruits from the Tree of Knowledge, or we shall all burn in hell!
You obviously don't know the Bible.
- If that's how your logic works - fine. But then there is hardly anything more to discuss (in a scientific context) on this topic. Really.
What science have you brought?
On the other hand, if you have any factual scientific evidence supporting your doomsday claims, then by all means, go and present it to the public, please!
It's out there.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
For people who actually know (relatively) enough about the subject, it is not a matter of trust or belief when it comes to judging the results of a report. They actually read it and then judge by themselves! Providing constructive feedback in the process by pointing out any errors or possible flaws (aka peer-review).
Which was obviously an epic failure. It took guys like me to get them to admit their initial cosmic ray argument was wrong.
I say it again, if you have any solid evidence/theory/(facts?) that backs up your claims about a doomsday caused by the LHC, then I strongly encourage you to write a paper and submit it for peer review.
Ri-i-ight. And while I'm at it I'll just write a letter to the bankers and ask them to kindly return the money they took in the mortgage securities scandal. I'm sure they'll all gladly hand over their estates...

It wasn't "peer review" that forced them to concede the cosmic ray argument. Sometimes, you gotta' work from the outside...
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
See Our Final Hour p 122 and following. He says that cosmic rays routinely crash into other atomic nuclei in space, proving there is no problem until accelerators "100x" more powerful than planned in 1983 came along. Then he notes that symmetrical collisions in the colliders would leave no net motion, so strangelets might grab ambient material, and consume the entire Earth if other assumptions are wrong. The symmetrical angle is what vitiates the arguement that the earth survives cosmic rays all the time without turning into a black hole. But you are right, he didn't specifically reject Cosmic Ray 1 himself then in his book. Just by implication. His remarks were addressed to strangelets.
Thank you.

But, I'll concede that the basic physics in question are essentially there, and the complete set could've been worked out from there.

Excellent work.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
Rees continued, as you say, ubavontuba: Physicists' lack of anxiety are "little more than subjective assessment". The Brookhaven and CERN reports estimated 1 in 50 million chance of final extinction. This wasn't good enough in Rees' view then. He said no go ahead should be allowed until the public was shown that the risk was acceptable.

However, he has kept quiet since, as a good president of the Royal Society should. But he is being replaced now, so let's see if he gets back to being a troublemaker.

Either way, he has more authority than software designers on Web threads.
I hope so. We need more like him
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
If what you provide is sound and based on facts rather than pure speculation, it should generate positive feedback and you might even achieve what you so strive for..
You've never had to swim against the tide, have you?
And if not, then I suggest to try a career as a Sci-Fi writer. One can tell the basics and a talent are well present :)
You think so? Are you a literary agent?

Let's see... how to begin? Ah yes, here we go:

Once upon a future...
daywalk3r
2.8 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2010
Oh boy, looks like I've hit the nail right on the head. So much hate.. ;-)

If you bunch were even remotely right with your claims, the scientific community would listen..

Ventilating your feelings on a science-news webpage won't get you anywhere. So if you really are that smart/genial as you all present yourselves, and not just a bunch of crackpots and/or religious lunatics, go and write that damn paper allready!

Until you do that, just keep barking..
..and if your papers get rejected - go figure!

Howgh :)

You've never had to swim against the tide, have you?
Oohw, you make it sound like you were alone in the middle of the ocean, sitting in a leaky rowboat, with just one paddle..

If there is a tide, then it is not as steep as you would ever imagine, it seems..
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2010
Don't be silly. Of course I don't value this potential for scientific discovery as more important than everybody else's life. I do think that, if I could exchange my life for the revelation in fundamental physics this machine promises, that would be a pretty good exchange. And since I value my life as the same as everyone else's, and since the odds of worldwide annihilation are pretty close to the same ratio as me to the rest of the world's population, going ahead with the experiment is a viable gamble. In the end, the human race is either going to go extinct or not, nobody really knows if or when that'll happen, and I'd rather go out trying to learn something than cowering on this little mudball afraid to do anything dangerous until the sun goes out.
MotleyBlue
not rated yet Sep 20, 2010
Kudos for the funny link at the end of the article!
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
Thank you.

But, I'll concede that the basic physics in question are essentially there, and the complete set could've been worked out from there.

Excellent work.

Yes but the problem is that the observations are also there. Strange quarks and strangelets should still be around, and we should be entirely composed of them unless there is an effect that prevents this from happening, or our calculations for strange matter, which are based on the errant standard model, are entirely incorrect. Beyond that, how would the weak force, responsible for flavor change in quarks, be suspended within the LHC? If anything the range of said force would be unleashed, allowing for faster decay and quicker degradation into standard and more stable quark flavors and spins.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2010
Don't be silly. Of course I don't value this potential for scientific discovery as more important than everybody else's life. I do think that, if I could exchange my life for the revelation in fundamental physics this machine promises, that would be a pretty good exchange. And since I value my life as the same as everyone else's, and since the odds of worldwide annihilation are pretty close to the same ratio as me to the rest of the world's population, going ahead with the experiment is a viable gamble. In the end, the human race is either going to go extinct or not, nobody really knows if or when that'll happen, and I'd rather go out trying to learn something than cowering on this little mudball afraid to do anything dangerous until the sun goes out.

Interesting. First you backtrack away from your previous proclamation, then you reiterate it. So essentially and again, this just serves to to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2010
Thank you.

But, I'll concede that the basic physics in question are essentially there, and the complete set could've been worked out from there.

Excellent work.
Yes but the problem is that the observations are also there. Strange quarks and strangelets should still be around, and we should be entirely composed of them unless there is an effect that prevents this from happening, or our calculations for strange matter, which are based on the errant standard model, are entirely incorrect. Beyond that, how would the weak force, responsible for flavor change in quarks, be suspended within the LHC? If anything the range of said force would be unleashed, allowing for faster decay and quicker degradation into standard and more stable quark flavors and spins.
I wasn't referring to the particle physics of the piece per se, but rather the issues of momentum conservation.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2010
Oh boy, looks like I've hit the nail right on the head. So much hate.. ;-)
Perhaps you're feeling it, but I'm not.
If you bunch were even remotely right with your claims, the scientific community would listen..
They have, hence the changes from the 2003 report to the 2008 report.
Ventilating your feelings on a science-news webpage won't get you anywhere. So if you really are that smart/genial as you all present yourselves, and not just a bunch of crackpots and/or religious lunatics, go and write that damn paper allready!

Until you do that, just keep barking..
..and if your papers get rejected - go figure!

Howgh :)
Some already exist.
You've never had to swim against the tide, have you?
Oohw, you make it sound like you were alone in the middle of the ocean, sitting in a leaky rowboat, with just one paddle..

If there is a tide, then it is not as steep as you would ever imagine, it seems..
Have you ever published a controversial paper?
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2010
Interesting. First you backtrack away from your previous proclamation, then you reiterate it. So essentially and again, this just serves to to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!
Interesting. The same pattern of generalizing by induction from one user's comment to the set of "LHC proponents". Again.
But no generalizing from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the present nuclear overkill.
This just serves to show that we really should do more psychology.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2010
Human beings are notoriously bad at judging risks, and you LHC alarmists are a textbook example. I hope ya'll realize that in typing out your hyperbolic screeds you're taking a much bigger risk with your lives, through electrocution or fires, than the LHC is taking with everybody's lives. And if you have to go to your local library in order to use the free internet, which seems likely to me, you're taking a risk orders of magnitude greater just traveling there.
BozoChavez
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2010
Human beings are notoriously bad at judging risks, and you LHC alarmists are a textbook example. I hope ya'll realize that in typing out your hyperbolic screeds you're taking a much bigger risk with your lives, through electrocution or fires, than the LHC is taking with everybody's lives. And if you have to go to your local library in order to use the free internet, which seems likely to me, you're taking a risk orders of magnitude greater just traveling there.


Since you like the rest of the world including CERN have no idea what will result in ALICE and the highest energy levels of operation of the LHC, how do you work out the likelihood of what you don't foresee?

Like most of this thread written by game players and other couch potatoes you express only your subjective and therefore unpersuasive fantasies. Kindly pay attention to the points made against you and take them into account when replying, otherwise you are just playing games in the wrong arena.
BozoChavez
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
Apologies ubavontuba a colleague points out that Rees' argument concerned mBHs and strangelets both in both Cosmic Ray 1 and Cosmic Ray 2 discussions. I am using Brian Greene's casual nomenclature which he used last year at Philoctetes ie 1 is "Cosmic rays have been hitting Earth for millions of years and we are still here" , and 2 is "megadense neutron and white dwarf stars exist and show that mBHs and strangelets won't swallow Earth cos they don't swallow them".

As Rees noted problem with former is that such products might be stationary. With latter it's that both (check) star types are reckoned at least partly strange matter. Oops!
frajo
4.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
Like most of this thread written by game players and other couch potatoes you express
The extraordinary faculty of judgement these lines are gleaming with should prompt everybody to reconsider his assessment of your comments.
daywalk3r
3.2 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2010
Like most of this thread written by game players and other couch potatoes you express only your subjective and therefore unpersuasive fantasies.
Like frajo allready pointed out - given your position and the discrepancy regarding the basis of your claims, that line actually tells more about "where you come from", than anything else.

Heck, if I wanted to generalize and put you + all your doomsayer friends into one bag, then I possibly couldn't have written it better.. :)

------

And of course all we write is based on our subjective opinion. You not?

I speak for myself and I think for many others too when I say:
We are not like the doomsday/alarmist herd which allways needs a speaker, because the wast majority of them doesn't know enough about the subject to actually pull any meaningful argument. Most of us think for ourselves and have our opinions based on our very own knowledge, rather than on what the shepherd(s) says.
daywalk3r
3 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2010
Since you like the rest of the world including CERN have no idea what will result in ALICE and the highest energy levels of operation of the LHC
That's quite a bold claim. Basing on more-or-less veryfied theories, we know very well what we can expect, but at the same time hope, there will be something we didn't.

Thats the major role of the whole project - to see how the results fit with what is expected! And that nicely goes in line with what I want to say next..

Basing on theories, which were allready (at least to an acceptable extent) verified and on wast other empirical/observational evidence, we know that your doomsday claims are all bollo.. ehm, highly improbable.

Whereas almost all of the doomsday scenarios are based on theories, or "flavors" of theories, which - as of yet - have actually NO (zip/zero/nada!) observational/empirical evidence at all (ST, SST, SUSY, M-T, etc.) And multiple dimensions past the accepted standard are also unproven, so don't pull that on me..
daywalk3r
3.2 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2010
If you bunch were even remotely right with your claims, the scientific community would listen..
They have, hence the changes from the 2003 report to the 2008 report
And that is direct evidence of my claims being correct.
..go and write that **** paper allready!
Some already exist.
Indeed, but so far nothing even remotely profound.. Sadly.
Have you ever published a controversial paper?
Without any controversy, there would be no advance at all. We would be stuck in the stone age, without fire or actually anything else than our naked selfs. So you have to take controversy as an inseparable and essential part of science. As a scientist, it is very important to believe in yourself and in what you do - but stay reasonably self-critical at the same time. Truth will allways win in the long run..

And as for the question, if you mean something strictly controversial, then the answer is clearly: No. (At least not yet ;o)
RHouston
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010
There are long delays in correcting safety arguments. In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, Cambridge astrophysicist Martin Rees sharply critiqued the standard cosmic ray safety argument for colliders. In discussing strangelets, he showed that cosmic rays hitting the Earth and moon differ from "symmetrical collisions" in colliders which could bring the products - such as strangelets - to relative rest (pp 122-124). The critique is equally applicable to black holes.

In 2008 CERN safety theorists admitted in a published technical report that the cosmic ray argument was invalid for "Earth... and ordinary stars" (p 16). The difference is admitted in CERN's public safety report (Par. 7). The argument was then shifted to dense neutron stars and white dwarfs, but these are protected by powerful magnetic fields and believed to contain strange matter, the feared fate for Earth of a strangelet disaster at the LHC.
SentientMarine
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
Since the experiment has not produced the predicted results as yet it means all opinions are just opinions. A theory (small 't') waiting to become Theory or dust.

I find the Bible quite inspirational (my opinion) and the bit about the days becoming shorter would be a guide to a problem. A singularity generates drag of space and it seems logical that 'spin' from a massive point object would translate to planetary rotation if present.

So opinion aside what is known is that science has enabled incredible accuracy of time measurement. Perhaps time is both our guide and early warning.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2010
Human beings are notoriously bad at judging risks, and you LHC alarmists are a textbook example.
Actually, if the alarmists were listened to in these cases, many lives might be saved.
I hope ya'll realize that in typing out your hyperbolic screeds you're taking a much bigger risk with your lives, through electrocution or fires, than the LHC is taking with everybody's lives. And if you have to go to your local library in order to use the free internet, which seems likely to me, you're taking a risk orders of magnitude greater just traveling there.

But those are my risks to take. Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2010
@BozoChavez:

Well, my problem with 2 is that the known dense matter objects (white dwarfs and neutron stars) are statistically insignificant in number as compared with bright objects in our galaxy.

I mean here we are in the third generation of stars in the oldest observable galaxy in the universe, and we find mere handfuls of these objects. They should number in the millions (locally), and therefore be relatively easy to find (even against the bright background). Where are they?

If their argument could be supported with a statistical survey of the local star clusters that reveals the expected number of dense objects after two generations of star death, then they might have an argument.

Additionally, if they could explain the apparent lack of bright objects in dark matter halos and dark matter galaxies (without surmising the dark matter somehow destroys bright objects), then they might have an argument.

Perhaps the relative few we know of, are environmentally protected.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2010
@daywalk3r:
Most of us think for ourselves and have our opinions based on our very own knowledge, rather than on what the shepherd(s) says.
Nah. Most people on either side of any argument are sheep, usually reiterating what their leaders say.

So, supposing your claim of original thought is true, what have you brought to the argument that other proponents hadn't already discussed?
BozoChavez
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
@BozoChavez:

Well, my problem with 2 is that the known dense matter objects (white dwarfs and neutron stars) are statistically insignificant in number as compared with bright objects in our galaxy.

.... They should number in the millions (locally), and therefore be relatively easy to find (even against the bright background). Where are they?
......
Perhaps the relative few we know of, are environmentally protected.


By the EPA, you mean? Agree entirely, ubavontuba. In fact let's allow fantasy to reign at last in the manner we are accused of from the stalls, or rather, by the Monty Python mob on the parapets chucking down dead cows and turnips on the brave knights assaulting the Castle of Unreason from below?

It might well be that all the missing stars are planets which built their own LHCs with dire consequences, and the eight that are left are the few where reason prevailed. In other words, they had effective EPAs, as you surmise.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2010
@daywalk3r:
Basing on theories, which were allready (at least to an acceptable extent) verified and on wast other empirical/observational evidence, we know that your doomsday claims are all bollo.. ehm, highly improbable.
This argument is invalidated by your own side's expectation of black hole formation. They even boldly called it a "black hole factory." Seriously, it's in the CERN literature:

http://cerncourie...rn/29199

Extra dimensions are expected/hoped for, but there's even an argument in GR that allows for black hole formation at this scale. In this case, the point of energy convergence essentially becomes a third (virtual) mass which draws the two colliding objects in the rest of the way.

And, since no theory is known to accurately predict what will happen at this scale, stating it's safe without knowing what can happen is rather presumptuous.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2010
@daywalk3r:
And that is direct evidence of my claims being correct.
How's that again? You mean the way they actually tried to salvage their original argument with an absurdity is proof of their reasonableness? Hardly!
Without any controversy, there would be no advance at all. We would be stuck in the stone age, without fire or actually anything else than our naked selfs. So you have to take controversy as an inseparable and essential part of science. As a scientist, it is very important to believe in yourself and in what you do - but stay reasonably self-critical at the same time. Truth will allways win in the long run..
So then, where is your self-criticism? Why doesn't it occur to you that you could be wrong?
BozoChavez
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
They even boldly called it a "black hole factory." Seriously, it's in the CERN literature:

http://cerncourie...rn/29199

.....And, since no theory is known to accurately predict what will happen at this scale, stating it's safe without knowing what can happen is rather presumptuous.


Would it be too much to ask of the dead cow hurling mob here to read these and other key links offered to them, rather than repeat their mantras of confidence in CERN as All Knowing Leader?

That way they would a) have some fun beyond repeating themselves ad nauseum without references and b) contribute to the discussion of holes in the doubters case, of which they have shown so far precisely none.

Come on folks, you can pause in your gaming long enough to read something, can't you?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2010
By the EPA, you mean? Agree entirely, ubavontuba. In fact let's allow fantasy to reign at last in the manner we are accused of from the stalls, or rather, by the Monty Python mob on the parapets chucking down dead cows and turnips on the brave knights assaulting the Castle of Unreason from below?

It might well be that all the missing stars are planets which built their own LHCs with dire consequences, and the eight that are left are the few where reason prevailed. In other words, they had effective EPAs, as you surmise.
(chuckle) I meant they may be protected by the environment they both create and are situated in, but I liked your version too.
BozoChavez
Sep 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.
There are lots of true possible statements S of the form "XYZ exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent".
You chose to select the value "running the LHC" for the variable XYZ and to disregard all the other possible valuess of XYZ.
Why?
You can't give an objective risk assessment for S, no matter which XYZ value is assumed, because in any case you are navigating through uncharted waters.

I don't see any plausible explanation for your choice other than unknown psychological factors.
BozoChavez
2.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
Thank you for that tortuous rationale frajo, and for acknowledging that the outcome is unknown ("uncharted waters").

That is precisely why caution and full assessment is required, not gay abandon and laughing jollity and jeering at the cautious as the largest physics bandwagon in history goes over the cliff without wings.

Everyone with an ounce of curiosity about the nature of the universe is fully behind this enterprise. It is just that some spare a thought for the possibility of adverse consequences, and wish to have as careful a review as possible.

We were lucky with Trinity and there may be no way to escape depending on luck again, but that dependence should be reduced as much as possible.

Judging the future by the risk free past is not a sensible option.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2010
Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.
There are lots of true possible statements S of the form "XYZ exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent".
You chose to select the value "running the LHC" for the variable XYZ and to disregard all the other possible valuess of XYZ.
Why?
Because it's the topic at hand. It exposes everyone to the same potential danger at the same time. And it's entirely preventable.
You can't give an objective risk assessment for S, no matter which XYZ value is assumed, because in any case you are navigating through uncharted waters.
Which, as any wise ship's captain knows, calls for measured caution (certainly not full steam ahead).
I don't see any plausible explanation for your choice other than unknown psychological factors.
Apparently then, you've never navigated through uncharted waters.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2010
Correction:

Above, I should have written, "It's entirely controllable." where I wrote; "It's entirely preventable."
RHouston
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2010
Some commenters asserted that science knows what to expect in the unprecedented LHC experiments. If so, they should inform the physicists directing the largest accelerators.

The NY Times spoke with Dr. Pier Oddone, director of Fermilab: "The only thing physicists agree on is that they don't know what will happen...when the collisions reach the energies just after the Big Bang. 'That there are many theories means we don't have a clue,' said Oddone" (NYT, 9/10/2008).

Dr. Rolf Heuer, director of CERN, said at a press conference on 11/23/2009: "It depends how kind nature is to us. If we would know, then it would be nice but I need a crystal ball in order to predict it... but I don’t know what nature has for us." See http://www.scienc...gods.htm

Such confessions are not the confident reassurance one would wish when the planet is put at risk.
BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
But RHouston the cow hurling fraternity here readily admit that the outcome is unknown ("uncharted waters" etc).

Perhaps they are acolytes of Brian Greene, who in a recent New York University seminar admitted freely he had no idea what will happen. Physics may well be quite different in the future from our current theories, he said.

BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Greene is the man who two years ago was peddling the safety argument Cosmic Ray 1 as he calls it (see above) in the New York Times on the Op Ed page without the slightest hint that he knew very well it was empty.

It was the only one he offered while telling Times readers this was the most wonderful enterprise in science since the moon shot or whatever (paraphrasing here).

The sad truth is that Greene et al are no more than supperannuated schoolboys who feel they should be left alone to carry out the cosmic equivalent of pulling off the legs of cockroaches to see what will happen.

Sorry to say such a disrespectful thing but that is the clear impression given by Greene and the heroic rock star Brian Cox in the UK who is his counterpart.

frajo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Thank you for that tortuous rationale frajo, and for acknowledging that the outcome is unknown ("uncharted waters").

That is precisely why caution and full assessment is required, not gay abandon
Where compact applied logic is perceived as "tortuous rationale" we should pay more attention to psychology than to physics.
Especially when someone demands "full assessment" of uncharted waters. Which amounts to washing the bear without wetting his fur.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2010
Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.
There are lots of true possible statements S of the form "XYZ exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent".
You chose to select the value "running the LHC" for the variable XYZ and to disregard all the other possible valuess of XYZ.
Why?
Because it's the topic at hand.
You try to evade an answer. Why is the LHC "the topic at hand" and not the nuclear overkill or the sinful societies?
It exposes everyone to the same potential danger at the same time.
That's an assumption of very few people. Unproven and disputed. Like the assumption that sinful societies will cause the end of the world.
You don't care for the "sinful society" argument; you don't care for the "nuclear overkill capacity" argument. The perceived risks are the same in every special interest group. So why should I care only for your argument?
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Dr. Rolf Heuer, director of CERN, said at a press conference on 11/23/2009: "It depends how kind nature is to us. If we would know, then it would be nice but I need a crystal ball in order to predict it... but I don't know what nature has for us." See http://www.scienc...gods.htm
Such confessions are not the confident reassurance one would wish when the planet is put at risk.
But you know very well that none of the attending journalists asked whether his "I don't know" included the existence of the world. And you know very well that Mr. Heuer's "I don't know" does not include questioning the existence of the planet earth.
You are trying to exploit the inevitable inaccuracies of communication via spoken language.
In those days we called this "art" sophistry. Ask Thrasymachus. :)
frajo
2.3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
But RHouston the cow hurling fraternity here
See the ** note.
readily admit that the outcome is unknown ("uncharted waters" etc).
So what? Preparing a little sophistry?
Perhaps they are acolytes of Brian Greene, who
...
admitted freely he had no idea what will happen.
So what?
Physics may well be quite different in the future from our current theories, he said.
Of course. Because there is a future.
Greene is the man who two years ago was peddling the safety argument Cosmic Ray 1
...
without the slightest hint that he knew very well it was empty.
It was the only one he offered while telling Times readers this was the most wonderful enterprise in science since the moon shot or whatever (paraphrasing here).
To learn physics you should read more PhysicsForums instead of the Times. And more Zwiebach than Greene.
Sorry to say such a disrespectful thing
**
Your credibility is appreciated.
BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
@fraio What a remarkable demonstration of non sequiturs. Bravo!

Especially after a salmon sized misunderstanding/red herring:

{q}You are trying to exploit the inevitable inaccuracies of communication via spoken language. {/q}
RHouston
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2010
@fraio
CERN director Heuer's statement of bafflement to the press on 11/23/2009 was in the context of what could be expected among the early results at the LHC. He said, "I do not know what Nature has for us." The assumption that the unknown is unrelated to planetary risk is based on a fallacy: that whatever is unknown is necessarily benign.

Plausible theories, as yet unrefuted, indicate that some LHC results at some point could be highly destructive. Because such an outcome cannot presently be ruled out, the LHC is a thoroughly immoral project.


frajo
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2010
@fraio What a remarkable demonstration of non sequiturs. Bravo!

Especially after a salmon sized misunderstanding/red herring:

{q}You are trying to exploit the inevitable inaccuracies of communication via spoken language. {/q}
Goodness. The inaccuracies of your written language ("non sequitur" for analyses, size for a "red herring", quoting tags) are definitely avoidable. For most people.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
CERN director Heuer's statement of bafflement to the press on 11/23/2009 was in the context of what could be expected among the early results at the LHC. He said, "I do not know what Nature has for us." The assumption that the unknown is unrelated to planetary risk is based on a fallacy: that whatever is unknown is necessarily benign.
Goodness. The literally content of Mr. Heuer's statement (that you are stressing) is not what he is convinced of. You know that. Denying this fact is immoral.
Plausible theories, as yet unrefuted, indicate that some LHC results at some point could be highly destructive.
Oxford ALD: "plausible = reasonable and likely to be true". Your likelyness is based on which calculus?
Unrefuted due to an empty set of predictions.
Because such an outcome cannot presently be ruled out, the LHC is a thoroughly immoral project.
Repent or else the end is near? We've heard that before.
Why is "such an outcome" immoral?
SentientMarine
not rated yet Sep 24, 2010
@fraio

Plausible theories, as yet unrefuted, indicate that some LHC results at some point could be highly destructive.



I find the aspect of 'as yet unrefuted' most interesting. The notion of a discussion on alternatives to the mainstream idea of physics is a complete nonsense. Ideas don't get a chance to be considered before being refuted.

The problem will become obvious long before scientists ever get a grasp of physics. Most obvious is what a waste of time discussions are.
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
Goodness. The inaccuracies of your written language ... etc etc


@fraio Humble apologies for the false brackets in the quote tags, tho an excellent example of the mini red herring/non sequitur/distraction/irrelevancy turnips the castle defenders here like to chuck over the parapets at the Knights of Truth below. Is that all you have left, fraio? Surely not.

Why is "such an outcome" immoral?


Because it is irresponsible regarding the interests of the rest of the planet. Do you not have a spouse, parents, siblings, sons or daughters, fraio? What it is - youth? - that makes their welfare so irrelevant to your world view as presented here? When the manure and salmonella bacteria spill out of chicken sheds in Iowa you don't wonder if Austin DeCoster has a family and neighbors? When the plastic executives defeat efforts to stop ocean pollution you don't wonder if they have daughters who ask them to stop?

BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
I find the aspect of 'as yet unrefuted' most interesting. The notion of a discussion on alternatives to the mainstream idea of physics is a complete nonsense. Ideas don't get a chance to be considered before being refuted.


We hear you, SentientMarine. But as Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

What is needed here perhaps is a review of theory in the past to see how often predictions were borne out. How much was after-the-fact analysis of collider results? How often was the particle sought found?

At least we would know what the batting average was. At the moment the score for CERN in safety arguments is zero, with even the neutron star part of Cosmic Ray 2 admitted to be a no go.

Not to mention engineering calculations which resulted in the LHC blowing apart twice before they got it right.
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
I find the aspect of 'as yet unrefuted' most interesting. The notion of a discussion on alternatives to the mainstream idea of physics is a complete nonsense. Ideas don't get a chance to be considered before being refuted.


We hear you, SentientMarine. But as Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

What is needed here perhaps is a review of theory in the past to see how often predictions were borne out. How much was after-the-fact analysis of collider results? How often was the particle sought found?

At least we would know what the batting average was. At the moment the score for CERN in safety arguments is zero, with even the neutron star part of Cosmic Ray 2 admitted to be a no go.

Not to mention engineering calculations which resulted in the LHC blowing apart twice before they got it right.
SentientMarine
3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
Thank you BozoChavez. My exploration into science has been brief and self taught to say the least. What I have noticed is the difficulty of dealing with a disipline that can both claim success for for what it can explain with conflicting theory and the audacity to take credit for the multitude of unexpected and still unexplained discoveries.

Tired light, atomic size variance measured by electron vs muon, more muons forming outside the beam line, the 40% difference of neutinos and their anti particle. The list is extensive, very extensive. It is rather like watching a committee attempting to assemble a watch. It certainly gives one a far greater appreciation for the committee that assembled a camel when trying to emmulate a horse.

As for small groups I believe the small group of lawyers that took to the oil giants over the Gulf of Mexico will want to clear a space in the diary in the next few years. Prediction it will go bang or it will burn. I dread the consequences if it burns.
RHouston
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2010
Frajo commented:: "The literal content of Mr. Heuer's statement (that you are stressing) is not what he is convinced of. You know that. Denying this fact is immoral."

Interesting point. But I merely relayed what Dr. Heuer said: "I do not know what Nature has for us." Many scientists and officials at the LHC and elsewhere made similar statements regarding the LHC experiments. A form of self-deception renders them apparently oblivious to the obvious contradiction between their admitted ignorance of what to expect and their proclaimed certitude that all will be harmless.
BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2010
The notion of a discussion on alternatives to the mainstream idea of physics is a complete nonsense. Ideas don't get a chance to be considered before being refuted.


Hear you, SM. But Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." One should try, at least.

What might be helpful is a review of theory to see how often predictions have been borne out in colliders. How often was a new particle sought and then found? How much theory is just after-the-fact analysis of collider results?
At least we would know what the batting average was.

At the moment the score for CERN in safety arguments is zero, with every one abandoned as wrong after a while. Even the neutron star part of Cosmic Ray 2 was lately admitted to be a no go.

Not to mention the engineering calculations which resulted in the LHC blowing apart twice.
BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2010
SentientMachine said The notion of a discussion on alternatives to the mainstream idea of physics is a complete nonsense. Ideas don't get a chance to be considered before being refuted.

True, SM. But Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." One can try, at least.

What might be helpful is a review of theory to see how often predictions have been borne out in colliders. How often was a new particle sought and then found? How much theory is just after-the-fact analysis of collider results?
At least we would know what the batting average of establishment was.

At the moment the score for CERN in safety arguments is zero, with every one abandoned as wrong after a while. Even the neutron star part of Cosmic Ray 2 was lately admitted to be a no go.

Not to mention the engineering calculations which resulted in the LHC blowing apart twice.
BozoChavez
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
This software has gone freaking awry, sorry!
RHouston
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2010
Mr. Chavez, the software system at Physorg is far more advanced than you surmise. Evidently, the system was so impressed with the cogency of your points that it posted your comment 4 times.

BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2010
Thankyou Mr Houston I would like to think so but every time I tried to post it displayed a page with a long warning line that "the text on this page has an error at asfglkjdfkfbwefwebfieb 7234vvhjjvj24" or somesuch, which didn't seem to change whatever edits I did, only to find that every time it had posted after all. Sorry that the thread was so disrupted.

I believe my basic point is worth discussing - that we should study the history of colliders to gauge how often theorists have been successful in predicting outcomes as power got ratcheted up. As I say the safety arguments have always been exploded within a few years except now for the handful of dwarf stars supposedly being our safety guarantee, already suspect since they are partially strange matter.

Otherwise as noted above we don't have a clue what to expect and safety measures are few and probably meaningless eg go slow, etc. Waiting till we can detect mini black holes might be a good idea, though
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2010
In the line of making constructive suggestions I would also like to suggest that perhaps the webmaster here would like to extend his/her admirable system of allowing comment edits to take place in 3 minutes to a longer time such as an hour or two? And include a delete?
RHouston
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2010
Otherwise as noted above we don't have a clue what to expect and safety measures are few and probably meaningless eg go slow, etc. Waiting till we can detect mini black holes might be a good idea, though


I believe what you mean, BC, is that the project should wait until there's the capability to detect mini black holes. Presently, they could only detect the signature of a small proportion of evaporating mBHs and have no means of detecting metastable or stable ones. It is possible that the LHC or other colliders have already produced one or more stable neutral micro black holes that are growing at the center of the Earth.

The question at the website to which Lisa Zyga directed us with her superbly worded last line should not be "Has the LHC destroyed the world yet?" - but rather, has it doomed the world? The answer would be: Maybe.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2010
@BozoChavez:
At the moment the score for CERN in safety arguments is zero, with every one abandoned as wrong after a while. Even the neutron star part of Cosmic Ray 2 was lately admitted to be a no go.
Well, I've long since scoffed at this absurdity, but I haven't read that the LSAG committee had retracted it. Do you have a source for this?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2010
I believe what you mean, BC, is that the project should wait until there's the capability to detect mini black holes. Presently, they could only detect the signature of a small proportion of evaporating mBHs and have no means of detecting metastable or stable ones. It is possible that the LHC or other colliders have already produced one or more stable neutral micro black holes that are growing at the center of the Earth.
It seems CERN may have surreptitiously adjusted their beam energies to ensure escape velocity of the highest energy products. Whenever I've looked, I've noticed beam 2 consistently runs at lower energies than beam 1.

See it live, here:

http://op-webtool...usr=LHC1

Of course, I only base this on a random sampling (as I can't watch it 24/7). But this gives me hope they listened to our arguments in time (but are probably too embarrassed to admit it).

Does anyone have any information about this?
SentientMarine
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2010
I believe my basic point is worth discussing - that we should study the history of colliders to gauge how often theorists have been successful in predicting outcomes as power got ratcheted up.


A very good point. One of the reasons for my six month break from the forums is that is the length of time the physicists asked for to analyse the collider results. Back then I severely doubted the existence of the proposed Higgs Boson.

The failue to find this fundamental particle on which the whole of QED gravitation and also the Higgs field invalidates the whole of modern high powered nuclear science. Sure some known quantities are expected to occur such as night follows day but now the very foundation of atomic science is flawed.

I do not need to look to the stars when the lack of results scream failure and as such invalidate all previous safety arguments.
RHouston
not rated yet Sep 29, 2010
Regarding the neutron star safety argument, UvT wrote, "I haven't read that the LSAG committee had retracted it. Do you have a source for this?

The neutron star argument was judged unconfirmed in the Report on LSAG Documents by the CERN Scientific Policy Committee (SPC, 2008). Though a whitewash of the safety issues, it accepts for a dense star rationale only the white dwarfs, stating that "at the LHC energy, any danger for the Earth...can be ruled out on the basis of...white dwarf stars..." (p 3). Its only mention of the neutron star argument is a diplomatic rejection for the present:

"A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years." (p 3).
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2010
Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.

Not running the LHC exposes everyone, generally without their consent, to the complementary risk of not detecting the crucial clue for an efficient operation of fusion reactors.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2010
Running the LHC exposes everyone to risk, generally without their consent.

Not running the LHC exposes everyone, generally without their consent, to the complementary risk of not detecting the crucial clue for an efficient operation of fusion reactors.

What gives you the idea it's for fusion research?
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
Perhaps frajo means the "fusion" of earthly matter into a small asteroid the size of two or three football fields, made up of strange matter. At least that would be larger than the golf ball we are destined to turn into if the mBH danger is correctly theorized.
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
SentientMarine are you not going to give them more time to come up with the Higgs boson etc? The experiment will only attain its maximum energy sometime after the turn off in 2012, will it not?

Thats assuming that the budget doesn't evaporate as the money is rechanneled to the poor and vulnerable of the world, as some advise.

That would be a sad thing given the amount each would receive which would not make a great deal of difference to them.

This experiment is far more fun, even if it does risk the disappearance of the entire planet and all its inhabitants, even the innocent butterfly.

But we are assured by CERN that the risk is minimal, and by all science writers who edit their press releases and call that reporting.
RHouston
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2010
Those who believe that a possible technological spinoff or interesting new finding would justify risking the loss of the planet and all humanity would probably also wish to support the Large Earth Collider (see: http://www.theoni...-e,2625/ ).
frajo
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
Like most of this thread written by game players and other couch potatoes you express
and
all its inhabitants, even the innocent butterfly

Adages of an impressive personality.
What gives you the idea it's for fusion research?
What gives you the idea that I'm given that idea?

Your statement:
There's a non-zero chance that operating the LHC will destroy the local planet.
Your conclusion: The LHC must be stopped.

My statement:
There's a non-zero chance that operating the LHC will give mankind some hitherto unknown knowledge without which it will be impossible to efficiently operate fusion reactors.
My conclusion: (left to the reader as homework problem)
BozoChavez
2 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2010
My statement:
There's a non-zero chance that operating the LHC will give mankind some hitherto unknown knowledge without which it will be impossible to efficiently operate fusion reactors.
My conclusion: (left to the reader as homework problem)


Let's see. Frajo believes that it is worth the non zero chances of annihilating everything from butterflies to him/erself, including the planet, to obtain a non zero chance of obtaining fusion to allow himself and 6.499999999999 billion people to enjoy cheaper energy.

Somehow this seems an unbalanced tradeoff.

However, we are of course ignoring the fun element mentioned above, which may restore the balance.

Already, as Houston has pointed out, it has resulted in an exceptionally telling story in Onion.

BozoChavez
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2010
Even given the questionably human value of some of the Earth's inhabitants, such as the notably ectomorphic and narrowly focused workers at CERN (do they have children? Do they have parents? do they have lovers outside their tribe?) one can empathize with the rest who do not wish to be sucked into another dimension.

Is there not any means by which Frajo et al may be allowed to risk themselves and their future without risking the rest of us?

Or are we all stuck on the same planet at the same time?

Frajo?
SentientMarine
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2010
SentientMarine are you not going to give them more time to come up with the Higgs boson etc? The experiment will only attain its maximum energy sometime after the turn off in 2012, will it not?

Thats assuming that the budget doesn't evaporate as the money is rechanneled to the poor and vulnerable of the world, as some advise.

That would be a sad thing given the amount each would receive which would not make a great deal of difference to them.

This experiment is far more fun, even if it does risk the disappearance of the entire planet and all its inhabitants, even the innocent butterfly.

But we are assured by CERN that the risk is minimal, and by all science writers who edit their press releases and call that reporting.


Approx value a cup of coffee for all world citizens. I have given it some thought and for a species that offers so many avenues of advancement a scientific approach that puts at risk all art, medicine and other innovation offers less than the cuppa
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2010
Approx value a cup of coffee for all world citizens. I have given it some thought and for a species that offers so many avenues of advancement a scientific approach that puts at risk all art, medicine and other innovation offers less than the cuppa
Would you have said the same thing when Szilard discovered nuclear chain reactions?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2010
Approx value a cup of coffee for all world citizens. I have given it some thought and for a species that offers so many avenues of advancement a scientific approach that puts at risk all art, medicine and other innovation offers less than the cuppa
Would you have said the same thing when Szilard discovered nuclear chain reactions?
Not comparable. These chain reactions can happen under ordinary conditions (you just need the proper material).
RHouston
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. From a careful reading of the comments and links, a reasonable conclusion would be that no discovery at the LHC however important - nor possible technological spinoff such as fusion energy - would be worth the risk of global catastrophe. In the case of upcoming high energy experiments, that risk is not necessarily negligible ( http://arxiv.org/...8.1415v3 ) and may even be substantial (see: http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=7 ).
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2010
I expect to see you all chained to CERN's front doors any day now.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
Would you have said the same thing when Szilard discovered nuclear chain reactions?
Not comparable. These chain reactions can happen under ordinary conditions (you just need the proper material).
Cosmic particle bombardment of the Earth happens constantly in nature and at far greater energies than the LHC. The two are comparable. Would you address my prior question?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
Cosmic particle bombardment is not comparable to LHC collisions (as even the CERN safety committee admits) because the relative momentums of the collision results, relative to the earth, are profoundly different.

To what "prior question" do you refer?
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2010
Cosmic particle bombardment is not comparable to LHC collisions (as even the CERN safety committee admits) because the relative momentums of the collision results, relative to the earth, are profoundly different.


Precisely, and explained before on this thread. How astonishing that anyone still thinks that this is a safety argument for the LHC. Well, perhaps not so astonishing, considering that CERN has continued to carry this rationalization on its Web site for the admiration of the untutored when its pet theoretical defense squad duo G and M have already ruled it inadmissible. And Brian Greene's last NYTimes OpEd statement still uses it as the only defense. To be brutally frank, this is institutional and personal dissembling/prevarication/lying to the 6.5 billion humans at risk.
BozoChavez
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2010
Approx value a cup of coffee for all world citizens. I have given it some thought and for a species that offers so many avenues of advancement a scientific approach that puts at risk all art, medicine and other innovation offers less than the cuppa


With respect, am I the only reader who is baffled as to the meaning intended by this and other posts of the estimable Sentient Marine?
SentientMarine
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
With respect, am I the only reader who is baffled as to the meaning intended by this and other posts of the estimable Sentient Marine?


Perhaps not. I have explored a different atomic nature (one that has not met understanding at any outing)... t is not zero.

Would you have said the same thing when Szilard discovered nuclear chain reactions?


May I offer the words quoted to Szilard.

"We turned the switch and saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home." He understood the implications and consequences of this discovery, though. "That night, there was very little doubt in my mind that the world was headed for grief."

A read of 'Inertial Confinement Fusion' via laser shows the impact of wave confinement and frequency. When bundles of ions achieve the set harmonics in release a standard large nuclear reaction may be the initial trigger to a longer term result.

Do we really
RHouston
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
While some of Sentient Marine's posts have been a bit puzzling, the quoted comment above seems both clear and elegantly stated. He was responding to the suggestion by Mr. Chavez that the money for the LHC might be "rechanneled to the poor and vulnerable of the world, as some advise."

S.M. divided the LHC's $10 billion cost by the world population to find it's worth a cup of coffee per capita (about $1.47). He commented that the actual value would be less due to the risk posed by the LHC to all human achievement.
BozoChavez
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2010
A heroic effort at interpreting the post by SentientMarine, Houston, and possibly what he meant, but Alas, not what he said, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and standard usage in reasoning and reference. The first sentence does not contain a verb, for example, so one has to guess what the subject is, which fortunately is easy since there is only one candidate in the post he was commenting on (mine). Then there is the use of the word "value" for what he apparently means, according to you, which is cost. Then according to you he wants to add into the formula the possibility of losing all human works and even life, which is not something that one can put either a cost or a value upon, unless you care to choose infinite. (cont)
BozoChavez
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
(cont) If he had said something along the lines of, The cost of the LHC triumph is about a cup of coffee for each person on earth, and if the potential loss is counted too, infinite, then he would have written a sentence which made sense. However, he did not. He needed your very kind imaginative interpretation. My concern is that this may be the standard level of inability of theoretical physicists to think and express themselves competently in words and thoughts, and thus it may be that the risk of the LHC cranking up to full speed may be even greater than that feared by the few critics among their brethren. Since the admirable SentientMarine's previous posts were even more in need of your kind ministration, a review of all of them heightens my concern to an excruciating level.
RHouston
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2010
Thats assuming that the budget doesn't evaporate as the money is rechanneled to the poor and vulnerable of the world, as some advise.
That would be a sad thing given the amount each would receive which would not make a great deal of difference to them.


Approx value a cup of coffee for all world citizens. I have given it some thought and for a species that offers so many avenues of advancement a scientific approach that puts at risk all art, medicine and other innovation offers less than the cuppa


The first remark was by Mr. Chavez. In the context, the reply by Sentient Marine was clear to me, and apparently to others who commented on it except Chavez. The word "less" used by S.M. could include infinite loss but was left discreetly undefined. Not all scenarios of LHC risks involve total loss (e.g., Dr. Plaga's radiation scenario). By the way, S.M. has acknowledged he is not a physicist, so the generalization by Chavez to all physicists is unwarranted.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
@BozoChavez & RHouston:

There's a new story on physorg which is about darkmatter converting neutron stars to strange stars...

http://www.physor...nge.html

...which certainly supports your strange matter contentions.
BozoChavez
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
@Houston: Your elegantly justifying your assessment of SentientMarine's oddly insufficient (to me) phrasing as "clear" on the grounds that it was "clear to me, and apparently to others", seems kind but insufficient, primarily because it is sufficient for you only because of your generous interpretive imagination, which bestows on otherwise obscurely phrased material the illuminated transparency of intelligibility we all seek. Alas, since some (eg me) lack this generous spirit and creative ability to fill in the cracks in the literary plaster some contribute to this thread, it doesn't seem to justify appraising Sentient Marine's post as "clear" to all. As to the distinguished Senient Marine being an amateur physicist and self taught, as he himself admitted, and you remind us, surely his extensive and accurate understanding of the situation suggests that he must be counted among the competent in this field, and therefore typical. Where is your famous generosity when it is needed?
BozoChavez
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
@utuba: Thank you for that item which sure seems to scotch the remaining safety argument of Giddings and Mangano/CERN, that neutron stars and white dwarfs show that the existence of eg the Earth is not threatened by the strange particles confidently expected at the LHC. Doubters point out that both are however composed at least partially of strange matter, according to the latest interpretations. This item now seems to suggest the Earth may vanish in one hundred seconds:

Some of these strangelets decay rapidly and have no effect on the neutron star. But if the strangelets have a high enough baryon number, they can live up to several days. Previous research has shown that it takes about 100 seconds to convert a neutron star into a strange star, a process that could potentially be triggered by long-lived strangelets.


Sadly, this does not seem to provide any time for post facto safety measures.

Let's note white dwarfs have reckoned to be partially strange since 2002.
SentientMarine
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
A heroic effort at interpreting the post by SentientMarine, Houston, and possibly what he meant, but Alas, not what he said, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and standard usage in reasoning and reference.

I will attempt to make a simpler case.

A Hawaiian man's lawsuit to try to prevent operations of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been dismissed due to a failure to show a "credible threat of harm," according to the judge.


The facility is being used to look for exotic particles based on Einstein's E=mc^2. However the same facility is unable to produce the most common particle the proton and as such invalidates E=mc^2.

I contend high energy particle physics has failed to prove the case for science.
SentientMarine
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
Before someone complains that E=mc^2 is still the most accurate description for mass difference in nuclear fusion, I agree. What I am stating is that E=mc^2 is not accurate for the proton itself.

I do not know why I bother because the answer is so obvious. I hope someone with a certificate can figure it out before it is too late.
BozoChavez
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
The last two posts are now offered as prima facie evidence of my complaint, in that the estimable SM fails in every case to say precisely what he means, even if he means precisely what he says. This is frustrating to those of us who follow his every implication with interest, since it always suggests something intriguing to the effect that physicists do not, after eighty years of advanced nuclear physics experimentation, know what they are doing. In this case, I call on Sentient M to explain in full what he means. Have protons never been seen, after all? Are they only theorized too? What is this answer that is so obvious, but not to me, insufficiently tutored by SM? Inquiring minds need to know. Seriously.
SentientMarine
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
The last two posts are now offered as prima facie evidence of my complaint, in that the estimable SM fails in every case to say precisely what he means, even if he means precisely what he says.


Perhaps just going to the conclusion because it appears that in this disputed multiverse the SM is unable to communicate for some reason. I don't believe in the multiverse by the way. If the machine goes bang and the surviving people and nations organise fast enough then Mars offers a new world to colonise. Anything from the earth will eventually return when it is destroyed in the future because the molecular stuff is different. Information can be passed on tools to make tools used then discarded, seeds to grow food and water to be found on Mars.

If it does not blow up then kindly disregard. It is simpler this way and allows you a bit of a laugh for now. Take it or leave it if you will but it saves me wasting my time and yours.
RHouston
2 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
Migration to Mars is not an option, SM, since the technology to do so is unavailable. Let's get real. Even a small manned mission will require several years of R&D and many $billions. By contrast, it would cost nothing to shut down the LHC doomsday machine, though the physics community would scream like toddlers whose favorite toy is thrown out.

Meanwhile, the ALICE lead experiments, which may be capable of generating planet-destroying strangelets, are set to begin Nov. 9th. These will resume with increased intensity for one month out of every year of operation - in case they don't wreck us the first time. See: http://www.cerntr...m/?p=125 .
SentientMarine
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
Thankyou RHouston it would be difficult but perhaps the only option in case of failure. To BozoChavez the skipping from the nature of the proton to the Mars conclusion I have seen the attempt to explain get sidetracked too many times.

There are lots of people far brighter than I am and it takes just the smallest amount of faith so I know it will be worked out if needed, only if needed.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
Migration to Mars is not an option, SM, since the technology to do so is unavailable. Let's get real.
That's incorrect. The technology exists, it simply isn't cost effective.
BozoChavez
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
Migration to Mars is not an option, SM, since the technology to do so is unavailable. Let's get real.
That's incorrect. The technology exists, it simply isn't cost effective.


Which is precisely the same thing, surely.

Sentient Marine, one gathers that you think there is a certain danger that all will go pfft in some way as ALICE cranks up, or the process has already started, perhaps.

Suggesting migration to Mars is impractical even if there were resources to do it. Humanity faced with being swallowed by a black hole, or decimated by hundreds of nuclear explosions and the nuclear winter that would follow, or transformed into strange matter in a few seconds, would not be in any psychological condition to plan and execute a departure to the next planet.

Your lack of realism in this regard calls into question the credibility of your (actually credible) belief that all could go pfft.