Large Hadron Collider feedback needed

[BenBurch]

Thanks, Hans, you are more patient with this fellow than I find myself able to be.

I am less willing to suffer fools than I used to be, but I ought to try to educate at least the bystanders who will get it even if the fool WILL not.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Without going through this whole thread, am I missing something? Is it not true that the energy of collisions that will be produced by the LHC are something like 1/10⁵ times high energy cosmic rays routinely striking the earth?

 

[MattusMaximus]

MattusMaximus claims that I and James Tankersley are the same person. Now, that is a charming if nutto conspiracy theory. Fortunately, there is an easy way to demonstrate it wrong, based on something you can all look up on the Internet.

Oops, my bad. I had concluded incorrectly that you and JTankers were the same person because your name is all over his blog.

Not that it makes your other arguments and physics-fiction any more correct...

 

[BenBurch]

Without going through this whole thread, am I missing something? Is it not true that the energy of collisions that will be produced by the LHC are something like 1/10⁵ times high energy cosmic rays routinely striking the earth?

NO.

In fact we cannot even approach the most powerful cosmic ray energies with an accelerator, and likely will NEVER be able to.

EDIT: Sorry, I read 1x10**5 not 1/10**5. You were correct.

 

[James Blodgett]

A few years ago, a physicist wrote an article for a popular newspaper saying that there was no need to worry about black holes at colliders. His reasons were not clear, so I asked him over lunch. He was an interesting guy, we had a charming conversation, and he paid for lunch. It turned out that he believes that we are safe because he does not believe in black holes. As he said, “when an equation goes to infinity, that is a sign that there is something wrong with the equation.” Now, that is an interesting point of view, and it may turn out that he is right. However, it is not the view of the majority of the present physics or astronomical community. Basically, he told the public that there was nothing to worry about based on reasons many would find inadequate, in this case a rather weird theory. Is this ethical? Unfortunately, it is all too typical, as we see here.

BenBurch is also telling us that there is nothing to worry about with inadequate basis. He presents no math, no references, now only a claim of a remembered chalk talk. And folks say I don’t present references or math? I have in fact presented a lot of references. An unsupported claim may make a point in a blog debate, but that is hardly enough for it to be taken seriously as protective of Earth. BenBurch’s claim may turn out to be true, but its present status is unproven.

To be fair, a blog is not a venue where anyone has time or adequate motivation to do the work of developing good material. That is more appropriate for real publication. Only one or two folks here have presented math of any kind. My point is that it is unfair to criticize me for not having time to present math when others don’t either.

The standard rule is that those who make the claim present the proofs. I have presented plenty of proofs of my main points, which are that past confidently- asserted safety factors have evaporated, and that some protocols of sane risk management have not been followed.

Another standard rule in some quarters is the precautionary principle. Those who propose an activity have the burden of proving it safe. I agree that Mangano made a reasonable effort, but there are reasonable reasons to question its completeness, reasons I have documented. I am aware that many scientists don’t like the precautionary principle. I do. Do folks here want to debate that?

 

[James Blodgett]

HansMustermann implies that supernovas should make black holes if the LHC will do so. I understand that supernovas often do make black holes, at their core, but he claims they should do so copiously in their outer layers. This is another all-too- typical inadequately supported claim. For this situation to be analogous to the Large Hadron Collider, the energy needs to be in the same range. HansMustermann’s only “math” is the phrase “extremely energetic”. That is not adequate as a demonstration. I suggest that he get astronomical data to show that the energy levels are similar.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So, I have a proton and another proton and then they make a black hole.

Hmmm... that is a big black hole and a huge event horizon. I am scared, if I was an electron.

Even an electron wouldn't have to worry that much... unless it was somehow able to come within less than a Planck length of this micro-BH. And that, of course, assumes the mBH hangs around long enough to actually interact with anything before it decays.

 

[Reality Check]

Without going through this whole thread, am I missing something? Is it not true that the energy of collisions that will be produced by the LHC are something like 1/10⁵ times high energy cosmic rays routinely striking the earth?

That is true.
The LHC will have collisions at about 7 TeV per proton (7*10¹² eV).
The highest energy cosmic rays are > 10²⁰ eV but these are extremely rare. There is a flux of 1 cosmic ray per square meter per year at an energy of 10¹⁶ eV.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Contemplate the subjective risk from colliders as it existed before the Giddings and Mangano paper. At that time, collider advocates were relying on Hawking radiation, recently questioned by published physics papers (cited above), and on the crude cosmic ray analogy, with no consideration of white dwarfs. ...

<rant continues>

... I would love to seriously try to consider some of the science and some of the math behind the collider debate. However, this place is basically a kangaroo court, so I don’t see that as possible here. I would welcome continuing the conversation elsewhere with anyone who actually wants a conversation. Contact me at Risk Evaluation Forum, accessible via Google.

Yup, not a single lick of math in that entire wall of text. Wow, I'm convinced!

 

[BenBurch]

We've gotten to the troll-point now. I am waiting to hear how this is all an Illuminati plot to immanentize the Eschaton.

 

[MattusMaximus]

BenBurch makes claims about cosmic ray collisions with other cosmic rays, so that they will produce a black hole (if black hole production is possible this way) with the same velocity and vector as Earth. He implies a colIider/cosmic ray analogy based on this event. I question this blog as a venue for real math, but folks here keep asking for that, so perhaps we can bore everyone by actually trying to make an appropriate model for this. I am not a physicist, so I could use help with some of the units, but I do have a master’s degree in statistics, so I can usually follow and sometimes generate the math. I don’t think this is an appropriate venue for this kind of work, but let’s test that. If we work together I’ll bet a bunch of us could make this model, or perhaps even do more useful work like validate or fail to validate real accretion models or alternate white dwarf models proposed elsewhere. The question is whether we can work together, and whether anyone has time for this.

You see, there's your problem right there. You admit to not being a physicist, yet you somehow think that you know more about physics than those of us here who make it our careers.

And for someone who claims to be able to do the math, you're doing a piss-poor job of showing it.

 

[Roboramma]

James, rather than harping on about BenBurch, who simply pointed out one of the many weaknesses in the idea that black holes produced by the LHC could be dangerous, why don't you either show that he is wrong, or address some of the other posters?

For instance, Sol has made some very good points that I think completely destroy your arguments, even if we ignore everything else everyone else has said.
To make clear what I am saying: why don't you show us how you think the risk of running the LHC is greater than the risk of not running it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Another standard rule in some quarters is the precautionary principle. Those who propose an activity have the burden of proving it safe. I agree that Mangano made a reasonable effort, but there are reasonable reasons to question its completeness, reasons I have documented. I am aware that many scientists don’t like the precautionary principle. I do. Do folks here want to debate that?

Nice false dichotomy there: "You aren't as paranoid and uneducated in physics as me, so you must want to roll the dice and potentially destroy the planet!"

No, pretty much all scientists are on board with the precautionary principle. What we are disagreeing with is your particular version of it, also known as the paralyzing precautionary principle.

And think about this... if scientists were not concerned at all about precautions and safety, then why the hell do those folks doing the research in CDC labs take all of the precautions when dealing with nasty infectious diseases?

What a colossally stupid thing for you to say. Not that it's any different from the rest of your posts.

 

[temporalillusion]

Where are the black holes to go with it?

Where are the gamma rays associated with those micro-black-holes zipping through atmosphere?

If we didn't notice even one, in all that unimaginable number of collisions daily, what _is_ the probability of it happening? You're the statistician, you tell me.

Would we really be able to detect them though, even if they were there? Assuming Planck length sized black holes that would hardly ever interact with matter because they're so small, wouldn't they be even harder to detect than neutrinos?

---

The standard rule is that those who make the claim present the proofs.

Then about fast accretion.

I would have had some difficulty if anyone had inquired. One theory was sent to me by a physicist in manuscript. I would have to ask for his permission to show it here, and I am not sure he is ready. Another theory is not actually a theory, it is a colleague who has been vetting accretion theories. He would be a great addition to a group that is honestly investigating that subject. But bringing him here would be like bringing him to a school of piranhas. Another theory is by Rössler. You can look that one up. I would have to look it up too.

The only thing I could find from Rössler was something about black holes not evaporating, nothing about fast accretion. Anything else to support the claim?

 

[Perpetual Student]

That is true.
The LHC will have collisions at about 7 TeV per proton (7*10¹² eV).
The highest energy cosmic rays are > 10²⁰ eV but these are extremely rare. There is a flux of 1 cosmic ray per square meter per year at an energy of 10¹⁶ eV.

OK, then why is there any debate here. If JB's fears have merit, we should be experiencing the results of a fairly big number of black holes all over the earth on a regular basis.
JB: Sorry for the redundancy. You must have answered this question already?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't get what all the fuss is about.

Let us, for argument's sake, assume the worst possible scenario: That a black hole will form and (for some reason) it remains perfectly stable. It's still a very tiny black hole, with an event horizon that is... what? About the size of atom, maybe?

Does anyone seriously believe a black hole that tiny is going to engulf the whole Earth? (except nut jobs, and folks who don't understand anything much about physics?)

Wowbagger, this link nicely outlines why it is that even in this "worst case scenario" there is no reason to be concerned.

 

[James Blodgett]

MattusMaximus writes:

>Oops, my bad. I had concluded incorrectly that you and JTankers were the same person
>because your name is all over his blog.
>
>Not that it makes your other arguments and physics-fiction any more correct.

Okay, that is sort of courteous. Maybe we can encourage courtesy here. And I like “physics-fiction” and “Intellectual Gladiator”.

James Tankersley collects my writing. He might make me think too much of myself if you guys did not supply the antidote.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

EDIT: Sorry, I read 1x10**5 not 1/10**5. You were correct.

I was going to correct this, but you got there first. I'll only add that it's more like 7 orders of magnitude, not 5 (3*10^20 eV for the so-called "Oh-My-God" cosmic ray, 1.4*10^13 eV for LHC collisions).

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Reality Check]

HansMustermann implies that supernovas should make black holes if the LHC will do so. I understand that supernovas often do make black holes, at their core, but he claims they should do so copiously in their outer layers. This is another all-too- typical inadequately supported claim. For this situation to be analogous to the Large Hadron Collider, the energy needs to be in the same range. HansMustermann’s only “math” is the phrase “extremely energetic”. That is not adequate as a demonstration. I suggest that he get astronomical data to show that the energy levels are similar.

You mean the actual measured energy of cosmic rays? The spectrum that goes from 10⁶ to > 10²⁰ eV?
The estimated maximum energy (only from theory but that is what this thread is about) of cosmic rays in supernovae is about 10¹⁵ eV and > than the LHC energy (On the spectrum of high-energy cosmic rays produced by supernova remnants in the presence of strong cosmic-ray streaming instability and wave dissipation).
Of course some of the 4000 preprints in arXiv or the 12,000 articles in Google Scholar found be searching for "energy of cosmic rays produced in supernovae" may have different values.

Now that you have the numbers perhaps you would like to calculate the number of micro black holes produced in your favourite theory. Or is this your "another all-too- typical inadequately supported claim."?

 

[BenBurch]

I was going to correct this, but you got there first. I'll only add that it's more like 7 orders of magnitude, not 5 (3*10^20 eV for the so-called "Oh-My-God" cosmic ray, 1.4*10^13 eV for LHC collisions).

- Dr. Trintignant

I used to argue that we should stop building accelerators, and find a way to do physics with cosmic rays just because humans will never command that sort of energy.