Large Hadron Collider feedback needed

[MattusMaximus]

I have a hard and fast data point for this discussion. If nothing else, this should give JB at least some pause when attempting to make his crackpot arguments (I'm not going to hold my breath).

Some of my students and I visited FermiLab just yesterday for and end-of-the-year field trip. They run the Tevatron at FermiLab pretty much 24/7/365, unless there is need for a shutdown, and they're slamming proton and anti-proton beams together quite often. The energy levels of these collisions are about 1 TeV, which is only 7 times less than the LHC (it's supposed to top out around 7 TeV).

According to the data we have on cosmic rays, as many have pointed out in this thread, it is not uncommon for those events to have energies within this range.

Two points:

1. Naturally occurring cosmic ray interactions of this order of energy have been pelting the Earth for billions of years. And there has yet to be any Earth-destroying ill effect. This point has been made repeatedly.

2. FermiLab has been conducting artificial experiments of similar energy levels for as long as the Tevatron has been operable (about 10 years or so). The manner in which the collisions in the Tevatron take place are similar to those of the LHC (two counter-rotating beams colliding). The fact that we have already been conducting experiments of this energy level (on the order of 1 TeV) to no Earth-destroying ill effect also shows how misguided and incorrect JB's arguments are.

End of story, JB. You lose.

 

[BenBurch]

No! We commissioned the TEVatron in 1983! Yes, its been steadily improved over time, but some of those magnets out there are still the ones I wrote the testing software for.

I do miss it.

If they were ever in a position to hire again, I might go back.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No! We commissioned the TEVatron in 1983! Yes, its been steadily improved over time, but some of those magnets out there are still the ones I wrote the testing software for.

I do miss it.

If they were ever in a position to hire again, I might go back.

Ah, thanks for the correction, Ben.

Make that over 26 years of continuous operation at artificially induced TeV energy levels without a single occurrence of a planet-eating black hole.

 

[BenBurch]

It used to be we did not run in the summer. Our budget only allowed us to run when the rates were low. Not sure when they changed that.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Okay, accounting for that, let's call it about 20 years of continuous operation at TeV levels in a manner similar to the LHC, yet Earth has not yet been demolished by one of JB's hypothetical planet-eating mBHs.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, I did save a few BHs in a mason jar. Do you suppose I shouldn't have?

 

[Geezer]

Well, I did save a few BHs in a mason jar. Do you suppose I shouldn't have?

Mmm...them be tasty on a sandwich with some cheese and peppers.

 

[wackyvorlon]

This works because of quantum superposition, like Schrödinger’s cat. The superposition is a superposition of truth. The superposition collapses when observed by a physicist, after which Equation 1 takes effect.

I cannot let this go unchallenged. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment applies only at the scale of electrons, protons, etc. It does not work on a macroscopic scale. Period.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

So you do not understnd what he said.

Where does iron come from?

The existance of iron and the other elements past it on the atomic table would require the creation lots and lots of mini black holes under your scenario.

 

[HansMustermann]

I cannot let this go unchallenged. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment applies only at the scale of electrons, protons, etc. It does not work on a macroscopic scale. Period.

I think James was just trying to be funny there. Mind you, it wasn't a good joke, but in all fairness I guess it's not exactly the easiest topic for a comedian. I mean, he's essentially ranting against the idea that the physicists are considered right about physics, and the unqualified guy making unsupported allegations isn't even taken seriously. I figure I used to be a bit of a class clown myself, but I can't figure out where to even start if I wanted to make that sound ridiculous

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

So basically even when you found a physicist whose opinions are not mainstream, he still told you to stop worrying? So, umm, let's get your controversy straight:

- on one hand, you have those who stick by physics as we know it, and who say nothing bad will happen

- on the other hand, even those who have their own hypotheses, still say nothing bad will happen even under those conditions. (And I'd be surprised if they didn't at least do the conventional maths too, just in case, before applying an untested hypothesis.)

So what's the controversy then? Both groups say: nothing bad will happen.

You sound more and more like the creationists who take some "controversy" like whether one fossil is 600 million years old or only 500 million years old, to be proof that the earth is 6 thousand years old. No, it isn't. Both don't support that conclusion.

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.

Dude, again: "burden of proof."

The mainstream phyiscs has already been published, peer reviewed and supported with evidence. It already met its burden of proof.

_You_ make the claim that something will happen contrary to all physics as we know it. _You_ are the one coming with a new hypothesis. So _you_ get to support it.

Really, _you_ are the only one here who has to show any maths and data.

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.

No, you didn't. Suppositions pulled out of the rear aren't proof.

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?

Again, you're the one claiming (that some risk exists of) something that ought to be outright impossible by physics as we know it. You're the one with the new hypothesis. You're the one who gets to prove it.

Playing with words doesn't change that elementary fact. Nobody ows you a proof that your hypothesis is wrong. You're the one who gets to prove it correct.

 

[James Blodgett]

HansMustermann wrote:

>Nobody ows you a proof that your hypothesis is wrong. You're the one >who gets to prove it correct.

That is not what the precautionary principle says. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in cases of scientific risk.
Those who propose a risky activity are required to prove it safe. This is especially true when the risk is an existential risk, a risk that could make the human race extinct.

Consider the opposite. Suppose I have a reason to think that there is a 50% chance that an airplane will crash. Suppose I have to “prove” my theory that the airplane will crash. But my assurance is only at the 50% level. I cannot “prove” by the standards of statistical significance that the airplane will crash. My theory to that effect would not be publishable if subject to that standard. Would you want to ride on that airplane?

The precautionary principle is accepted in many quarters, but I know that some scientists do not like it. In a previous post, I offered to debate it here.

 

[James Blodgett]

HansMustermann claimed that supernovas would produce copious cosmic rays in the energy range of the LHC. I asked for documentation. Several folks provided it. Thanks.

I apologize. Someone here said that he needed only three seconds to see the faults in my arguments. I spent about the same time here. A problem with blog debates is that they elicit the habit of fast response. Sometimes we shoot from the hip, failing to aim well, failing to vet answers well. My post previous to the one about supernovas complained about lack of documentation. It took about three seconds for me to see that the supernova claim was not documented either, and so I put it in that category. Had I spent more time, I might have saved you the trouble of looking things up.

What we have done is document a source of copious cosmic rays. However, the model I am vetting stipulates that there are cosmic rays in the energy range of the LHC. The model postulates that only black holes that are slow in the rest frame of earth are dangerous. Fast black holes will zip through Earth like a neutrino, slow black holes (moving at less that escape velocity) will be trapped. The model postulates that to create slow black holes, cosmic rays have to hit something with similar speed in the opposite direction (in the rest frame of Earth.) (We could speak of rapidity distribution, but we are way on one end of it.) The model postulates that it is difficult to slow or stop fast black holes, since they are more slippery than neutrinos. Even in the rare event that they hit something, they simply accrete and continue. Rössler even postulates a quantum slipperiness that gets them through Mangano’s white dwarfs. There is more about this in previous posts. Supernova-created cosmic rays would hit ejecta from the supernova, or general material from the galaxy. Very little of this would be moving in the opposite direction at relativistic speed. Therefore black holes created by supernova-created cosmic rays would be moving at some reasonable fraction of light speed with respect to earth, as would black holes created by other cosmic rays. Therefore supernova-created cosmic rays are not a problem (if the model is correct.)

Let’s assume for the moment that the physics of collider opponents is totally “crackpot,” a term some here use. (I should start calling you guys “mad scientists.”) Nevertheless, aren’t you guys a tiny bit embarrassed by non-physics aspects I document, for example that US groups contributing to CERN did not do environmental impact statements, that many aspects of risk assessment best practices were not followed, that several confidently-asserted safety factors turned out to have exceptions? If your case is so sound, why not spend a little effort to do these things right? Do I detect a guilty conscience in the three-second, not-well-thought-out, reflexive refutation and rejection of anything collider advocates say? (I.e, equation 3) This blog is far from the only example. Most physicists have reacted this way throughout the long history of this debate. Way back in 2000, Francesco Calogero wrote about collider advocates: “Many, indeed most, of them seemed to me to be more concerned with the public relations impact of what they, or others, said and wrote, than in making sure the facts were presented with complete scientific objectivity.” [Francesco Calogero, "Might a Laboratory Experiment Destroy Planet Earth?" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 25, 191-202 (Autumn 2000)] Mangano was a welcome exception. He even said about collider opponents, “If it were just crackpots, we could wave them away, but some are real physicists." And he vetted several of the arguments of collider opponents, and accepted or stipulated many of them, in Giddings and Mangano. Unlike Mangano but like most other collider advocates, you guys don’t see the merit in the opposing side. That makes you half blind.

I think I still can’t cite URLs due to that spam policy, but you can get to one of Plaga’s papers by Googling arXiv:0808.1415v2 . Those here who want to look at some “real physics” might try vetting that. I would be interested in your response.

I will be away for a few days. I will carry a laptop, but will probably be too busy to follow much here. I suspect the debate here is coming to the end of its useful contribution anyway. We will see.

 

[Tubbythin]

HansMustermann wrote:

>Nobody ows you a proof that your hypothesis is wrong. You're the one >who gets to prove it correct.

That is not what the precautionary principle says. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in cases of scientific risk.
Those who propose a risky activity are required to prove it safe. This is especially true when the risk is an existential risk, a risk that could make the human race extinct.

The thing is, however, there is no evidence that the LHC is risky. Its that simple. So the precautionary principle does not apply.

Consider the opposite. Suppose I have a reason to think that there is a 50% chance that an airplane will crash. Suppose I have to “prove” my theory that the airplane will crash. But my assurance is only at the 50% level. I cannot “prove” by the standards of statistical significance that the airplane will crash. My theory to that effect would not be publishable if subject to that standard. Would you want to ride on that airplane?

You're just making numbers again. It does you no credit whatsoever. If you had actual evidence that there was a 50% chance of failure then it wouldn't fly. Similarly, if you had actual evidence that the probability of an Earth destroying black hole would be formed in a black hole was high then we would exercise the precautionary principle there too. But the danger there is as made up as in your plane analogy.

The precautionary principle is accepted in many quarters, but I know that some scientists do not like it. In a previous post, I offered to debate it here.

It is you who does not seem to understand the precautionary principle. If you could establish that there were a non-infintesimal probability of catastrophe then you might have a point. But you have completely failed to show that the LHC is more dangerous than opening a tube of toothpaste. Would you advocate not doing that as well?

 

[HansMustermann]

That is not what the precautionary principle says. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in cases of scientific risk.
Those who propose a risky activity are required to prove it safe. This is especially true when the risk is an existential risk, a risk that could make the human race extinct.

But the point i was making is: you haven't proven that there is a risk at all.

So it's a bit like if were to rant that you drive without taking precaution for when there's an invisible pink unicorn in the middle of the road. Before anyone comes with reasonable evidence that such a beast even exists, much less that one is on that road, you have no reason to.

That's essentially the proof I'm asking for all along. Show some reasonable theory that such black holes can even exist _and_ don't evaporate, and then we'll talk about risk assessment. Until then, there is no risk assessment until there is an actual risk.

So far it seems to me that even when you managed to corner a physicist who had a less orthodox hypothesis, he still said that even per that one there is no risk. That's the point. There is no theory or even believable hypothesis that such a risk exists.

You want to convince people that there is one? Fine, show us your data and maths.

And no, BS rants and handwaving about trapped black-holes do not a proof make. Before such a thing can get trapped, show us that it can even exist. Otherwise, it's like ranting about Santa Claus getting trapped in your chimney.

Repeat after me: there is no reason to assess the risk of Santa Claus getting caught in a chimney, as long as, for all everyone knows, nobody ever saw a real Santa Claus. And even less sane reason to re-design the chimney for that possibility.

 

[Dancing David]

That is not what the precautionary principle says. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in cases of scientific risk.
Those who propose a risky activity are required to prove it safe. This is especially true when the risk is an existential risk, a risk that could make the human race extinct.

.

Before I debate this, is this your idea? Or would you like to link to others exposition of this principle?

Main thrust being, the burden of proof is one you to demonstrate risk.

From wikipedia

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

Sorry but the consensus is that there is not a risk.

 

[Cuddles]

I find it amazing that somone supposedly intelligent enough to be involved with Mensa can't tell the difference between a blog and a forum or work out how to use quotes. However, given that, I find it rather less amazing that said person inisists on continuing to argue with professionals in their field about things he has admitted to having no idea about whatsoever.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
What we have done is document a source of copious cosmic rays. However, the model I am vetting stipulates that there are cosmic rays in the energy range of the LHC. The model postulates that only black holes that are slow in the rest frame of earth are dangerous.
...snip...

The model you are vetting ignores the rest of the universe outside the Earth. Cosmic rays exist elsewhere in the universe (not just around the Earth or in the Solar System).

• They will collide with atoms in space.
• They will collide with each other.
• They will collide with stars.
• They will collide with other planets.

Some of these collisions will be in the energy range of the LHC.
A proportion of those collisions will produce hypothetical stable micro-black holes. These will be produced with a range of velocities. Thus there will be mBH that are slow in the rest frame of any object in the universe including the Earth and Sun. IMHO the collisions with atoms and CR would be the main source of slow moving mBH.

Also remember that the velocity of the mBH is only comparable to the energy of the collision if we assume that all of the energy is converted into a mBH. This seems unlikely since the collision will produce the normal particles produced in a CR collision. If we are free to postulate anything like Rössler then we can postulate that the mBH is a tiny % of the collision energy and so are always produced at slow velocities.

 

[BenBurch]

I find it amazing that somone supposedly intelligent enough to be involved with Mensa can't tell the difference between a blog and a forum or work out how to use quotes. However, given that, I find it rather less amazing that said person inisists on continuing to argue with professionals in their field about things he has admitted to having no idea about whatsoever.

Proof, if we needed any, that scoring well on an IQ test does not mean you know anything at all.

 

[HansMustermann]

What we have done is document a source of copious cosmic rays. However, the model I am vetting stipulates that there are cosmic rays in the energy range of the LHC. The model postulates that only black holes that are slow in the rest frame of earth are dangerous. Fast black holes will zip through Earth like a neutrino, slow black holes (moving at less that escape velocity) will be trapped. The model postulates that to create slow black holes, cosmic rays have to hit something with similar speed in the opposite direction (in the rest frame of Earth.) (We could speak of rapidity distribution, but we are way on one end of it.) The model postulates that it is difficult to slow or stop fast black holes, since they are more slippery than neutrinos. Even in the rare event that they hit something, they simply accrete and continue. Rössler even postulates a quantum slipperiness that gets them through Mangano’s white dwarfs. There is more about this in previous posts. Supernova-created cosmic rays would hit ejecta from the supernova, or general material from the galaxy. Very little of this would be moving in the opposite direction at relativistic speed. Therefore black holes created by supernova-created cosmic rays would be moving at some reasonable fraction of light speed with respect to earth, as would black holes created by other cosmic rays. Therefore supernova-created cosmic rays are not a problem (if the model is correct.)

1. _Some_ of the rays from a supernova will eventually hit stuff ejected by another supernova across the galaxy. Head on.

2. Accrete and continue does also mean "slow down". Conservation of energy and of momentum still apply. A fast micro-black hole of the mass of, say, 50 neutrons, if it hit and swallowed an atom of Iron (a fairly abundant element) that's more or less at rest, or at least a lot slower, has pretty much just doubled its mass, but the momentum is unchanged. It slowed down.

Have one of those go through enough planets, or for that matter the abundant dark matter in the galaxy on the way here, and eventually it will become (A) a lot slower, and (B) a lot bigger.

And _if_ such micro-black-holes existed, there would be gazillions of them which have been orbiting around the galaxy for several billion years. Plenty of time to become quite a bit slower and quite a bit bigger. Still micro-sized, but maybe millimeter sized by now, and quite non-slippery at all at that size.

Where are they? How come we never see stuff like "oops, Jupiter just imploded" or "wtf, there went Tau Ceti" or just "what the hey, something massive and invisible just perturbed the orbit of Pluto"?

3. Conservation of energy and momentum again. When such a micro-black-hole just swallowed something (relatively) stationary, _some_ of the kinetic energy has to be transformed into something else. Same as for any inelastic collision really. In this case, I'd expect to see trails of gamma rays in their wake. Where are all those photons?

If they're charged, I'd also expect to see effects like Bremsstrahlung. Where is the evidence of that?

4. We're talking sheer _volume_. If such micro-black holes at relativistic speeds were routinely produced, and let's say they interacted with very few atoms as they go right through Earth, we'd still talking about thousands of them going through you all the time.

It would be the ultimate ionizing radiation. It doesn't just ionize and atom here and there, or even nudge it out of place. It would make an atom here and there just disappear, _and_ give you more ionizing radiation in the process. Do you really think it would escape notice that long?

5. If they're as elusive that even the gazillions per second going through earth every time, don't leave almost any traces -- in your words, more slippery than the neutrinos -- then why would you fear them at all? Even a trapped one, how much time would it need to make even a dent in Earth?

Remember: if it needs more than 5 billion years to do the evil deed, well, we'll all be toast by then anyway. Since, you know, our Sun will do nastier stuff at the end of its life.

6. What Reality Check already wrote about reference frames.