Large Hadron Collider feedback needed

[Wowbagger]

I just know someone will take this as my confession that the experiment is dangerous

I think you've made it quite clear, in your previous posts, that it is not dangerous.

You are only answering my absurd argument. So, anyone who assumes this answer is "evidence of danger" would be even more absurd in doing so.

Technically, _if_ it could indeed accrete more matter (faster than it evaporates), it could indeed swallow the Earth or whatever else it can come in contact with.

But, if the event horizon is so small, it seems like it would be relatively easy to keep matter sufficiently away from it.

And, I think someone mentioned, earlier, that even if that wasn't true, it would still take an enormous amount of time for it to do any significant damage. It think it was in terms of billions of years, was it?

There seem to be an upper limit to how big it can grow, because past a limit it would blow all matter away from near it. But that's technically still not a limit to how big a black hole can _be_, just to past a limit not much more stuff can fall into it.

That is only because my argument assumes there would be no entropy, at all. Which, I should reiterate, would be absurd.

 

[BenBurch]

Sorry James, you lose. Utterly and hilariously WRONG.

 

[James Blodgett]

I have the solution. It is related to the retail mantra, “The customer is always right.” Since any equation is also always right, I will express it in the mathematics customers here have been demanding:

Equation 1: physicist = always right

I am tempted to extend this and postulate:

Equation 2: if (physicist = wrong) see Equation 1

However, this is unnecessary, since the condition within parentheses is totally impossible.

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.

Therefore, when one physicist says that colliders cannot make black holes, and another physicist says that colliders will be black hole factories, there is no contradiction. See Equation 1.

Similarly, when one physicist says that we are safe because black holes will dissipate via Hawking radiation, and another physicist questions the theory behind Hawking radiation, and another physicist (following the direction of the Scientific Director of CERN, as quoted in the New Yorker) says that the probability of trouble is zero, again there is no contradiction. See Equation 1.

In conclusion, when one physicist says “nothing can possibly go wrong” (a restatement of the probability statement above), and another physicist (post experiment, if he has time) says, “oops,” again there is no contradiction.

 

[BenBurch]

Equation 1 - Luddite = Science ALWAYS Wrong

Equation 2 - If Luddite Wrong. (Well of course he is, Equation 1 needs some work based on evidence to date.)

 

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps you can provide calculations we can examine, for accuracy? (And, published papers to back up the factors used in them, would be nice, too.)

Equation 1: physicist = always right

Not quite what I was looking for. But, if that's the best you can do, for defending your own points, I guess I'll take it!

 

[Tubbythin]

I have the solution. It is related to the retail mantra, “The customer is always right.” Since any equation is also always right, I will express it in the mathematics customers here have been demanding:

Equation 1: physicist = always right

I am tempted to extend this and postulate:

Equation 2: if (physicist = wrong) see Equation 1

However, this is unnecessary, since the condition within parentheses is totally impossible.

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.

Therefore, when one physicist says that colliders cannot make black holes, and another physicist says that colliders will be black hole factories, there is no contradiction. See Equation 1.

Similarly, when one physicist says that we are safe because black holes will dissipate via Hawking radiation, and another physicist questions the theory behind Hawking radiation, and another physicist (following the direction of the Scientific Director of CERN, as quoted in the New Yorker) says that the probability of trouble is zero, again there is no contradiction. See Equation 1.

In conclusion, when one physicist says “nothing can possibly go wrong” (a restatement of the probability statement above), and another physicist (post experiment, if he has time) says, “oops,” again there is no contradiction.

Still no sign of you actually doing any physics I see.

 

[HansMustermann]

James, it's more like: One physicist says that such black holes can't form. Another says that even if they did, they'd evaporate instantly. Another says that if it didn't evaporate, it would retain its charge and be smaller than a nucleus, so it would just get two electrons and be funky helium. Another says that if it were possible, it would happen in space too, and we'd be showered in gazillions bazillions of such black holes. Etc.

It's not as much a controversy, as just addressing different aspects of what's wrong with the "OMG, we're gonna die by black hole" scare. That idea is aburd on that many levels. You're just seeing everyone address a different level, not contradicting each other.

 

[CaveDave]

<snip>
First, go the American Mensa website. You will have to look it up on Google. I tried to post the URL, but this website has an anti-spam engine that prevents that for newbies to prevent spam that redirects to commercial websites. On the left side of the page, under “quick links,” click on “annual gathering.” Then, near the top of the page, click on “playlist.” You will find a list of presentations by date and time. Scroll down to the following listing:
-
Friday, July 3
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
The Intellectual Challenge of Global Risk Reduction
by James Blodgett , James Tankersley , Win Wenger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
-
The point is, we are both scheduled to present together. If we/I were the same person, we would need the gift of bi-location, a psi power that should win Randi’s million dollar challenge. Anyone here who happens to be attending the Annual Gathering is welcome to attend this presentation, meet both of us together, and check both of our ID. If you would like to contribute a million dollars to the cause, that would be welcome also.

<snip> I can’t post URLs yet, so scroll up and use his.) <snip>

So, you are either a Mensa member or Heavyweight enough to present at their AG, yet you cannot work out at least a dozen ways to circumvent the anti-spam features? Tsk, tsk. How sad is that.

3) <snip> [Due to high ambient stupidity, I guess I need to spell it out: THIS IS A JOKE.]

<snip>
, this place is basically a kangaroo court, so I don’t see that as possible here.

<SLAP KNEES>

Har, Har, you are one funny guy.
You should be a stand-up comic.


Or is THAT why you were invited to the AG?

D.







NOW I remember why I declined all those invitations to join MENSA

 

[James Blodgett]

For reference below, let’s introduce a related equation:

Equation 3: Collider opponent = always wrong

I have said several times that I have seen theories that allow rapid black hole accretion. I am disappointed that no one here has asked me about them. One of the reasons I am spending time here is that this seems an accessible coven of real physicists who are (of course) collider advocates. I was hoping for some help that would seem natural for collider advocates, which is to vet, i.e. in this case to try to honestly shoot down, theories that permit trouble at colliders. I was hoping that someone might have the intellectual curiosity to ask about the theories I mention. Instead, despite whatever I say, folks here continue to lecture about the impossibility of fast accretion. At least my recent epiphany explains this behavior. In light of equations 1 and 3, it is not necessary to inquire about any possible contrary evidence.

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.

I would really like to hear a good analysis of these accretion theories. Ultimately, I am seeking truth. I have always wanted to shut down anti collider activity after finding conclusively that I was wrong. I almost did shut down after the LSAG papers, and only resumed much activity after those papers were questioned by sources that are at least plausible until someone shows me why they are wrong.

Given equations 1 and 3, you guys can’t be of any help. Whatever the merit of any of those theories, your analysis is totally predictable.

(If I am wrong about that, show me, best done elsewhere.)

So let’s skip to the entertainment portion. You have probably heard about the “wise” blind men and the elephant. One blind man feels the tail, and concludes that the elephant is like a rope. Another feels a leg, and concludes that the elephant is like a tree. Another feels an ear, and concludes that the elephant is like a leaf. And so forth. This fable was originally a poem by John Godfrey Saxe. What you probably have not heard, since it left out of anthologies, is the nasty agnostic last verse:


So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

This applies to black holes, especially as discussed in this school of piranhas.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped nonsense to get to the entertainment...
So let’s skip to the entertainment portion. You have probably heard about the “wise” blind men and the elephant. One blind man feels the tail, and concludes that the elephant is like a rope. Another feels a leg, and concludes that the elephant is like a tree. Another feels an ear, and concludes that the elephant is like a leaf. And so forth. This fable was originally a poem by John Godfrey Saxe. What you probably have not heard, since it left out of anthologies, is the nasty agnostic last verse:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

This applies to black holes, especially as discussed in this school of piranhas.

You did read that little word highlighted above James Blodgett ?

 

[Dancing David]

This applies to black holes, especially as discussed in this school of piranhas.

You must run in really weak areas of critical thought JB, your arguments are based upon small relations to physics, lack of understanding and appeals to emotion.

Then when confronted with possible confounding issues and other possibilities you take it as a personal attack.

Welcome to the JREF, you have received a limited number of 'you are stupid' responses, and in fact you have received a high number of 'this is why I don't think you are correct' responses.

So here is the deal, you have been treated rather well here, if you can't defend your dieas and can't discuss the possible counters to your ideas, then maybe you should not come here.

this is a small surveu of possible counters to your concerns:
1. There are many other ways that such black holes could be created in the universe, and this galaxy.
2. Such black holes have a certain size and might evaporate.
3. They should have a charge and therefore there will be consequences.
4. Your conclusions about frequency of production in CR collisons light not be accurate.

Now eher si the deal two, you seem to place a lot of ego involvement in your ideas, and while this is common, it is not a good idea at the JREF, we all get out ideas bladted and tested here. that is why we come here, we do not come here to have people agree with us, we come here to have people disagree with us! You really should not take it personally.

 

[Tubbythin]

For reference below, let’s introduce a related equation:

Equation 3: Collider opponent = always wrong

Nope. Are you going to do any real maths at any point? Or just make up snide "mathematical" equations?

I have said several times that I have seen theories that allow rapid black hole accretion. I am disappointed that no one here has asked me about them.

Why don't you just tell us what they are then?

One of the reasons I am spending time here is that this seems an accessible coven of real physicists who are (of course) collider advocates. I was hoping for some help that would seem natural for collider advocates, which is to vet, i.e. in this case to try to honestly shoot down, theories that permit trouble at colliders.

This has been done.

I was hoping that someone might have the intellectual curiosity to ask about the theories I mention. Instead, despite whatever I say, folks here continue to lecture about the impossibility of fast accretion. At least my recent epiphany explains this behavior.

Several people have given very clear explanations of why the collider isn't dangerous. If you want to dispute there explanations then go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

In light of equations 1 and 3, it is not necessary to inquire about any possible contrary evidence.

You just made those equations up. Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make up snide, baseless assertions about people who have tried to answer your claims with good science? Why should we bother?

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.

Can any of them do real maths? Rather than just make up stuff like you have done?

I would really like to hear a good analysis of these accretion theories. Ultimately, I am seeking truth. I have always wanted to shut down anti collider activity after finding conclusively that I was wrong. I almost did shut down after the LSAG papers, and only resumed much activity after those papers were questioned by sources that are at least plausible until someone shows me why they are wrong.

What, in particular do you find worrying? We're not mind readers you know. Why not tell us why you think there could be a danger? Then read the responses and draw conclusions from them. Its a much more reasonable and mature approach than making up childish little equations like "Collider opponent = always wrong".

Given equations 1 and 3, you guys can’t be of any help. Whatever the merit of any of those theories, your analysis is totally predictable.

You made those "equations" up. They are of absolutely no value whatsoever.
If you've found a problem with somebodies analysis then tell us what it is. At the minute you just sound like can't find any problems but can't face admitting you were wrong.

(If I am wrong about that, show me, best done elsewhere.)

Show you what?

So let’s skip to the entertainment portion. You have probably heard about the “wise” blind men and the elephant. One blind man feels the tail, and concludes that the elephant is like a rope. Another feels a leg, and concludes that the elephant is like a tree. Another feels an ear, and concludes that the elephant is like a leaf. And so forth. This fable was originally a poem by John Godfrey Saxe. What you probably have not heard, since it left out of anthologies, is the nasty agnostic last verse:


So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

This applies to black holes, especially as discussed in this school of piranhas.

This has absolutely nothing to do with theology.

 

[sol invictus]

I have said several times that I have seen theories that allow rapid black hole accretion.

James, I think you don't understand how this is viewed by physicists. The things that might be produced at LHC, if some very speculative theories are right and their parameters happen to fall is just precisely such a range that we haven't seen them yet, but will at LHC (that's two highly improbable possibilities) - those things are really not "black holes" in any conventional sense. They are highly quantum, extremely short-lived gravitational resonances. They are very much like any other particle resonance you might form at colliders, only bound by gravity instead of (say) the strong force.

In those theories they pose no danger whatsoever, because they will evaporate almost instantaneously, and if they somehow did not they would not accrete fast enough to be a problem, and if they somehow did accrete rapidly cosmic rays would have already produced them and we'd know about them, and if they can somehow be produced and shed their charge without evaporating and accrete rapidly, Giddings and Mangano showed that even then they cannot exist because many stars we observe couldn't exist.

So to find any danger you have to assume six or seven nearly impossible things (before breakfast?) - including that the theory you started with, the only one that predicted "black holes" at the LHC in the first place, is completely wrong. At that point the probability of any danger is so tiny it is far below the probability of a myriad other absurd things - such as that an alien civilization has a giant gun aimed at us which they will fire out of pique if we don't turn on the LHC. You've completely ignored that point, but no one will take you seriously because of it.

Struggling mightily to find new theories in which the LHC is dangerous, and which are not ruled out by existing data - even if you were to succeed it still wouldn't mean anything, because you constructed that theory by hand to manufacture a danger, and you could have much more easily done the same for any other science experiment. And the fact that despite quite a bit of effort, no one has been able to invent such a theory - that's in incredibly impressive test of the safety of this experiment, one which goes far, far, far beyond any reasonable, reality-based standard (such as that it is safe given the laws of physics we know of).

 

[BenBurch]

James, it's more like: One physicist says that such black holes can't form. Another says that even if they did, they'd evaporate instantly. Another says that if it didn't evaporate, it would retain its charge and be smaller than a nucleus, so it would just get two electrons and be funky helium. Another says that if it were possible, it would happen in space too, and we'd be showered in gazillions bazillions of such black holes. Etc.

It's not as much a controversy, as just addressing different aspects of what's wrong with the "OMG, we're gonna die by black hole" scare. That idea is aburd on that many levels. You're just seeing everyone address a different level, not contradicting each other.

Correct.

But there are always people who will fix on an irrational fear and then allow that to ruin their lives and they will even attempt to ruin the lives of others with it. They allow their fear to literally take away their lives by using precious time that could be looking at a sunset, loving a pretty girl, enjoying a nice bottle of wine, or preferably all three at once.

Other examples of this would be Timothy McVeigh, The Unabomber, The Manson Family, and the 9/11 Terrorists. All had pathological phobias that festered and not only ruined their own lives, but literally took away the lives of others.

Such people much not only be pitied, but opposed, and when possible forced into appropriate psychiatric treatment.

 

[ingoa]

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.

So you don't have a clue?
Well I am a physicist. I doubt you really can follow the math. It is obviuos that black hole scares are obsolete with about 0.3 seconds.

 

[James Blodgett]

Let us back up and look at something a few messages ago. BenBurch made claims about cosmic rays hitting other cosmic rays and making a slow black hole, thus invoking a form of the colider/cosmic ray analogy. He presented that as a demonstration that we are safe. He presented that as a safety factor that protects Earth. For that to be a safety factor adequate to protect Earth, there needs to be math that shows that it has enough probability of ever happening in the entire history of Earth so that the hypothesis that he is wrong is reasonably ruled out. In statistical terms, we need to reject the null hypothesis. Absent math, the null hypothesis is quite reasonable. Cosmic rays hitting other cosmic rays, leading to a trapped black hole, has got to be an extremely rare event. BenBurch presents no such math. I offer to participate in a team effort to help him develop the missing math. The reaction is that I am an idiot non physicist for making that offer. What about BenBurch? He is the one who made the claim and did not present the math. I call upon him to do so.

 

[BenBurch]

Do the math yourself, or are you unable?

I have seen the calculation done in a chalk-talk having nothing to do with black holes long ago, but I refuse to spend any more time on your phobias. Get help.

 

[sol invictus]

I call upon him to do so.

Why should he waste his time? The whole thing is completely absurd.

 

[HansMustermann]

Let us back up and look at something a few messages ago. BenBurch made claims about cosmic rays hitting other cosmic rays and making a slow black hole, thus invoking a form of the colider/cosmic ray analogy. He presented that as a demonstration that we are safe. He presented that as a safety factor that protects Earth. For that to be a safety factor adequate to protect Earth, there needs to be math that shows that it has enough probability of ever happening in the entire history of Earth so that the hypothesis that he is wrong is reasonably ruled out. In statistical terms, we need to reject the null hypothesis. Absent math, the null hypothesis is quite reasonable. Cosmic rays hitting other cosmic rays, leading to a trapped black hole, has got to be an extremely rare event. BenBurch presents no such math. I offer to participate in a team effort to help him develop the missing math. The reaction is that I am an idiot non physicist for making that offer. What about BenBurch? He is the one who made the claim and did not present the math. I call upon him to do so.

You almost answered to yourself there, but then go back in woowoo land.

Cosmic rays hitting other cosmic rays: again, bloody look around you. Every single atom of anything above iron was created when _extremely_ energetic cosmic rays from a supernova hit the previous, slower rays it ejected earlier. There's whole bloody earth (plus Moon, Venus, Mars, etc) made from the results of those collisions.

We're talking trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions [...] of trillions of atoms formed that way just on Earth.

If you insist that such collisions have a high probability of producing black holes, where _are_ those black holes?

The Earth continuously accretes cosmic dust too, a lot of which was formed the same way. Where is the black hole shower? Or did you hear of C14 dating? All C14 around is continuously formed by the collision of cosmic rays from the sun with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Where are the black holes from that one?

You're the statistician. If something didn't happen for the mind-boggling number of atoms in Earth, what is the probability it'll happen in the LHC?

Let me repeat that: the total number of such lasting black holes so far was _zero_. Out of something of the order of 10^45 atoms created by such collisions that have settled on Earth alone. (And that is taking a massive underestimate of the percentage of atoms heavier than iron.) You do the probabilities there.

Also, methinks you don't understand the fine concept called "burden of proof". He should do the maths to prove you're wrong? No, he doesn't. You made the bogus claim, you do the maths to prove that claim. It's really that simple.

 

[HansMustermann]

Or to give you some more numbers to do your statistics with: the C14 in your body alone is enough to give you IIRC some 2000 DNA breaks per year. If you count the C14 in proteins, fats, etc, too, about every trillionth carbon atom in your body is C14.

That's a _lot_ of it.

And it was formed by such collisions in the upper atmosphere.

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.