This is how I understand the project. Humans are trying to create a "small" blackhole on the planet Earth. Now all my life I've been told how dangerous blackholes are, and they should be avoided at all costs, spaghetti effect and such. And now we're trying to make one. Excuse me but doesn't this strike anyone else as insanity? I've heard about the parallel universes, and getting anti-matter. Another dangerous item I may add. What does this do to aid the human condition? Or am I all wrong on the Super-Collider that I've been hearing about the last few years?

I don't know it seems to me that the scientist are both mad and bored. A dangerous combination.

If everything came from nothing, as some contend, then there should be something out there that is opposite in every way to a proton for instance. Instead of creating an explosion when fired at each other, (this particle and a proton), they would eliminate each other with a resultant zero mass and zero energy. Is there any theory out there on this? (This is a serious question. The Santa thing was, well........I still believe.)

not at all. When a major scientist makes a controversial claim, it promotes creative thinking in other physicists in an attempt to disprove the claim. I assume you are speaking of Stephen Hawkings conjecture that information that goes into a black hole is lost. He was very likely wrong about this, it turns out. But by him making the claim, theoretical physics has taken many steps forward that it may not have taken otherwise. Hawkings claim singlehandedly led Leonard Susskind to show that black holes DO retain information, which directly led to the Holographic principle. Healthy disagreement amoung mutually respected colleagues is one of the most stimulating aspects in any field, and helps lead us closer to the truth.

And might even lead to some interesting wagers such as those between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne.

There's nothing remotely dangerous about microscopic black holes, or any black holes that any human could create,

not at all. When a major scientist makes a controversial claim, it promotes creative thinking in other physicists in an attempt to disprove the claim. I assume you are speaking of Stephen Hawkings conjecture that information that goes into a black hole is lost. He was very likely wrong about this, it turns out. But by him making the claim, theoretical physics has taken many steps forward that it may not have taken otherwise. Hawkings claim singlehandedly led Leonard Susskind to show that black holes DO retain information, which directly led to the Holographic principle. Healthy disagreement amoung mutually respected colleagues is one of the most stimulating aspects in any field, and helps lead us closer to the truth.

I wonder if a black hole can arise out of the quantum foam and with it a negative black hole with it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Is it true to say that both "No Hair Theorem" and Liouville's theorem say that in a black hole, no information is lost, or have nothing to bear on black holes? Or are they not mentioned in the paradox?

I understand microscopic blackholes can arise out of subatomic collisions where huge amounts of energy displaces space-time. But the question I asked was much different...

that is not the only way black holes can arise. Tiny 3 dimensional blobs of spacetime, when completely surrounded by a "three-brane" have properties identical to black holes. According the math of M-theory, these type of things form spontaneously all the time, even in the absence of high energy subatomic collisions.

No, with all due respect, I get it up to there. (The antiproton is the anti-particle of the proton. ) I'm asking if there's an equivalent in matter, (and or energy) that could be designated as plus 100 and minus 100. When they meet, the result is zero. (conservation of energy).

Hey lets not give up on String Theory yet. It might be proven correct very soon. Let wait patiently for about a Billion Years.
As far as I know String Theory is the only thing taken seriously by most of the Theoretical Physics Community. In fact if you aren't going into String Theory as a Graduate Student then they say go look for another job. We still have Roger Penrose's Twister String Theory. haha

String theory is plagued with so many infinities that most Mathematical-String theorist believe we need better-New Mathematics and smarter people. And I don't see people getting much smarter then Edward Witten any time soon.
And trust me Papers for String Theory and Mathematics are still flowing in like house flies on a nice sunny day. I mean really who can honestly keep up with the rate of progression that is needed. Take for instance Witten wrote a paper with Michael Green which extended up to a 1000 pages. And this was just one in 1000's written on String Theory. Common this is nuts!

They aren't just looking for the Higgs particles, the list includes to see of extra particles might be found to explain Super Symmetry, Possible other dimensions Lisa Randall has predicted, Branes, Super String, Other Particle that might explain Dark Matter, Black holes evaporation, So there is plenty of research to be done. They say it may take years to sort it all out and begin analyzing the information.

With our current Mathematics, Engineering, Computers(Like Penrose said, "They make up for dumbness by doing ultra fast computations"), and most of all human understand, it is unlikely we will get much further.

t can be consider on the same foot stool as religion since no evidence is likely to be found.

How much does this rely on Mathematics. Okay I noticed you stated this as a fact which has already been proven I assume.

String theory is just about the least respected field by most theoretical physicists. There's a wide and rich world of theoretical physics outside of string theory, concerning condensed matter, nuclear physics, plasma physics, biophysics, astrophysics, etc... And the thing about those fields is that the theories tend to be testable.

This collider may discover extra rolled up dimensions (by looking at gravitons) and may confirm supersymmetry.