|
|
|
|
|
| | New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...Page 4 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) | I'd said:
If you think I've said something incorrect about physics, then I invite you to tell me what it is.
You say:
I didn't. You did. This is the part reporters really love, when you catch someone with their own words. To refresh your memory, from post 44.... When I talk about black holes, I'm speaking from ignorance. I'm not intimately familiar with their mathematical theory, and I don't have a PhD physicist's understanding of general relativity or the latest theories of particle physics either.
Forgive me, but I didn't find any incorrect statement about physics in the words of mine that you quoted.
I said that I was ignorant of the mathematical theory of black holes. I have never claimed otherwise. None of the physics related claims that I've made have presumed my possessing a knowledge of the mathematical theory of black holes. You say that my concerns are the result of ignorance of physics, but you apparently didn't find the physics errors that I invited you to point out.
You've been throwing around the word "ignorant" since the start. Your posts indicate that you're ignorant of highschool (secondary school) physics. And, if you've read the black-hole risk-scenario, you haven't understood it. Hence the need for me to explain things to you and correct your mis-statements throughout. If you don't believe that, just look at most of the posts before this one, and you'll find that I'm usually explaining why something isn't as you said, due to the fact that you haven't a clue about the subject, not just at the black-hole theory level, but at any level. But that's ok, because your whole position really amounts to this: You have confidence in whateverer recommendation comes from scientists. You're a true-believer, asserting your belief.
Ad hominem? I'll assume that you know what that means better than you knew the spelling or meaning of non sequitur. Funny you should say that, because, from the very start, you were freely engaging in namecalling, repeatedly attributing "ignorance", as if my ignorance of mathematical black hole theory puts me in your ignorance-class. In spite of all the explanation that you needed, I wasn't saying anything about your ignorance, because that isn't my way of writing. You were on the attack right out of the starting-gate. I start out polite and considerate, while that's feasible. I'm not here to attack anyone. I don't enjoy having to send this reply.
My misunderstandings? Funny. See above. You, of course, assume my understanding of the physics is, somehow, less sophisticated than yours. Also funny, given the glaring errors I've found in your posts.
You mean the errors of mine that I asked you to quote, but which you can't seem to specify?
Your "understanding of physics is somehow less sophisticated"? Well, what else would be the explanation for all the many instances that it's been necessary to correct your mis-statements and explain to you things that wouldn't have to be explained to any good highschool physics student. To verify that, you need only look at the previous posts.
Your posts have consisted of nothing but repetition of the statement that the scientists know more. I answer it and then you repeat it. This is serving no purpose. Replying to you merely encourages you and enables you to continue your repetition. There's much wisdom in the saying, "Don't feed the trolls". I won't anwer any more of your repetition.
If you actually specify something that you claim is a physics error of mine, or if you actually say something that isn't repetition, then I might reply, depending on whether your attitude is respectful enough to deserve the explanation that you need.
Otherwise, there will be no reply. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 6:37:58 AM |
I would like to add to this discussion that if the scientists can't even agree whether global warnming is man made or not, how or why the h*ll should we acept that they have got thier sums right over the risks involved with these experiments? ...Besides, you take greater risks walking out your door. So do you stay home?
Again, Stargazer is telling us about the probability of the collider giving us a surprise, in the form of a slow black hole making it to the floor and starting to accrete the Earth's matter. Several times I've asked Stargazer to show us his probability calculations, but he just seems to keep forgetting to post them :-)
Who are they to play god with our lives and the future of this planet? They haven't got a clue what will happen! Thats why they are doing it!!!!!!
That isn't exaggeration. Playing god with the future of the planet is what they're doing. And yes, they're doing it precisely because they don't know what will happen. (But Stargazer does :-)
People do realize that this question has been raised before about other particle accelerators. We're still here. Why should this be any different?
Well, how about because this collider is the one whose greatly increased collision energy is said by physicists to have the possibility of forming black holes. That would seem to make it a bit different.
Stargazer may be thinking of other possible concerns (other than the black hole risk), about an accelerator collision adversely affecting space itself. The argument against that has been that natural cosmic ray colllisions are more energetic. Ok, but then one hopes that the accelerator collisions don't differ from the cosmic ray collisions in some other way, other than energy, that could give a different and undesirable outcome.
In any case, as I've said, the assurance based on cosmic rays doesn't apply to the black-hole concern, with head-on collisions near the Earth's solid surface*, because head-on collisions could result in a black hole moving slowly enough to be gravitationally trapped by the Earth, and that's when the bad news would start.
*(unless the physicists that Stargazer worships have an explanation for how a near-speed-of-light cosmic ray collision could result in a black hole so slow-moving that it doeesn't even have escape velocity from an asteroid or moon.)
Perhaps because a few people who know nothing about the physics but have heard that a "black hole" could be created by the process?
Laymen didn't determine for themselves that the collider could make a black hole. That information came from physicists. Maybe they're right, and maybe Stargazer's sources are wrong about the safety. Or maybe not. Some of us don't want to gamble the Earth on that question.
I doubt that many people are such true believers that they'd share Stargazer's willingness to gamble the Earth for an experiment.
It just seems such a ironic that all this will coincide with the predictions of 2012. maybe the Mayans have got it right after all, the end of time is here and it will be of our own making!!! Invoking 2012 doesn't exactly build credibility.
Excuse me, but she didn't invoke 2012 as a reason to consider the collider dangerous. She commented that it would be ironic if the Stargazer's scientists cause the Earth to enter a black hole in a year that coincided with the predicted end of the world.
Stargazer would like to imply that he knows more about science than do the rest of us, that he's a member of the wiser fraternity of physicists, and that's why he, but not we, knows that the particle physicists are right abouy the black hole risk. The fact is, however, that it isn't that Stargazer is more scientifically qualified than the rest of us. It's just that he's more inclined to believe, repeat and quote what he's heard from authority. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 6:39:44 AM | appy, I have no interest in your constant flame-baiting. Your insults regarding my profession, your assumption of my 'below-high school understanding of physics' and your frequent (and baseless) insistence that MY facts are wrong, not to mention your constant denial of the faults in your logic you've offered. And, of course, the petty pointing out of a misspelling.
You've insisted that black hole creation is enough (unqualified in terms of probabilities, it should be pointed out) of a risk that the experiment shouldn't happen. However, it's been pointed that the scale of these "black holes" is so small (many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest subatomic particle) that their existence poses virtually no risk due to Hawking evaporation has been side-stepped by you time and again. Hawking...as in Stephen Hawking.
It was also pointed out that high energy interactions in the upper atmosphere occur all the time, higher than the LHC is capable of producing. The result is frequently secondary radiation particles (hint: time dilation) and could include these theoretical "black holes" that make their way to the ground. Your response...'well, that's too high up.' So one kind of secondary product is possible but the one that disproves the logic of your statement that black holes are a risk are not. Gotcha.
It was also pointed out that similar interactions occur on other bodies in the solar system, some of which don't have atmospheres. Not good enough. They're not a problem either. "They're moving too fast." Apparently fast moving particles happening in nature can impart momentum, but fast moving particles in a laboratory can't. And you question my understanding of physics? Hmm.
And yet, to date, you have yet to offer a single citation of professional physicists for significant threat. Read that again...."significant threat." Physicists have assessed the risks posed by this and other particle accelerators. Yes, there are other particle accelerators and similar concerns about black holes, strangelets and other 'world ending' threats have been assessed by people with an intimate understanding of physics far superior to either yours or mine and they don't seem terribly concerned.
Blind faith? No. If there was a number of physicists who were raising an alarm, then I would agree that the risk was too great. And yet, I'm still waiting on those citations you promised.
But you're right. This is getting tiresome. When challenged on your assertions, the best you can come up with is insults and no real discussion. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 7:26:45 AM | I'd like to retract a disclaimer:
Any resemblence between advocates of risking the Earth in an experiment, and Frankenstein & Ygor, might not be purely coincidental.
Let me explain:
Often we've been reassured that the LHC is harmless, because natural cosmic rays have been hitting celestial bodies for eons, and those celestial bodies are still there.
I don't mean to repeat, but if a cosmic ray hits, say, the Moon, with energy sufficient to form a black hole, that also means that the cosmic ray has a lot of speed. Speed not far short of the speed of light.
Can anyone come up with an explanation for how a mass conglomeration (such as a black hole) resulting from such a collision could be moving so slowly with respect to the Moon that it wouldn't have escape velocity from the Moon? The ray particle has tremendous initial momentum, and that momentum remains, and the combined mass of the ray particle and the atomic nucleus that it hits, still has that momentum, and would still be moving very fast. To stay with the Moon example, in order to have less than lunar escape velocity, the speed of the black hole would have be be less than the initial ray particle's speed by a factor of around 100,000. The nucleus that the ray hits might be somewhat heavier than the ray particle, but it won't be 100,000 times as heavy. Nuclei don't get that heavy.
If, as seems to be the case, then, the cosmic-ray-generated black hole will be far exceeding lunar escape velocity, it won't be gravitationally trapped by the Moon, and will rapidly pass through the Moon, and keep going, never to come back.
That would mean that the Moon is safe from cosmic ray black holes, due to their speed. And that would mean that the continued survival of the Moon need _not_ mean there's some other reason why the black hole can't do anything to a body that it hits.
Of course that particular black hole is formed right in the Moon's surface, and so, for a short black-hole lifetime to save the moon, it would have to decay faster than it can accrete matter, even when surrounded by the Moon's solid matter. But the Moon's survival doesn't imply that, because the speed of a cosmic ray black hole would render it harmless anyway.
But a black hole formed by a head-on collision in the LHC could be much slower, because the oppositely moving collision-participants could nearly cancel their momentum. Maybe the operators would try to make sure that objects of different momentum would collide? With swarms of particles flying around, good luck guaranteeing that two with nearly equal momentum won't ever collide.
So: The "natural cosmic rays" assurance about the safety of the collider would seem to be fallacious. Based on the false assumption that the Moon must have been saved by short black-hole-lifetime.
Even if physicists have some explanation why a cosmic-ray-formed black hole could be dangerously slow, they need to _express_ it, instead of just sweeping the speed objection under the rug. Answering an objection is better than concealing it. Knowingly using a reassurance that has an objection, and not mentioning the objection is what we call "dishonest".
So, when scientists reassure us because natural cosmic ray collisions are more energetic than the LHC, they're giving us a fallacious assurance. Forgive me for saying this, but they're resorting to dishonesty, using a dishonest argument.
Dishonesty is a problem, for at least two reasons:
1. People use dishonest arguments when they don't think that an honest one would be good enough. How encouraging is that?
2. It suggests that some dangerous Frankensteinian zeal is influencing what we're hearing from those scientists. (But please note that I'm only referring to the scientists who give us the un-examined natural-cosmic-ray assurance.)
The Frankenstein story was a prophetic and insightful cautionary tale about what a scientist can turn into when zeal replaces ordinary caution.
Just say no to Frankenstein. Dismantle the LHC. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 8:08:13 AM | Okay, app, let me help you out on this one. Scraping someone's writing without an actual citation isn't exactly helpful for your cause so I offer you this little ditty from the New York Times. There's links.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html?_r=1
There are actual references to the law suit against the CERN start up. You see, this is what we journalists call "equal time." Or "giving both sides" of the debate. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 8:20:22 AM | Stargazer--
I promised that I'd reply if you told us all what physics errors you think I've made. So I'll address those error-claims:
appy, I have no interest in your constant flame-baiting. Your insults regarding my profession, your assumption of my 'below-high school understanding of physics' and your frequent (and baseless) insistence that MY facts are wrong
Ok, if you want to know where your facts are wrong, just read on. Plenty of physics mis-statements of yours are in your posting below. And no, a good highschool physics student wouldn't make those errors.
, not to mention your constant denial of the faults in your logic you've offered.
Great! You're going to tell me where you think I'm wrong. So let's check your claims out:
You've insisted that black hole creation is enough (unqualified in terms of probabilities, it should be pointed out)
...because no one, not even you :-) can give us numerical probability figures, given the current state of physics.
...of a risk that the experiment shouldn't happen. However, it's been pointed that the scale of these "black holes" is so small (many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest subatomic particle) that their existence poses virtually no risk
due to Hawking evaporation has been side-stepped by you time and again. Hawking...as in Stephen Hawking.
Wrong. As you've been repeatedly told before, it is the low mass, not the small size, that results, according to theory, in a rapid decay due to Hawking evaporation. Yes, theory says the black hole will evaporate before it can do anything.
My answer to that is the same as it was on the four or five previous occasions when you said it: The whole point of the concern is that the reassurance is based on new physics, and that the relatively new theories are still tentative, incomplete, and disputed in some aspects. Not really something to literally bet the Earth on.
It was also pointed out that high energy interactions in the upper atmosphere occur all the time, higher than the LHC is capable of producing. The result is frequently secondary radiation particles (hint: time dilation) and could include these theoretical "black holes" that make their way to the ground.
And, as I just finished telling you the other day, if the black hole is sufficiently fast to gain range by time-dilation, then it's far too fast to be dangerous to the Earth, because it will pass through, keep going ,and never come back.
Your response...'well, that's too high up.' So one kind of secondary product is possible but the one that disproves the logic of your statement that black holes are a risk are not. Gotcha.
Sorry, but no. If relativistic black holes arrive at the surface, they'll be harmless due to their high speed. But say the black hole were slow enough to be dangerous. It has to go 50 miles to reach the Earth's solid surface. But your scientists might make black holes about 5 or 10 feet from the Earth's solid surface. Not quite the same thing.
Quite aside from that, however, the cosmic-ray-generated black holes would be too fast-moving to endanger the Earth anyway.
It was also pointed out that similar interactions occur on other bodies in the solar system, some of which don't have atmospheres.
Actually, that was pointed out _by_ me.
Not good enough. They're not a problem either. "They're moving too fast." Apparently fast moving particles happening in nature can impart momentum, but fast moving particles in a laboratory can't. And you question my understanding of physics? Hmm.
If I didn't before, now I would :-)
For one thing, I've explained this to you at least 2 or 3 times. For anothe thing, it should be obvious without being explained to you:
There's one big difference between a cosmic ray collision and a head-on collision in the collider: The head-on collision can result in the two object's momenta nearly canceling out, resulting in a very low-speed black hole. That's the kind of black hole that can be gravitationally trapped by the Earth until it consumes the Earth.
And yet, to date, you have yet to offer a single citation of professional physicists for significant threat.
I've already admitted that, when I read of physicists' scenarios about black hole diaster, I neglected to write down their names, not realizing at the time that you'd want their names.
But, as for perceptions of reliability of the immediate-evaporation prediction, I'm curious about what's being said right now, by physicists. Are they all united with LHC advocates? Might be interesting to find out. No, I don't have the answer now, about how physicists of various specialties stand on the question, but I'll let you know when I do.
As for the danger of the quick-evaporation prediction maybe not always being reliable, that's a natural consequence of the newness and tentativeness of the theories involved. It doesn't depend on bringing to you some testimony from authority. For someone like you who is such a true-believer in what he hears from authority, your scientists reassure you. But not everyone is as easily reassured as you are. Most probably aren't.
Read that again...."significant threat." Physicists have assessed the risks posed by this and other particle accelerators. Yes, there are other particle accelerators and similar concerns about black holes, strangelets and other 'world ending' threats
And were they as energetic as the LHC? So you're saying that if a lower-energy accelerator didn't do it, than a more energetic one won't either :-)
...have been assessed by people with an intimate understanding of physics
Most certainly not. Not an intimate, complete, reliable, non-tentative understanding of the physics involved in guaranteeing the immediate black hole evaporation. No one has that. Sorry to disillusion you.
far superior to either yours or mine and they don't seem terribly concerned.
Neither did Frankenstein, and for the same reason: Zeal
I bet you think that mad scientists only exist in fiction :-)
Blind faith? No. If there was a number of physicists who were raising an alarm, then I would agree that the risk was too great. And yet, I'm still waiting on those citations you promised.
Sure, if you don't want to look it up, then I will. I'm curious now.
But you're right. This is getting tiresome. When challenged on your assertions, the best you can come up with is insults and no real discussion. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 9:50:44 AM | Wrong. As you've been repeatedly told before, it is the low mass, not the small size, that results, according to theory, in a rapid decay due to Hawking evaporation. Yes, theory says the black hole will evaporate before it can do anything.
Yes, it's a question of mass. But it's also a question of the size of the black hole's "aperture." Remember my ant eating an elephant reference?
...because no one, not even you :-) can give us numerical probability figures, given the current state of physics.
So then, without some level of quantification, does the discussion not become meaningless? After all, if the only standard is that something bad can happen, the same standard of risk assessment can be applied to any number of things, including the possibility of walking outside your door and being struck by a meteorite.
And were they as energetic as the LHC? So you're saying that if a lower-energy accelerator didn't do it, than a more energetic one won't either :-)
Again, same consideration. Since we've not definitively quantified the risk of the LHC, then the risk from other colliders could be argued to be just as high. And yet, here we are.
But, as for perceptions of reliability of the immediate-evaporation prediction, I'm curious about what's being said right now, by physicists. Are they all united with LHC advocates? Might be interesting to find out. No, I don't have the answer now, about how physicists of various specialties stand on the question, but I'll let you know when I do.
Please do. I'd be most interested in their arguments as well. Their arguments will certainly carry far more weight, as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry, but no. If relativistic black holes arrive at the surface, they'll be harmless due to their high speed. But say the black hole were slow enough to be dangerous. It has to go 50 miles to reach the Earth's solid surface. But your scientists might make black holes about 5 or 10 feet from the Earth's solid surface. Not quite the same thing.
Quite aside from that, however, the cosmic-ray-generated black holes would be too fast-moving to endanger the Earth anyway.
Several assumptions there. Again, scale becomes an issue. We are talking "black holes" at a quantum scale. "Solid" matter becomes a relative term since every atom is mostly empty space. Then there are questions of 'charge.' Of course, the Hawking evaporation phenomenon becomes an issue.
And how do you quantify "slow enough to be dangerous?" What about two cosmic rays that approach Earth at high angles and interact with one another? One could play the speculation game all day and get no further.
You yourself admit to an ignorance of physics at this level and I've got the familiarity of an enthusiastic amateur but that's it. So the fact that actual physicists like Brian Green, Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, Ed Witten, et. al. aren't trumpeting from the rooftops about the risk of the LHC should be an indicator of something, shouldn't it? After all, if anybody is going to discover a problem with the maths, I would tend to think it would be them.
Again, that's not blind faith. That's just simply a lack of an opposing view from someone equally qualified.
Neither did Frankenstein, and for the same reason: Zeal
I bet you think that mad scientists only exist in fiction :-)
And if the LHC was built by a single scientist that looked like Peter Cushing or Gene Wilder, I'd agree with you. But scientists are, by necessity, a cautious lot and the LHC was built by international consortium. Besides, this has been a project that has been in the works for years. It's interesting that it's only in the last couple of years when the switch was about to be pulled has it got this kind of attention.
Most certainly not. Not an intimate, complete, reliable, non-tentative understanding of the physics involved in guaranteeing the immediate black hole evaporation. No one has that. Sorry to disillusion you.
A born cynic here. Which is why journalism was a natural career choice. But there are those with a far better understanding of the physics than either you or I have. I've listed a few. Or do you think they're only 'putting us on' as it were?
You also keep talking about the 'newness' of the physics and yet, most of our understanding of physics is relatively new. And yet you don't have a problem deriving benefit from it. Interesting.
But you're right. This is getting tiresome. When challenged on your assertions, the best you can come up with is insults and no real discussion.
Ah yes, the parting shot. *yawn* | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 5:19:34 PM |
Yes, it's a question of mass. But it's also a question of the size of the black hole's "aperture." Remember my ant eating an elephant reference?
Whaat if the ant had all the time it needed, and grew as it ate. At first the tiny-mass black hole is only drawing in nearby material, but the more it accretes, the stronger its gravitationala field, and the more distantly it can pull material in, and the faster it grows. Of course it's a self-accelerating process.
...because no one, not even you :-) can give us numerical probability figures, given the current state of physics. So then, without some level of quantification, does the discussion not become meaningless?
It suggests caution.
After all, if the only standard is that something bad can happen, the same standard of risk assessment can be applied to any number of things, including the possibility of walking outside your door and being struck by a meteorite.
The probability of being struck by a meteorite is better known. Actually I've read that collisions with much larger objects are a greater danger to the individual, due to their greater number of victims. And, as a matter of fact, there is much interest in trying to find ways to detect and ward-off large objects that could hit us. The LHC's risk is much easier to avoid--just don't operate it.
And were they as energetic as the LHC? So you're saying that if a lower-energy accelerator didn't do it, than a more energetic one won't either :-) Again, same consideration. Since we've not definitively quantified the risk of the LHC, then the risk from other colliders could be argued to be just as high. And yet, here we are. That would be a rather silly argument. "If a lower energy collider can't make a black hole, then a higher energy collider is no more likely to." Sorry, but no. If relativistic black holes arrive at the surface, they'll be harmless due to their high speed. But say the black hole were slow enough to be dangerous. It has to go 50 miles to reach the Earth's solid surface. But your scientists might make black holes about 5 or 10 feet from the Earth's solid surface. Not quite the same thing. Quite aside from that, however, the cosmic-ray-generated black holes would be too fast-moving to endanger the Earth anyway. Several assumptions there. Again, scale becomes an issue. We are talking "black holes" at a quantum scale. "Solid" matter becomes a relative term since every atom is mostly empty space. The nuclei are relatively close together, and as the black hole proceeds among them, it occasionally approaches near enough to one to gravitationally draw it in. Remember that if the instant-evaporation theory has an exception, the black hole is in no hurry. It would have all the time it needs as it gravitationally bounces around the planet accreting and growing as it goes. The theory's instant-evaporation prediction would be the only thing standing between us and the inside of a black hole. Good luck. Then there are questions of 'charge.' If you think that "charge" would affect the risk, please do tell us why, and how you think that would happen. Of course, the Hawking evaporation phenomenon becomes an issue. I can't believe that you're still saying that. I've acknowledged that many times, and my answer is the same as it has been on the previous 10 or so times you've said that: The prediction of rapid evaporation is based on new physics, theories that are still tentative, incomplete, and, in some details at least, in dispute. I and some others, then, sugsgest that it might not be such a good idea to bet the Earth on it. I should just make a FAQ with these replies, and post the same FAQ for you very time :-) And how do you quantify "slow enough to be dangerous?" Cerainly at least less than the Earth's escape velocity. But it depends on how long the black hole can last if (having gained some mass on its 1st pass through the planet) it exits the Earth and goes out on a trajectory before coming back. It would most likely have to be a lot less thaln escape velocity. All this depends on the evaporation rate. You and I aren't qualified to determine that. The scientists have a theory about it, and maybe it's probably right. It's a question of betting everything on "probably". What about two cosmic rays that approach Earth at high angles and interact with one another? Their paths would have to be nearly co-linear, for momentum to cancel. So, either the collision is high up, or else they must pass through a lot of dense atmosphere. You yourself admit to an ignorance of physics at this level and I've got the familiarity of an enthusiastic amateur but that's it. So the fact that actual physicists like Brian Green, Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, Ed Witten, et. al. aren't trumpeting from the rooftops about the risk of the LHC should be an indicator of something, shouldn't it? After all, if anybody is going to discover a problem with the maths, I would tend to think it would be them.
Again, that's not blind faith. That's just simply a lack of an opposing view from someone equally qualified. Some of us don't think the physics is yet reliable enough for anyone to be qualified to gamble the planet.
Or do you think they're only 'putting us on' as it were?
As I was saying, some apparently are using a dishonest argument. You also keep talking about the 'newness' of the physics and yet, most of our understanding of physics is relatively new. And yet you don't have a problem deriving benefit from it. Interesting. Safety is always looked at. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 5:23:40 PM | The one question that nobody has asked yet is...
What makes you think that quantum black-holes haven't been produced at *other* colliders, and have evaporated before they could even be detected...? | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/1/2010 5:48:14 PM |
What about two cosmic rays that approach Earth at high angles and interact with one another?
If you're talking about a head-on collision of two cosmic ray particles, then yes, if it can be shown that such collisions have been happening close to or at the Moon's surface, or that of asteroids, then that would make give some evidence of safety.
But the stakes are so high, that I just think we need near-absolute assurance before taking the chance. As you said, near absolute assurance is rare in science. | |
|
| |
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/2/2010 2:40:30 PM |
... how or why the h*ll should we acept that they have got thier sums right over the risks involved with these experiments?
Yes, and sometimes they've made calculation-errors resulting in people being killed, such as when scientists miscalculated the yield of a bomb they were testing in the Pacific, and Japanese fishermen died from radiation-exposure, though they were outside the exclusion zone.
Scientists are only people. People aren't infallible. New physics and its theories is particularly fallible.
In general, errors happen. Be assured that more errors will happen. Especially when the physics involved is new, and the theories are tentative. We don't have to bet the Earth on them.
They haven't got a clue what will happen! Thats why they are doing it!!!!!!
Exactly. That's a point that LHC advocates should stop and listen to.
About natural head-on collisions of cosmic rays:
Space isn't exactly filled-up with cosmic ray particles, and they're no larger than an atomic nucleus. So wouldn't everyone agree that collisions between cosmic ray particles would be vanishingly rare?
Then, how about collisions between cosmic ray particles, right at the surface of the moon or an asteroid, such that the collision is so head-on, in other words, the initial paths are so nearly co-linear, and the initial momenta matched in such a way, that the resulting black hole has so little speed with respect to the Moon or an asteroid, that it can be gravitationally trapped by the Moon or asteroid?
Can you guraantee that that has ever happened, over the time during which the moon and the asteroids have existed?
Because, if not, then the natural cosmic ray head-on collision isn't helping to ensure thata the LHC is safe: Maybe the only reason why the Moon is still there is because the collision described above has never happened. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/3/2010 6:20:17 AM | Bottom line is the discussion is moot. The thing is on. The courts have ruled in Cern's favour and several independent reviews have deemed the risk absolutely minimal. Of course, you can sit around, twiddling your fingers and crying that the sky is falling if you prefer. The science is going to get done.
Of course, the nice thing about being on this side of the debate....we have ample opportunities to say I told you so. If we all get sucked down a black hole, well.... | |
|
| |
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/3/2010 8:55:57 AM | And, to be accurate, I have to say the courts didn't exactly rule "in Cern's favour" as much as the "challenges" were usually out of the court's jurisdiction and purview. However, again, no real threat say the independent experts. Sadly, appy has failed to cite any sources of informed dissent, despite my actually helping him with a link.
Hmmm.... | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/3/2010 2:28:33 PM |
^^I'm not a betting man
But you have inspired me to take out a million dollar loan and bet on us not going down the black hole
Any takers?
I don't mean any offense, but I don't think you'd pay me if you lost. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/3/2010 2:36:24 PM | Stargazer said:
However, again, no real threat say the independent experts
Is that like the experts who miscalculated the yield of a Pacific nuclear tests, killing several people?
You say, "Accidents happen."?
Exactly.
Miscalculations, accidents and unexpected outcomes don't always happen. Sometimes they do. Disastrous ones happen relatively rarely. But sometimes they happen.
What I can prove to Stargazer is less important that what can be proved to the court. How could this not be in the World Court's jurisdiction? It involves the security of every country. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/3/2010 8:23:27 PM | What I can prove to Stargazer is less important that what can be proved to the court. How could this not be in the World Court's jurisdiction? It involves the security of every country.
Well, counsellor, you have yet to produce a single witness to the proposed "dangers" of the LHC. And, if this was brought before the World Court (aka the International Court of Justice in the Hague), then maybe they might have rendered a decision either way. However...and here's me being very generous, doing appy's work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider
On 21 March 2008, a complaint requesting an injunction to halt the LHC's startup was filed by Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho against CERN and its American collaborators, the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.[17][76][77] The plaintiffs demanded an injunction against the LHC's activation for 4 months after issuance of the LHC Safety Assessment Group's (LSAG) most recent safety documentation, and a permanent injunction until the LHC can be demonstrated to be reasonably safe within industry standards.[78] The US Federal Court scheduled trial to begin 16 June 2009.[79]
The LSAG review, issued on 20 June 2008 after outside review, found "no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced by the LHC".[5] The US Government, in response, called for summary dismissal of the suit against the government defendants as untimely due to the expiration of a six-year statute of limitations (since funding began by 1999 and has essentially been completed already), and also called the hazards claimed by the plaintiffs "overly speculative and not credible".[80] The Hawaii District Court heard the government's motion to dismiss on 2 September 2008,[1] and on, 26 September, the Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction over the LHC project.[81]
On 26 August 2008, a group of European citizens, led by a German biochemist Otto Rössler, filed a suit against CERN in the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, alleging the Large Hadron Collider poses grave risks for the safety of the 27 member states of the European Union and their citizens.[27][31][63] The request for an injunction was summarily rejected on 26 August, leaving the case that it violates the right to life still pending.[63] Late in 2009 an article has appeared in the Tennessee Law Review[82][83] reviewing the legal situation.
It even has citations.
Yes, the consequences of the Bikini Atoll explosion were tragic. But, again, without any reasoned and factual objections, then you expect...what?
But hey, we're still here. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/4/2010 5:45:36 PM |
Yes, the consequences of the Bikini Atoll explosion were tragic. But, again, without any reasoned and factual objections, then you expect...what?
1. I just gave you a factual objection: People were killed in that instance because scientists, the experts in which you have complete faith, made an error.
That's a factual objection to your claim that scientists can't make fatal errors. A factual objection to your statement that if scientists say something is safe, then it's safe.
2. I gave you another objection in a previous post, in which I pointed out that at least some scientist-advocates of the LHC are using an intentionally fallacious argument to reassure people that it's safe: The "natural cosmic ray collisions" reassurance. When a reassurance-argument is given, and it has an obvious objection, and when the person using the argument knows about the objection but doesn't mention it--that's dishonesty. When anyone, even someone Stargazer worships, is reassuring us that something is safe, then their use of dishonest arguments in that reassurance should negate any reassurance that we would have gotten from it.
But hey, we're still here.
Well, the victims of the error aren't still here, are they. Your experts made an error, and people were killed by it.
I shouldn't have to say this, but please understand that the two objections stated above are two separate objections. Maybe you don't understand the basis of objection#2. But even if, as a result, you can say you don't understand #2, you should try to resist the temptation to post a reply that only addresses your lack of understanding of #2, but which does not address #1. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/4/2010 6:04:22 PM |
1. I just gave you a factual objection: People were killed in that instance because scientists, the experts in which you have complete faith, made an error.
That's a factual objection to your claim that scientists can't make fatal errors. A factual objection to your statement that if scientists say something is safe, then it's safe.
Who said scientists can't make errors? However, you have yet to produce a single citation of someone qualified to make a factual objection, based on science. All I've seen from you is "it could happen." Well, lots of things "could" happen. However, if all you have is "there's a chance," then by that logic we would have to stop any venture in which something bad "could" happen or there was a "chance" at a disaster.
I gave you another objection in a previous post, in which I pointed out that at least some scientist-advocates of the LHC are using an intentionally fallacious argument to reassure people that it's safe: The "natural cosmic ray collisions" reassurance.
You're assuming that your points aren't fallacious. And I've given you several objections to your assumptions. However, because that goes against your assertion, the best response you can give are sarcastic 'quips' about my profession and my "less than highschool" knowledge of physics.
When anyone, even someone Stargazer worships, is reassuring us that something is safe, then their use of dishonest arguments in that reassurance should negate any reassurance that we would have gotten from it.
An example of the "appy school of debate." When someone disagrees with you, minimize through sarcasm. And now you're questioning either their integrity or the strength of their argument. Neither of which you yourself have said you are unqualified to do due to your self-admitted lack of the understanding of the physics involved. See the problem here, yet?
Well, the victims of the error aren't still here, are they. Your experts made an error, and people were killed by it.
Okay...but can you cite a single example of where the LHC poses a singular threat? A single qualified source of objection? Hell, I've even tried to help you. Apparently, you lack the discipline or the interest to hear from anybody but yourself on why this shouldn't go forward.
I shouldn't have to say this, but please understand that the two objections stated above are two separate objections. Maybe you don't understand the basis of objection#2. But even if, as a result, you can say you don't understand #2, you should try to resist the temptation to post a reply that only addresses your lack of understanding of #2, but which does not address #1.
This is the point where you would find a mirror very handy there, app. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/5/2010 1:55:44 PM |
1. I just gave you a factual objection: People were killed in that instance because scientists, the experts in which you have complete faith, made an error.
That's a factual objection to your claim that scientists can't make fatal errors. A factual objection to your statement that if scientists say something is safe, then it's safe. Who said scientists can't make errors? However, you have yet to produce a single citation of someone qualified to make a factual objection, based on science.
I, or anyone, is qualified to make the above-stated objection, my objection #1. It's quite simple, and doesn't require a physicist: Physicists and other scientists have made errors that killed people. But you're saying the LHC is safe because scientists are infallilble. But you said it yourself: Scientists can make errors. Sometimes fatal errors. So you can't justify your doglike faith in the infallibility of scientists.
If you were a physicist, wanting to have a long and successful career, good jobs, good standing and popularity among other physicists, etc., then you might hesitate to stand in the way of an experiment which is perceived to be about to advance physics. I wouldn't blame you.
But the material that you've quoted names a scientist as a plaintive in the case against the LHC. A person doesn't become a PhD chemist without significant qualiflication in physics.
[quotge]All I've seen from you is "it could happen." Well, lots of things "could" happen.
A lot of things wouldn't destroy the Earth. A lot of things (risks) can be accurately quantified.
However, if all you have is "there's a chance," then by that logic we would have to stop any venture in which something bad "could" happen or there was a "chance" at a disaster.
Yes, if it would result in no more Earth if we guess wrong, and if it involves new science such that we can't reliably assign a numerical probability, and if the reason for taking the risk is something inessential. Aye, there's the rub: What's inessential to most of us is entirely essential to a particle physicist.
I gave you another objection in a previous post, in which I pointed out that at least some scientist-advocates of the LHC are using an intentionally fallacious argument to reassure people that it's safe: The "natural cosmic ray collisions" reassurance. You're assuming that your points aren't fallacious. And I've given you several objections to your assumptions. However, because that goes against your assertion, the best response you can give are sarcastic 'quips' about my profession and my "less than highschool" knowledge of physics.
If, by "fallacious", you mean "in error", no, I clearly said that maybe physicists could show that those vanishingly likely natural head-on collisions of cosmic ray particles, where everything is exactly "just wrong", have surely happened during the moon's lifetime, then that would eliminate my objection #2. And I said that if they could come up with some other way that that relativistic collision could make a dangerously slow black hole, with sufficient probsbility, that would eliminate my objection j#2. Neither I nor you know of any way around objection #2.
And I pointed out that, to use a reassurance-argument (the natural cosmic ray collisions reassurance), and not mention that it has an obvious objection, is dishonest. The objection is obvious enough that, if they have an answer to it, they should have mentioned and answered it, not swept it under the rug. Dishonesty.
When anyone, even someone Stargazer worships, is reassuring us that something is safe, then their use of dishonest arguments in that reassurance should negate any reassurance that we would have gotten from it.
An example of the "appy school of debate." When someone disagrees with you, minimize through sarcasm. And now you're questioning either their integrity or the strength of their argument. Neither of which you yourself have said you are unqualified to do due to your self-admitted lack of the understanding of the physics involved. See the problem here, yet?
My objections #1 & #2 don't require me to be qualified in the mathematical theory of black holes, to which I've admitted ignorance. (Of course I admit your ignorance of that too)
Well, the victims of the error aren't still here, are they. Your experts made an error, and people were killed by it. Okay...but can you cite a single example of where the LHC poses a singular threat?
Yes. The head-on collisions could produce a black hole. We have that from physicists whose names I neglected to write down for you, because, at that earlier time, I didn't know you'd need them.
The black hole produced in such a head-on collision could have a low speed with respet to the earth, if the momenta nearly cancelled out.
A slow-moving black hole is the kind that can consume a planet, because it doesn't possess escape velocity from it. The black hole could stick around in the planet long enough to eat it entirely.
Yes, theory says the tiny-mass black hole won't last long enough to do anything. New physics, theory that is tentative and under-construction. Want to be the Earth on it?
Summary of objections:
1. Physicists have made fatal errors, some due to miscalculations. So much for their infallibility.
2. Some physicists have used an intentionally, knowingly, dishonest argument in reassuring you about the LHC. (The natural cosmic ray collisions argument)
And one more, which I've repeated many times, but which, like the others, hasn't been answered:
3. The quick-evaporation reassurance is based on new physics, theory that is tentative and under construction. Not something on which to bet the Earth.
What have we heard from you, Stargazer? Not answers to objections 1, 2, & 3. We've instead heard endlessly repeated re-assertion of your faith in the infallilbility of scientists.
.
| |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/5/2010 3:42:50 PM |
I, or anyone, is qualified to make the above-stated objection, my objection #1. It's quite simple, and doesn't require a physicist: Physicists and other scientists have made errors that killed people. But you're saying the LHC is safe because scientists are infallilble. But you said it yourself: Scientists can make errors. Sometimes fatal errors. So you can't justify your doglike faith in the infallibility of scientists.
First, please quote directly where I've used the word "infallible" to describe anyone involved in the pursuit of physics. Otherwise, you are simply employing an ad hominem argument intended to cast doubt on my arguments by implying blind faith. Secondly, you seem to mistake the difference between "qualified" and "capable." I'm capable of making all kinds of objections to all kinds of things. However, how valid those objections are depends entirely on my qualifications.
And speaking of arrogant presumption...
My objections #1 & #2 don't require me to be qualified in the mathematical theory of black holes, to which I've admitted ignorance. (Of course I admit your ignorance of that too)
I don't need you to "admit" anything for me.
And I pointed out that, to use a reassurance-argument (the natural cosmic ray collisions reassurance), and not mention that it has an obvious objection, is dishonest. The objection is obvious enough that, if they have an answer to it, they should have mentioned and answered it, not swept it under the rug. Dishonesty.
Actually, they have mentioned it. You just don't like the answer. Totally different.
Okay...but can you cite a single example of where the LHC poses a singular threat? Yes. The head-on collisions could produce a black hole. We have that from physicists whose names I neglected to write down for you, because, at that earlier time, I didn't know you'd need them.
Actually, I've provided you links to them.
What have we heard from you, Stargazer? Not answers to objections 1, 2, & 3. We've instead heard endlessly repeated re-assertion of your faith in the infallilbility of scientists.
Again, please feel free to quote a single statement I've made in which the word "infallible" was used. No inferences. No "well, by saying x you meant y" type statements. A single quote with the use of the word "infallible." Scientists can and do make mistakes. But, as I've pointed out before, we're not talking about the work of a single, cartoon or Hollywood-style stereotyped "mad" scientist.
Speaking of which...
Yes, if it would result in no more Earth if we guess wrong, and if it involves new science such that we can't reliably assign a numerical probability, and if the reason for taking the risk is something inessential. Aye, there's the rub: What's inessential to most of us is entirely essential to a particle physicist.
There you go with the "scientists are so career minded, they wouldn't possibly speak out if they found actual reason to object." Except that's not the history of physics. Remember the hydrogen bomb? Scientists, including Oppenheim, spoke out against it on moral grounds and at the risk of their own careers. But you would stick with the Hollywood stereotype. Sad, really. Very, unimaginatively sad.
But in the meantime:
Summary of objections:
1. Physicists have made fatal errors, some due to miscalculations. So much for their infallibility.
Touched on that. Meanwhile...
2. Some physicists have used an intentionally, knowingly, dishonest argument in reassuring you about the LHC. (The natural cosmic ray collisions argument)
Again, you assume your argument is valid which would negate the validity of the scientific argument. And yet, you failed to provide a single qualification of that opinion. Only your repeated statements that your own knowledge of physics is lacking and yet your argument is valid because...well, it's your argument.
And one more, which I've repeated many times, but which, like the others, hasn't been answered:
3. The quick-evaporation reassurance is based on new physics, theory that is tentative and under construction. Not something on which to bet the Earth.
Okay, well, tell you what. Read this...http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.3414.pdf ....and believe what you will. I'm bored with feeding the troll. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/6/2010 1:27:27 PM |
First, please quote directly where I've used the word "infallible" to describe anyone involved in the pursuit of physics.
Ok, forget "infallible". You said that you know that the LHC is safe because you have confidence in the experts who say that it is. So, whatever word you use, you believe that if scientists say something is safe, then it's safe. Fatal accidents in the past give reason to question your uncritical faith.
Secondly, you seem to mistake the difference between "qualified" and "capable." I'm capable of making all kinds of objections to all kinds of things. However, how valid those objections are depends entirely on my qualifications.
No, I meant what I said: qualified. I wasn't claiming to use any knowledge of the mathematical theory of black holes and their evaporation. Scientists have made fatal mistakes. You have no reason to be assured that they're not about to make another one, on a grander scale. Anyone is qualified to point that out. It's a valid objection, even from someone who dosn't claim expertise in the mathematical theory of black holes and their evaporation.
And troll who had demonstrated a sub-highschool competence in physics has no business even mentioning anyone else's qualifications.
And I pointed out that, to use a reassurance-argument (the natural cosmic ray collisions reassurance), and not mention that it has an obvious objection, is dishonest. The objection is obvious enough that, if they have an answer to it, they should have mentioned and answered it, not swept it under the rug. Dishonesty. Actually, they have mentioned it. You just don't like the answer. Totally different.
Ok, thank you. I hadn't been aware that they'd mentioned it and answered it. What is their mechanisim that they suggest, by which relativistic-speed cosmic rays can produce a black hole slow enough to be dangerous to, say, the Moon, and formed as close to the Moon's surface as the LHC's black holes would be to the collider floor--so frequently that physicists can assure us that such collisions have happened that close to the lunar surface during the Moon's lifetime.
Forgive me for not knowing that physicists had supplied that answer. But would you be so kind as to tell us what that answer is?
You wanted me to quote experts anit-LHC, or supporting anything I've said. I don't undestand why you can't do your own reading. But looking at a few articles in easily-available popular magazines shows that a fair number of physicists hope to find black holes formed by the LHC. According to an article that I believe was in Science News, for Sept 26, '09, Physicist Glenn Starkman said that, according to some theories, the LHC could produce black holes. He's at the Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, Ohio.
The Oct. '09 article in Discover quoted the old reassurance that says that similiarly energetic cosmic ray collisions have been occurring for a long time, and the fact that they haven' t destroyed everything proves that the LHC is safe. That, as I said, is a fraudulent argument, dishonestly not mentioning an obvious objection to that reassurance. I've discussed it already, but the point is that the very high speed of cosmic ray particles makes it difficult to explain how they could make dangerously slow black holes. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/6/2010 4:15:37 PM |
And troll who had demonstrated a sub-highschool competence in physics has no business even mentioning anyone else's qualifications.
Enough is enough. You're not interested in anything other than your own opinion and I've lost all interest in feeding your need for self-superiority. Troll post on your own time. | |
|
| New legal challenge for the Hadron Collider...
Posted: 2/7/2010 7:35:29 AM | Just a few points I'd like to make...
Appreciative... to a small degree, I agree with you. If there is a significant risk of disaster in an experiment, I would prefer that such be performed away from our sole habitat. (The Moon, for example...) However, the risk must be presented as something more likely than a vague 'What If...'.
Yes, scientists DO make errors, but not always on the side of caution. Recall that when the first hydrogen bomb was tested, there were fears that it would set the atmosphere on fire. I'm all for caution, but why do you feel that the people proclaiming Doom are more credible than the ones at the other end of the spectrum?
Dr. Starkman is indeed hoping to discover black holes in the LHC interactions... but he ALSO stated that it would be difficult, because they would evapourate 'almost immediately'. You may want to double-check your references, before using them as evidence for your claims.
StarGazer... just a quibble, but the decision by the District Court in Hawaii didn't throw out the case because of the evidence presented - they stated that it was outside their jurisdiction. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
