Large Hadron Collider successfully creates mini Big Bangs

[Calax]

I wonder if our universe is just a mini-universe inside another universes LHC...

[Wrath of Dagon]

I seem to remember that years ago some CERN scientist actually estimated a probability for LHC causing the end of the world. It was only about 10^-60 or so.

That was probably before they realized the micro black holes might actually turn out to be stable. Anyway, as we've learned in another thread, just because the odds are that low doesn't mean it can't happen. Edited November 18, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Balthamael]

^Oh, keep trying. I am sure there will be someone, eventually, who will admit how wise and intelligent you are. There must be, 'tis a big world after all.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Plenty of people already think that. I don't expect anything from this bunch, it's obvious I'm disliked here.

[Humodour]

^Oh, keep trying. I am sure there will be someone, eventually, who will admit how wise and intelligent you are. There must be, 'tis a big world after all.

 

I don't think that's called for. WoD is discovering new things about science (as are we all) and he just acknowledged that. Is continued vitriol necessary? It's not like this is a thread about politics - there's no need for an us vs them attitude. Nobody has been harmed - it seems pointless to hold a grudge or seek 'revenge'.

 

Edit: Or did I misread and WoD is still arguing black holes are going to be generated by the LHC and consume earth?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Krezack

[Hurlshort]

Plenty of people already think that. I don't expect anything from this bunch, it's obvious I'm disliked here.

 

That is really not true, as I mentioned, many of your links have been interesting and illuminating. It is simply hard to interact with you sometimes, particularly when you dig your heels in on an issue. Personally I'd just like to see you be a bit more forthright, maybe tell us about yourself and your personal experience instead of constantly linking articles. This is a community, not a debate team.

[Calax]

I seem to remember that years ago some CERN scientist actually estimated a probability for LHC causing the end of the world. It was only about 10^-60 or so.

That was probably before they realized the micro black holes might actually turn out to be stable. Anyway, as we've learned in another thread, just because the odds are that low doesn't mean it can't happen.

True, but just because there's low odds of me hitting another person in my car (which are much higher odds than those of a blackhole somehow consuming our world) doesn't mean I shouldn't drive to and fro.

[Balthamael]

I don't think that's called for. WoD is discovering new things about science (as are we all) and he just acknowledged that. Is continued vitriol necessary? It's not like this is a thread about politics - there's no need for an us vs them attitude. Nobody has been harmed - it seems pointless to hold a grudge or seek 'revenge'.

 

Edit: Or did I misread and WoD is still arguing black holes are going to be generated by the LHC and consume earth?

 

That was the impression I got, yes. But you are of course correct. I apologise for my previous post.

[Wrath of Dagon]

^Oh, keep trying. I am sure there will be someone, eventually, who will admit how wise and intelligent you are. There must be, 'tis a big world after all.

 

I don't think that's called for. WoD is discovering new things about science (as are we all) and he just acknowledged that. Is continued vitriol necessary? It's not like this is a thread about politics - there's no need for an us vs them attitude. Nobody has been harmed - it seems pointless to hold a grudge or seek 'revenge'.

 

Edit: Or did I misread and WoD is still arguing black holes are going to be generated by the LHC and consume earth?

I never said they will be generated and will consume earth, I said there's a non-negligible chance of that.

[Humodour]

Edit: Or did I misread and WoD is still arguing black holes are going to be generated by the LHC and consume earth?

I never said they will be generated and will consume earth, I said there's a non-negligible chance of that.

 

Why do you think the chance is non-negligible (i.e. significant)? What informs that judgement?

[Hurlshort]

Non-negligible isn't really a word. I mean you can infer that WoD means the chances are large, since negligible means small or trifling, but it is a vague way to put it. It certainly isn't a scientific measurement. What is the criteria for a negligible chance versus a non-negligible chance?

[Gorth]

This is a community, not a debate team.

This...

 

It's not a competition, because that would assume that there would be a "winner". Nobody wins arguing on the internet.

 

What is the criteria for a negligible chance versus a non-negligible chance?

The point between not worrying and starting to worry a bit?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Non-negligible isn't really a word. I mean you can infer that WoD means the chances are large, since negligible means small or trifling, but it is a vague way to put it. It certainly isn't a scientific measurement. What is the criteria for a negligible chance versus a non-negligible chance?

By non-negligible I mean small but not so small as to be ignored, considering the possible outcome.

 

As for Krezack's question, this is a quote from the Paglia paper I linked to

Theories with

[Rostere]

What gave me away?

Exactly what I said earlier, except I'm not convinced by their argument about the white dwarves, because you know, they're completely different from earth, like having huge amounts of gravity.

 

While it is true that white dwarves are much more compact than the Earth, that would only reinforce the statistical argument against LHC creating a cataclysm through black hole generation. Some white dwarves and neutron stars do have much stronger magnetic fields though, which in some interpretations could cause problems, since these would cause some incoming ions to decelerate. Compare it to a magnet. In some places, ions would be accelerated towards the magnet, and in some, deflected. I'm not sure if that would be a worry (I'd say it definitely isn't), but it makes the statistics harder to calculate.

[Humodour]

Non-negligible isn't really a word. I mean you can infer that WoD means the chances are large, since negligible means small or trifling, but it is a vague way to put it. It certainly isn't a scientific measurement. What is the criteria for a negligible chance versus a non-negligible chance?

By non-negligible I mean small but not so small as to be ignored, considering the possible outcome.

 

Right, that's what I figured. I actually thought non-negligible was a word myself... as much a word as anything Shakespeare made up, that's for sure.

 

As for Krezack's question, this is a quote from the Paglia paper I linked to

 

But are you able to cite anything scientifically peer-reviewed to support your stance? That's basically what I'm curious about here. Because of the nature of science, we'd all naturally have to take a step back and go 'woah' if you could. But if you can't then, again, because of the nature of science, you're leaving yourself wide open to ridicule just like that Paglia guy himself with his unsubstantiated and misinformed claims (assuming you refer to the PDF article I had a look at earlier).

 

I admit I'm writing that paper off. It's just too unreliable and uninformed. Anybody can write up an opinion piece on science and demand scientific response like this guy has. Can you find me some scientists with some peer-reviewed concerns? I can assure you the scientific community is not a single entity and there are wildly varying viewpoints out there on many issues. But what they all have in common is that they get their claims and theories peer-reviewed so flaws and errors are picked up. So if the LHC poses a genuine risk, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be multiple peer-reviewed papers out there on the issue.

 

My predicament is that without such material you're asking us to disprove or respond to nothing. I can find you lots of peer-reviewed papers supporting the notion that the LHC is not a risk. I can't find any claiming it is, because from what I can tell they don't exist.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Krezack

[Wrath of Dagon]

Paglia's paper was reviewed by Giddings and Mongano, who did the safety analysis article for the LHC. They offered 3 objections, which he answered and which you can see in his article. Questioning Hawkins radiation there are two published articles, one by Helfer and one by Unruh.

See Adam D. Helfer, Do Black Holes Radiate?, 66 REPS. ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 943, 943 (2003).

See William G. Unruh & Ralf Sch

Edited November 19, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

But Pagalias paper is a LAW paper, NOT a physics paper. Having it peer reviewed by lawyers doesn't make it viable in a scientific arena (otherwise "Young Earth Creationism" would actually be considered a field of legit study, rather than laughed at when it comes up from a scientific standpoint).

 

Also, looking at the paper you posted (my ISU IP gives me access) Basically they're not saying that the black holes don't EMIT energy, just not necessarily energy in the form that Hawking specified. Admittedly I haven't started in on my physics classes so this goes wayyy over my head, but that's the feel I got from it rather than what you seem to think (That this says that black holes emit 0 energy)

Edited November 19, 2010 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, the lawyer is Johnson, which was my first link. He references a paper by Paglia, who's an astrophysicist. I found a free link to the Unruh paper : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2.pdf

 

I don't think he means there's some other kind of radiation, I think only the Hawking radiation is possible for a black hole.

Therefore,

whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation or not remains an open question and gives non-trivial information about Planckian physics.

[Humodour]

In order to begin to understand Hawking radiation and black holes, one needs a pretty solid understanding of how virtual particles behave.

[Humodour]

These are for Archie:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-large-...primordial.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-early-...ults-large.html

 

 

The early universe was a liquid.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Krezack

[I want teh kotor 3]

These are for Archie:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-large-...primordial.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-early-...ults-large.html

 

 

The early universe was a liquid.

 

Which approaches holy-****all levels of strange.

[Calax]

I think my roommate may be working on something relating to this.... he had his computer run a simulation about photons being destroyed.

[Humodour]

These are for Archie:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-large-...primordial.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-early-...ults-large.html

 

 

The early universe was a liquid.

 

Which approaches holy-****all levels of strange.

 

Considering:

 

a) Many, many more particles were produced from these 'mini big bangs' than the mainstream theories predicted, and

b) Mainstream theories predicted a plasma or gas (hence quark-gluon plasma)

 

Then yes, it's very strange. We're pretty much guaranteed to get new physics from this. This rules out a bunch of theories previously thought likely, while strengthening some thought less likely.