LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html

Thanks again, Rpenner.

I'm not quite sure I understand the danger presented in the scenario. Is it basically saying that a MBH could accrete matter and emit harmful HR, which is why it is a local, rather than global risk? What about this quote?:

And is it saying that we wouldn't be able to detect this radiation from neutron stars/white dwarves?

Sorry for all of these questions, but this is how I learn

Ski, Rainer Plaga uses the formulas of G & M, which assumes no radiation from the black hole to claim that the D=5 holes grow rapidly to 1 kg and claims the 1 kg holes would act as eternal matter-energy converters inside the Earth, despite that this invalidates the calculations of G & M that they would grow quickly. Further, the D=5, 1 TeV case is excluded because such black holes are very sticky and cosmic rays would already cause them to form continuously. No white dwarf could last even a century if Plaga was right.

But Plaga isn't close to right, since the metastable black holes of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0110255 cannot grow to 1 kg at Earthly densities.

That quote is relevant because it takes the currently accepted theory that predicts black holes, applies them to the LHC and predicts the LHC will not produce them. What's out of context about that?

• "In fact, according to the conventional gravitational theory of General Relativity proposed by Einstein, many of whose predictions have subsequently been verified, there is no chance that any black holes could be produced at the LHC, since the conventional gravitational forces between fundamental particles are too weak."

You have done no such thing. The LSAG report never says black holes are likely, because they are not.

This is irrelevant to the safety of the LHC. The question of whether the LHC will produce black holes does not constitute an argument for the danger of the LHC. One must demonstrate they will accrete matter at a high enough rate to destroy the earth in it's lifetime and that the MBH will not disappear via the Hawking process. I think I can speak for rpenner when I say that he agrees with the LSAG committee on these points, which you have yet to refute.

Neutron star is created by stellar collapse -> Neutron star accretes matter up to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit -> Neutron star collapses to form a black hole. Not that I see how this is relevant to the danger of the LHC

Stated and provided good evidence for are very different things. I can state that my grandmothers treacle tart is a good candidate for dark matter but that doesn't make it true. According to current theory, black holes are not stable so they can't be dark matter. Prove me wrong.

Firstly, GR is not a "specific case," it's the currently accepted theory of gravity, and secondly, black holes at the LHC are not "improbable," they are impossible.

rpenner's remarks on Plaga's track record is relevant here. Basically, he seems to like writing controversial papers so much the no one will collaborate with him. You're assertion that "they don't know the properties of the black holes," is wrong. We know a lot about black holes from GR, which is why we know the LHC won't produce them.

rpenner has been active in this topic since the early pages. I have too and your "contentions," are getting so watered down you'll be asserting that the LHC will be using too much electricity before long.

To repeat these, which you seem to have missed:

• what does a divergence look like? What do you mean by "map a cone intrinsically?"
• Do you understand what a vector is or did you just use the word to make your posting sound a bit more technical?
• [CP symmetry breaking] doesn't [violate conservation of energy]. If it did then CP symmetry breaking (a local gauge symmetry) would somehow break invariance under time translations (a global spacetime symmetry) and it doesn't. Can you provide an argument rather than saying "yes it does?"
• Why have you started using the phrase "straw man" (11 times in the previous post) when 1) you have hardly ever used it before and 2) you clearly don't understand the concept of a straw man argument. You've accused me of providing a straw man argument 8 times in the previous post, none of which were correct. That's not a very good hit rate is it?

Not only that, but they're only visible for a relatively short phase of their lives, and under relatively special circumstances.

Both of which have been explained to Ubavontuba repeatedly.

Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.

Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=352977
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=357962
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=364904
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=366793

Straw man argument. You're describing a position that only superficially resembles the point in contention.

The point in contention was based on this question: Are you still contending that micro black holes can't be made in the LHC at all?

Straw man argument. This is a misrepresentation of my position. You're describing a position that superficially resembles my actual view but is easier to refute, and then you're trying to attribute that position to me.

I never said the LSAG report says black holes are likely. I stated the authors of the LSAG report state the LHC will likely create black holes.

Sorry. In a case where the physics have the potential to endanger the world, you have to have your top minds assessing the circumstances. Otherwise, it boils down to nothing more than a guess. Therefore your support of the LSAG report, is nothing more than support for a guess ...by people you disagree with on the fundamental physics of the case! Can you say: "House of cards."

Where's all this accretion matter coming from?

I've previously provided references on this. Look 'em up.

Says the guy who used gravitons to prove a hypothesis. Prometheus, you're nothing more than a lying buffoon.

Says the guy who used gravitons to prove a hypothesis. Jeez. And here you planned to make me "look wrong." This is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel!

My contentions are, and have always been, rock steady and consistent.

Apologize for your numerous lies and stop the practice of using straw man arguments and lying, or we will go no further.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 02:33 AM

Dude, extrasolar planets aren't visible, and yet they find them readily enough.

Straw man argument. This is an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 02:23 AM

Strawman argument.
Appeal to Ignorance.

Extrasolar planets are also extraordinarily difficult to detect.
Extrasolar planets are also only detectable under specific very special circumstances, using very specialized equipment.
We simply expect there to be (in numbers) many more planets then neutron stars in this galaxy.

Straw man argument. This is an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position.

Falsehood. You have made each of these claims, and related them to one another. More to the point, you have been doing so since 2005.

Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."

And I agree with this. I've stated many times that the neutron star count seems quite low. I'm just saying that it's not likely to happen at such a rate that we wouldn't see any neutron stars as you would implicate. I'm simply saying that they must be moving relatively slow in regards to the neutron star to be captured.

I disagree with this as a general principle because matter inhabits such a small proportion of space. The possibility that this happens at just the right place, at just the right time, with the exact properties needed to enable capture, seems quite improbable. It might happen, but I think it'd likely be rare. As I've said before though, we can't know that this isn't a precursor to numerous astronomical events. Perhaps this is the trigger that causes neutron stars to collapse and radiate those amazing gamma-ray bursts.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Aug 24 2008, 03:24 AM

I know, I was just including the relevant parts of the post that Ubavontuba was replying to in an effort to retain context.

Their visible lifespan is significantly long, that should there be as many claimed, they should be readily detectable. Even after they're no longer visible, they remain detectable in other frequencies.

Straw man argument. This is still an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position. I never once claimed these ideas are "proof" of anything. However, they may be indicative.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 06:04 AM

Incorrect. Radiating at any frequency requires special circumstances, either the presence of a binary partner, a source of infalling matter, or a young neutron star - becaus ethe radiation of electromagnetic energy requires the input of some other form of energy.

INcorrect,

It would only be a strawman if I had inaccurately represented any of your claims, or attributed claims to you that you had not done.

As the quoted posts prove, I have done neither (thus making your accusation of strawman a falsehood).

Incorrect. This is only applicable to X-ray emitting neutron stars. By themselves, they're normally visible in the radio spectrum.

Wikipedia:
A radio-quiet neutron star is a neutron star that does not seem to emit radio emissions like most other neutron stars.

Most neutron stars are pulsars, and emit radio radiation. (bolds added)

Wikipedia
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

You deliberately overstated my position.

This would only be true if you did not state any of the things I said you stated.

As demonstrated by the fact that I can quote you as having made each of those statements, I have not deliberately overstated your position.

Unless you're claiming you didn't make one or more of those posts.

Right..

So you're countering a peer reviewed article with a wikipedia article that provides no references in this regard?

Nice one.

Once again, this is a straw man argument which overstates my position. You stated:

QUOTE Trippy @ Aug 23 2008, 10:41 AM
Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.

I responded:

QUOTE ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 05:55 PM
Straw man argument. This is still an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position. I never once claimed these ideas are "proof" of anything. However, they may be indicative.

Therefore, your statement is overstating the level of credence I give the pointed observations I've made. It's a straw man argument.