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

Even when the subject matter is above the heads of the broader audience?
QM and such don't make sense at your level of understanding.
It can not be dumbed down to the level of the ordinary person.
Even most well educated people can't really discuss it well.

The Schwarzschild metric comes from GR, not string theory. It is the metric of an uncharged non rotating black hole. The fact that Rossler (a medic and biochemist) is using a result from GR to claim he understands string theory is not a good sign.

The fact that we're having this conversation is indicative that you don't know any modern physics because QFT does not model particles as classical points, but quantum points. That is, they have a certain position and momentum that is smeared out by the uncertainty principle. That's why particles aren't mini black holes in themselves.

So the black hole metric for an uncharged black holes is chargleless? What a shocker! What about the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole? It's charged.

As Prom points out, the fact you quoted that proves you don't understand it.

That star in Cygnus curves towards a singularity, and manages to move away from it.

Heck, the sun curves towards a bloody great big monster of a singularity, and still manages to curve away from it.

Shhh, what's that...

Nope, just a train, still no Bosenova.

That is true, but we are talking about what happens to particles inside the black hole. Outside it, black holes behave like any other gravitational object where things can orbit or be deflected by its gravity etc.

In the beginning my goal was to persuade uba he was wrong, but it has evolved somewhat. I'm having difficulty figuring exactly what uba wants to get out of this, because as others have said, if he was really concerned about the LHC he would be discussing this stuff at CERN. I'm inclined to believe now that he's simply trolling.

Which brings me to my goal. Physorg is read by a lot of people, many of whom may not understand too much physics. My goal is now to make uba look as wrong as possible, and see him deflect and insult like he likes to do so much. That way, the others that read this thread will know the LHC poses no danger.

So far so good, IMO.

Prometheus wishes to know opinions of retarded people. And so in my memory he was right only once when has corrected my "true" speed.

But that doesn't mean you have to give your opinion. Pipe down and go away.

Oh my, you can't take a joke?

Besides, those are great science fiction classics. I highly recommend them.

Haven't I told you enough times that I'm not playing this game with you? Do you keep forgetting? In any event, it's not my fault you can't retain the continuity of context.

Oh p-u-l-e-e-z! How many times do I have to say it?

I keep a copy by my bed in case I'm having trouble getting to sleep.

Oh p-u-l-e-e-z! How many times do I have to say it?

Is there a way that we can come up with that will make you remember these things permanently?

Say I prove a point by showing the relevant information. Is there a way we can attach a keyword/phrase to it so that all I have to write is the keyword/phrase and you'll readily accept the facts of the point in contention?

I don't need to publish it myself. It's being published all by itself (it seems plagiarism is in no short supply in the physics community).

Heck, even the new CERN safety analysis includes my work, but do the give me any credit?

Wrong. I've been offering versions of my wager for a very long time. You always lose but you promptly forget the result. Why is that?

My wager is about currently verifiable facts. Your wager isn't about facts at all, but rather it's about personal achievement. Let's keep it about the facts.

Months ago, you were asking for links to posts that are many more months older than that.

Actually, I've bookmarked a number of them. I'm just waiting for you to accept my wager. Why is it you won't? Is it because you know I'm right?

Not especially.

Oh please. You're simply trying to get me to establish my credentials because it's ticking you off so ...that I've been right all along!

Make it worthwhile. Make it so you won't forget again.

When did I say they were synonymous?

That's a good question that exposes the basis for my fears. How can you know who is right? How can we know if anyone is right, at all?

Obviously, the papers with bad logic can be excluded. This is the very reasoning which wholly excluded the 2003 CERN safety analysis. It also calls into question much of the 2008 safety analysis - which is largely a whitewash of the 2003 analysis.

Admittedly, they've now (grudgingly) included the missing logic I brought forward, but their conclusions are simply drawn from thin air. They purport to know the absorption rates of micro black holes. ...micro black holes with properties they can't properly define!

For starters, you're making an assumption it was purely a gluon process.

Besides, I've already stated if it's purely a gluon process it would certainly radiate and if it's a black hole, it would appear to radiate similarly.

See? You don't get it.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 18 2008, 05:55 AM

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

Here's Physics News you can use. Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want to end Wagner's unscientific scaremongering based on personal ignorance. They seek permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, explaining what Wagner does not and cannot.

Why do they want to file this brief?

emphasis in original.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Aug 18 2008, 07:25 AM

You mean you can lie better than me.

Says the guy who couldn't map a cone intrinsically.

Ah. I see you've improved a little (hopefully). The fact remains you missed several salient points in parenthesis in the past. How do you explain this?

Idiot. If you knew English at all you'd be able to differentiate the use of a single word versus the use of a common phrase which includes the word. Maybe you think "classical" must always mean "classical physics," but then you'd miss out on classical music, classical guitar, Classical Gas (a great instrumental) classical art, classical architecture, classical theatre, classical wine making, classical ...whatever.

Obviously. You, on the other hand, seem to be having some difficulty.

No, it doesn't. I suppose you simply failed to understand the question. Really though, I don't see how I could express it more clearly.

How do Hawking radiation particles get on shell? Why do they get on shell and virtual particles elsewhere do not?

How do they escape these "usual forces?"

It's not a dodge. You stated that Hawking radiation can only happen in charged black holes. I showed that you were wrong because your assumption of virtual particles being only electrons and positrons was wrong.

I didn't state any such thing. I was asking questions. You've failed to answer them.

Uh, are you claiming that within the event horizon it can move away from the singularity? Didn't you see my reference where even hypothetical tachyons couldn't do this?

Oh brother.

Nice deflection. Why didn't you respond to the point that pair production can't get on shell in a vacuum?

Your references are meaningless. Conservation has long been suspected of not always being true, hence the existence of the universe.

Let me know how that goes.

You're not making sense. How is the vacuum polarized if you're not talking about background electromagnetic fields and electron-positron pair production? How are the particles getting on shell? What's gravity got to do with it?

Wikipedia: Vacuum polarization:

In quantum field theory, and specifically quantum electrodynamics, vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron-positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. It is also sometimes referred to as the self energy of the gauge boson (photon).(bold added)

Oh brother. Your asking does not represent a need for me to provide proof that you have trouble with continuity of context, or provide proof that I pointed out a cone could be mapped intrinsically.

Yeah, so?

Actually, you have that backwards. Didn't you see me just recently catch you mixing these terms?

I never said the paper says they will be produced. I only said it suggests it as being plausible (as I've contended all along).

Besides, didn't you see this post: post ...about this reference: reference

Oh, you mean like the CP violation? Quick, everyone run! Prometheus just stated the universe can't exist!

Yes it does. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis.

Oh brother. Now you're confusing the terms prediction and hypothesis. Prediction and hypothesis are synonymous. You don't predict a hypothesis.

Wikipedia: Hypothesis:

In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model.

More dodging, eh?

Are you still contending that micro black holes can't be made in the LHC at all?

Uh, 'cause a non physical observer can go places a physical observer can't.

Wait just a minute! Now they start from within and without? You don't think there's a difference? The black hole loses energy to the escaping particle exiting from within and loses energy to the entering particle from without? Quick, call Hawking! Black holes evaporate twice as fast as he thought!

No, wait! How does the particle within escape annihilation (assuming there really is a "within")? Why can't the particles from the outside (negative energy) annihilate the particles from the inside (positive energy) and cancel the process altogether? Oh no! That would violate conservation! The black hole radiates the freed exterior particles with no loss to the black hole! Aack!

Wait, even better. The inbound particle annihilates the outgoing particle so the freed interior particle gets on shell and adds mass to the black hole! Double whammy! The black hole grows and it radiates!

Wow. This is really messy!

It looks to me like the process must occur on only one side of the event horizon for Hawking radiation to work. Even then, it's iffy.

Give me a break. You're the master of the personal attack.

This is a discussion about physics (one-sided though it may be). If you use the word 'classical' you must expect it to be interpreted with the 'physics' meaning of the word. If that's not what you intended it to mean the either you used it wrongly or you are way to unfamiliar with basic physics to contemplate arguing about the LHC.

And your retort to someone pointing this out? Calling them an idiot. Well done. Real mature, real intellectual, real ingenuous.

Classical crankism... ba dum cha!

Nothing but obfuscation.

Bringing up the Manhattan project is simply dumb. There's no correlation between the two projects. You might as well state: The big bad wolf didn't kill me, so there's no way these teeny-tiny Ebola viruses might be dangerous.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 18 2008, 08:59 AM

If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!