Lhc Danger Revisited !, Large Hardron collider danger

Rudenesses yes, proved the rest?? to me?? .....no...not even close.

As it transits but what about after it is fully past?? how fast then?? after all ....it is known that escape velocity exceeds c

That's a very [good]question, indeed!

You mean you can't answer this question? You can't say why you have embarked on this multi-year crusade? You can't say why you fear group Z might cause the sky to fall when groups W, X, and Y haven't yet? You can't say why a physics story you invented that actual physicists find no more reasonable than a pipe dream should cause you to post thousands of times despite the obviously nebulous foundation they rest on? Perhaps you should spend some time seeking insight into this question since you haven't yet taken my suggestion to learn some particle physics.

I am not a man of deep introspection, but I know why this is a personal issue to me. I believe in freedom, and as the court system will require of Walter Wagner if he ever files suit (less than 12 months to go!), I require a showing of cause before agreeing that the limitation of someones basic freedom is a good idea. Tearing holes in safety assumptions is not showing cause. The only showing cause is proof that your fears are real and quantifiable. This you cannot do, since not even assuming the XLD people are correct about a 14 TeV black hole having a radius of 0.0001 fermi and assuming (as they do not) that Hawking radiation is completely suppressed by an unknown mechanism leads to a disaster scenario.

So while I am personally attached to the concept of liberty, I am not similarly attached to any particular physical theory beyond what experiment has covered. I have explored a lot but can't find anyway to suggest you might be correct. Others have asked you to demonstrate that millions of 14 TeV objects do, in contrast to my calculations, result in worldwide catastrophe. This, in my opinion, would be the best way to convince physicists or in Walter Wagner's case get a relevant expert (also a physicist) to tell the court that such fears are credible.

But the only way a 14 TeV object poses gravitational danger to a planet is if the conservation of angular momentum does not apply and atoms get sucked in in violation of the mechanics which have been well tested at these energies for centuries, and since your doomsday scenario requires 3 assumptions that throw out everything we know of physics since Newton, I cannot imagine any physicist the court will certify as an expert (and I do not volunteer myself) would find credible.

So now you're stating the two collision models are the same? Maybe you also think Trippy is right?

Ever since Newton proved that his theory of Universal Gravitation applied equally well to celestial as terrestrial events, science has been working with the empirically justified concept: there is just one physics.

Trippy also believes this.

Well there's an evasive answer!

I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy.

There's no reason (given) to be offensive. Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth. In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth. But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.

Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you [obfuscate] the truth?

Actually, truth is personally important to me. As there is just one physics, truth in physics is accessible to all. Thus my suggestion that you make an effort to get closer to truth and study physics.

Are you offering me a sponsorship?

I would prefer to spend my limited resources on investments more likely to return benefits to my family and/or people I like. So, the answer is no. Also, I am not gifted in the art of making bribes, and some form of persuasion would probably be needed to enroll you in a relevant program. I am assuming you are at least 30 years old and would be an exceptional admission case. Also, I forget if you stated your residence -- you may not reside near such a university, and relocation costs would be involved. Finally, there is the issue of time. The fall session has already begun and it is not possible to get the coursework done before the argument becomes moot.

Well spoken, as always Rpenner.

Although you, Sir, are entirely too subtle and patient (And here I use 'Sir' with a (goodly) measure of respect).

Oh, and thankyou.

To be honest, I do not expect that any reasonable person would ever expect you to say yes or no to specific numbers without the provisions of full workings (including statements of all assumptions).

I will confess to being surrounded by a see of paper which I could scan, but my writing is oft illegible, my workings are more like notes, and jump from place to place.

.
Hi guys and gals. Haven't much time....

I mention again the common/frequent case of stars collapsing to form NEUTRON STARS.

The inner parts of the former 'normal' star collapses inwards at a significant fraction of lightspeed while the outer parts are exploded outwards

Again, the whole argument on whether or not 'micro' BHs can BE formed AT ALL would be settled....if.....

Someone can explain WHY the SYMMETRICAL/MYRIAD collisions involved in such neutron-star-formation collapse/compression do NOT produce a BH 'every time', because of the 'low net momentum' high-energy particle collisions in such 'largely' SYMMETRICAL cataclysms!

I think that analysing/discussing the neutron-star-formation particle numbers, energy-levels and collision-geometries might provide the OBSERVABLE/LIMITING 'condition/scenario' information that may produce a DEFINITIVE ANSWER that all may agree upon.....simply because the neutron-star 'implosion/explosion' scenario is well studied and NOT subject to 'opinions based on 'esoteric/subjective' theories/speculations.

Cheers, good luck and good discussing everyone!

RC.
.

Just an example to get you guys started, hehehe.....

Consider the untold numbers of high-speed/energy particles heading RADIALLY OUTWARDS from such an event.

Then consider the large numbers of 'ambient' GAMMA RAYS and COSMIC RAYS that were 'incoming' prior to that event.

And THEN consider the number and energy of COLLISIONS BETWEEN all those fast/energetic outgoing 'star explosion' particles, and all those fast/energetic incoming 'prior ambient influx' particles.

HOW MANY 'collisions' would involve the collision-energy-density and low-net-momentum to AT LEAST match the possible LHC maximum collisions energy/momentum profiles?

IF SO, would not practically every neutron star have been 'gobbled up' immediately to become a 'MACRO' Black Hole....such that neutron stars should exist only 'relatively briefly'?

In which case, the question begged becomes: If micro black holes can be 'free-collision-formed' AT ALL; and if they can 'grow' AT ALL....THEN how can we explain the 'relatively long lifetimes' of observed neutron stars......given the large numbers of 'LHC-like' micro-hole forming collisions likely occurring during neutron star formation?

OR are neutron stars a form of 'grey-black hole? hehehe.

Anyhow, you get the idea for discussion!

Go to it, and good luck!

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Oct 30 2007, 11:01 PM

Ok Iam trying to understand the logic, but I don't know if it's just me but the first time I read this I took it that it is possible to create a black hole at the lhc with bad percussions after and my second read through I understood that it should not be possible.. Anyone like to claerify for me please.

thanks

It's not exactly the same kind of black hole generation. Read this, an easy overview: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm

Also this is an easy read: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlig...s_bh/index.html

Finally, this one will be more in-depth: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199

Noone knows if it is possible to form a black hole at the 7 TeV LHC.

Since we have no evidence that they were formed by the 0.2 TeV RHIC, the 0.98 TeV Tevatron or cosmic rays that range up at least 300,000,000 TeV, it seems unlikely.

Even if it is possible to form a gravitationally bound object by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to believe it will be a black hole since conservation of angular momentum and GR theorems about the event horizon do not permit the even horizon to form if the angular momentum is as much as h/4pi.
Even if it is possible to form a black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is every expectation that the result is only metastable, due to a theorem by Hawking which is based on what we do know about space-time and the vacuum.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has more gravity than 14 TeV of mass in any other state.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has an absorbtion cross-section larger than it's geometric cross-section. (Less than 1 nanobarn under the XLD framework. Less than 10^-71 barns in GR.) Therefore it's growth rate will be quite small even at the core of Earth.

Thus, there is no reason to suspect a black hole will form and devour the Earth during the few billion years the sun will be stable and yellow.

Hummm it is also very possible that what would be created is not a Black Hole per-say, but what inhabits the inside of a Black Hole, that would be a 'tachyon sphere' - Particle in this case.

It will disintegrate - quite quickly.....after it appears.

The reason why this is not accepted is the Misuse of light-speed as a final limitation upon time, If Dr. Albert Einstein taught all of us anything, the potential actually lays in c^2

Nice links soundhertz...good reading.

You only say that because you don't understand. Why don't you try looking at it from a different perspective and tell me what you think is wrong with my description found in this post.

This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?

Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?

Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?

Black holes do not bounce.

For one, you think black holes "bounce."

Thanks. You need to work more on the concepts.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 31 2007, 05:03 AM

"...perpendicular to the direction of travel."

Wow.

You mean you can't answer this question?.

For myself, it's easy. I'm trying to save the world from a potential catastrophe. Sure, the odds of it happening might be small, but is that a reason to stop? Perhaps you think NASA should stop making contigency plans for a potential ELE impact?

Whose freedom? The few to affect the many without consent?

So if I build a device that may indeed kill you, and I assure you it won't by virtue of erroneous reasoning, I should be free to proceed? Where's the burden of responsibility?

Again, where's the burden of responsibility?

In a court of law, the test is "reasonable doubt." By showing the safety arguments to be erroneous on basic principles, I feel I've met that standard. Were I to sit on a jury listening to similar arguments, about placing an injunction on potentially dangerous chemical manufacturing, I'd vote to sustain the injunction until a better safety standard can be met.

Nor am I.

You've never tried. You've only argued to the contrary with little regard to the truth of it.

That's just ridiculous. It can't be demonstrated. It can only be hypothesized. Observational evidence does fit my contentions though. You've still to explain why a dark matter galaxy with enough hydrogen to form 100,000,000 stars, can't form even one.

No physiscist would have the guts to do that. It'd be a career ending move, even if he was eventually proven right.

What three assumptions? I'm not the one that predicted black holes can be created in the LHC. I'm not the one that invented the conservation of momentum law. I'm not the only one that that doubts Hawking radiation.

This is an evasion of the question, and you know it. Specifically then, is Trippy right about his collision model? Can black holes bounce? Note: We're talking about a newly forming one in an oxygen atom, not a typical Kerr black hole.

I didn't offend. I merely asked questions. It's your unwillingness to properly answer the questions that causes your misinterpretation.

Show me where Trippy said that.

How so? Dark matter is hypothesized to be just such a gas like substance (WIMPs). "Slow ones" would only be slow relative to the galaxy (not the individual planets and stars where they're hypothetically made). They'd fall into the galactic center (where we find there's a super massive black hole!). Now, isn't that interesting!

Which means you have ignored both observation and fact. Are you really a scientist?

What a cop-out!

Obviously from above, this isn't true. You're spinning your answers so hard that to call them "truth," would only be marginally accurate.

Oh, so it's personal then?

Ridiculous! I'd even be willing to start in the local junior college (where I already have a 4.0 GPA).

Age is irrelevant.

I'm closer than you might imagine.

Cop-out.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Oct 31 2007, 06:32 AM

A true scientific test is to determine if your results are falsifiable. Try arguing it from the other side. If you can't figure out a way to falsify your results, then they are inherently invalid.

No. This isn't even implied, except perhaps in your imagination.

What do you think? And the direction is largely irrelevant.

You're the one that keeps blithering about needles and haystacks.

No duh. Oxygen atoms also don't 'Trundle merrily along minding their own business' either. What's your point?

You take that particular aspect of a narrative, and assume it's a literal truth? You really are funny.

No, I don't. I understand them well enough that I can explain them to people that have little or no physics background.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Oct 31 2007, 06:25 AM