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

It's dependent on the size of the bosenova. Just for starters, there might be a need for the U.S. to provide humanitarian aid.

Then of course there are all the sons and daughters of U.S. citizens in the area...

Refrigerators don't explode on a quantum level.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 30 2008, 08:12 AM

Or, the conditions for a bosenova haven't been met ...yet.

1. It's a magnetic interaction, Helium is non-magnetic.
2. There is no documented evidence of a bosenova in liquid helium.
3. It requires very, very special circumstances to occur.
4. It requires temperatures very much lower then those at the LHC.
5. They've been circulating the liquid helium around the magnets for a number of weeks now, with the magnets having cooled down to operating temperature for a number of weeks and...

STILL NO FREAKING BOSENOVA

You're positing that something that something that has never happened, even though it's had ample opportunity to happen, but can only really happen under very specific circumstances, which simply are not present (and has been able to to happen for a number of weeks, but hasn't), is going to pose a serious physical danger to anyone.

Or, the judge might perceive the validity of their arguments...

As I said, it's not likely, but it can't be completely ruled out.

Yes, it can.

Oh, so now you think you know all there is to know about bosenovas? Get real.

Well, it's a complete mistake to assume that a phenomenon first observed in 1999 would remain unexplained as time goes on.

The hottest atoms in what you characterize as an explosion have a temperature of the order of 0.0000001 K. There is no nuclear reaction at all.

http://jilawww.colorado.edu/pubs/thesis/mi...tein_thesis.pdf (2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0609417v2 (2007)

Simply put, Helium-II is too warm (1.9 K), too dense, and too strongly interacting for Bosenova theory to apply. In addition, the trapping of helium is not magnetic, is not a well with a Feshbach resonance, but gravitational. It is not a gas, but a liquid.

http://www.thch.uni-bonn.de/tc/people/brem...t_feshbach.html

The best reference you provided essentially states bosenova theory and bosenova experiments don't correlate!

As I said, it's not likely, but it can't be completely ruled out.



This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 30 2008, 08:53 AM

One wonders what argument they are going to use for not counting. Even I know more about federal civil procedure than they demonstrate. The hearing to dismiss isn't about their physics arguments. It's about the basic question "do Wagner and Sancho have a right to pursue their case against these parties in this Hawaiian court at this time?"

The DOE has argued:
1) No -- this court is not appropriate -- Hawaii is simply not LHC-central, DOE-central, NSF Physics-central, etc.
2) No -- this action is too late -- since Wagner has been on about this for years and his arguments based on ignorance have been getting weaker with time, why the hell didn't he sue earlier?
3) No -- some of these parties aren't parties or people - they are buildings. (You can sue a State, since it has a government -- you can't sue GPS coordinates.)
4) No -- they gave up that right when they failed to respond to the government's request to dismiss by the federal standard deadline. These aren't negotiation deadlines, these are court procedural deadlines which Wagner has relied upon to protect himself. But then he completely ignores deadlines and filings, which I in California have ready access to.

The Swiss ambassador (actually the Cd'A) argues additionally, that they failed to even serve papers legally on CERN, an international organization with diplomatic immunity from the Swiss legal process.

Bruce Strauss argues that Wagner lacks standing as a expert in any relevant field and that Wagner files no evidence that supports any of his claims. Wagner bases his entire case on the filings of the Government, claiming they say things which no one else sees.

No, that's not what I'm claiming, and for you to imply it is a falsehood, and a strawman.

I am saying that I understand enough about it to be able to see that the conditions in the LHC, as Rpenner has pointed out, are simply wrong (for example, every bosenova has been at far lower temperatures, and in a diffuse gas, not a dense liquid).

I also know Helium-4 is non-magnetic, and has been pointed out to you multiple times, it's a magnetic interaction.

Another point that you miss is that the researchers that did it the first time were looking for that particular interaction - they did it deliberately, it wasn't an accident.

Get real.

I think you should be more concerned with spontaneously morphing into a pink elephant, or a lump of concrete, as these outcomes are infinitely more likely.

...... or infinitely less probable - a guy with a brain.

So What?

Still at my conference...

You never provide peer reviewed references. You occasionally link to a BBC article or wiki entry, but that is not good enough. You are lying when you say you've provided references.

You presume incorrectly.

So what BBC article are you talking about then? It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse so as to avoid discussing proper physics. Carry on doing that as much as you like.

We were talking about the safety of the LHC the last time I checked the topic of this thread. Are you talking about these questions:

[1] what does a divergence look like? What do you mean by "map a cone intrinsically?"
[2] Do you understand what a vector is or did you just use the word to make your posting sound a bit more technical?
[3] [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?"
[4] 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?

[1] You asked me about how Hawking radiation particles get on shell. I posted an explanation which included a link to this: User posted image: User posted image. You said this "looks like a divergence." What is it about that picture makes you think it looks like a divergence? You've repeatedly talked about mapping a cone intrinsically. Please explain it in more detail.

[2] You said "all vectors end at the singularity." The word vector is a mathematical word that has a specific meaning. Do you understand what it is?

[3] If CP symmetry breaking also breaks conservation of energy, as you have repeatedly claimed, then there must be a way that CP symmetry breaking also breaks invariance under time translations. Please explain how this happens.

[4] This post is my response to your initial 8 accusations of straw man arguments. I was wondering why you seem to be using a phrase that you patently don't understand.

Hmm, perhaps I was mislead. Already the names of the plaintiffs are likely known, and already the ECHR has taken decisive action.

Ludmila Carone reports that this case was initiated by Enrico Pellegrino, Dominik Schmitt and perhaps Otto Rössler.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/planeten/2008/08/bin-ich-bose.php
http://www.nzz.ch/magazin/dossiers/cern_me...f_1.818130.html

The ECHR denied the request for an injunction, and so the case proceeds at the ordinary pace of the ECHR.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/320/308267/text/
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wissen/technik.../story/15796318
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Co...00&ty=nd&sb=red
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39132/113/


Finally, someone at CERN explains what everyone who knows GR sees in Rössler's work. It's not close to correct.

http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/en...iComment-en.pdf
http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/en...rComment-en.pdf

This post has been edited by rpenner on Aug 30 2008, 08:18 PM