September 11, 2008

Please Just Stop

I have no desire to comment on the turn-on of the LHC and the "controversy" over whether we are all going to die. But to fulfil my community service as a guy who occasionally writes about science, I am honor-bound to do so. Plus I need to vent my frustration at basically anyone acting as though it is somehow an unsettled question. My buddy Dave put it best when mock-reporting that the LHC had, as feared, created a dragon. Depending on your tolerance for watching dead-horse beatings I have given you 3 options, reader.

Long Attention Span: If you are interested in a description of why anyone who seriously thinks there is some danger in turning on the collider, or that doing so somehow amounts to "recreating the big bang," is a complete moron read Backreaction's smack-down.

Medium Attention Span: This is one is just me yelling at you: Black holes would only be created in the case that an extrodinarily unlikely theory, that the universe has LARGE extra-dimensions turns out to be true. Something that is totally speculative and which we have NEVER seen any evidence for. On top of this, the particulars of this theory would have to be just right, which, as far as we can tell from other types of measurements, they are not. If all of this extremely disfavored junk turned out to be true, EVEN THEN they would evaporate in a femptosecond due to Hawking radiation. If they didn't, WHICH THEY WOULD SO THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN WRITING THIS PART, they would be smaller than the nucleus of an atom and travelling at almost the speed of light, so they would never even interact with any normal particles to swallow them up, and would simply fly off into space never to return. And if any of this were possible, it would be happening all the time ALREADY because the cosmic rays bombarding the Earth are equivilent to the collisions that are going to take place, as far as this black hole nonsense is concerned. See how every part of that explaination is rendered moot by the preceding section? Ignoring that many layers of unequivical denounciation for this retarded black hole catastrophe concept means that you should lose the right to ever benefit from science in any way. And if anyone even thinks about uttering the phrase "but anything can happen" I will personally reach through your computer screen and punch you in the eye.

Low Attention Span: Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed the Earth Yet?


JTankers said...

I am equally weary of the argument, but there a compelling argument that safety has not been assured, and a safety conference before high energy collisions begin is worth fighting for.

Scientists predict possible creation of micro black holes possibly at a rate of 1 per second.[1]
Steven Hawking estimates a 1% chance[2] and evaporation is disputed by multiple papers[3][4]. (Dr. Hawkings scientific credibility was recently disputed by Professor Higgs[5]).

Cosmic ray safety arguments are disputed by multiple papers[6][7].

If micro black holes are created by Head-On particle colliders some will travel too slowly to escape Earth's gravity.
CERN's LHC Safety Assessment Group believed in March of 2008 that micro black holes created by cosmic rays would all travel through Earth at nearly the speed of light[8].

Large Hadron Collider safety is currently under challenge and review in American and European courts.[9][10]. CERN is also alleged to censor information on risks involved.[11]

[1] The case for mini black holes, CERN Courier (2004)

[2] Threats Won't Stop Collider, Sep 9, 2008

[3] Do black holes radiate?. Dr. Adam Helfer (2003)

[4], On the existence of black hole evaporationyet again, Prof. VA Belinski (2006)

[5] Peter Higgs launches attack against Nobel rival Stephen Hawking, TimesOnLine, Sep 11, 2008

[6] On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders - Rainer Plaga Rebuttal (2008)

[7] Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rossler (2008)

[8] LHC Safety Assessment Group, 16 Mar 2008

[9] US Federal Lawsuit Filings - Walter L. Wagner (2008)

[10] European Legal Action (2008)


(Ryan) said...

Thank you for cutting and pasting that, troll.

No part of any of that is right. Especially the bit where you say that "scientists" dispute the prevailing view. Not anywhere near correct. No SCIENTISTS do, listing a bunch of "papers" posted to crank sites, (or to the arxiv by people with no affiliation) isn't as convincing as the support of the entire physics community.

JTankers said...

I'm not a troll and you are mistaken.

So who are the scientists?

The most vocal is Professor Dr. Otto Rössler. Dr. Rossler is an award winning theoretical scientist and visiting professor of physics, famous for inventing Chaos Theory's Rössler Attractor and for founding the field of Endophysics.

Another senior scientist is German Physics PHD and astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga.

CERN's safety arguments are based on debunked Hawking Radiation and astrophysics conjectured by particle physicists. Dr. Plaga is an astrophysicists and he believes CERN has not proved safety from slow moving micro black hole creation.

Former cosmic ray researcher, California Math champion, Lawyer and Nuclear Safety Officer Walter L. Wagner is a brilliant mind. He was the first to discover flaws with CERN's cosmic ray safety arguments which CERN's LHC Safety Assessment Group concurred with in March of 2008.

Slow moving micro black holes created by head-on particle colliders may be captured by Earth's gravity while cosmic ray created micro black holes would travel too fast.

Other PHD level scientists have expressed concerns both publicly and privately.

(Ryan) said...

Searching out blogs that you don't normally read to post long, pre-written comments with references to papers posted to crank websites makes you a troll.

It is always possible to find people with PhD's who believe crazy things. They said the same nonsense about the RHIC. And we'll see who's right when the world fails to implode.

stefan said...

Mr Tankersley,

with all due respect, you are a troll, because you consistenly and completely ignore all refutations of the so-called "arguments" you are proposing.

Plaga's paper is inconsistent with Roessler's, and it is wrong due to incorrect maths, as remarked by Giddings and Mangano.

Roessler is, as far as his understanding of General Relativity is concerned, not different from the average Einstein-debunking crackpot, it's just that most reports are to polite to spell that out.

As you don't want to hear that and prefer keeping on repeating the same nonsensical lore since more than half a year, you fulfill essential criteria to be called a troll.

JTankers said...

The attacks on CERN's critics are self serving and dishonest in my opinion.

Dr. Rössler does not refute Dr. Einstein, unlike CERN's Dr. Ellis who supports Hawking Radiation apparently including the original debunked anti-matter as anti-energy and time reversal conjecture. Pseudo science to argue world safety?

Even if other arguments are used such as tunneling to argue for evaporation, how is that consistent with recent predictions that space may be filled with dark energy? The arguments for evaporation have evaporated I think, and Reverse Hawking Radiation appears plausible (which would cause stable rapid mBH growth I might add).

Dr. Rössler re-examined Dr. Einstein's theories and found elegant insight previously overlooked (such as black holes never reach infinite density, time approaches a stop as infinite density is approached). Dr. Rössler's work with Chaos theory is still used today, his Rössler Attractor is considered the most elegant and simple solution.

Dr. Plaga is inconsistent with Dr. Rössler just as Dr. Hawking is inconsistent with Professor Higgs (who very recently very publicly challenged Dr. Hawking's scientific credibility).

Senior astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga congratulated the excellent work CERN's particle physicists did with most of their safety report, but refutes some cosmological assumptions and concludes that safety has not been proven.

Dr. Plaga proposed feasible risk mitigation measures including slowing down. Why is CERN speeding up, how is that respectful of the concerns of other scientists?

I find compelling and agree with the UK Telegraph article "We must be wary of scientific research" By Gerald Warner:

"International law needs to wake up to the scientific challenges of the 21st century. Scientists are now dealing with forces so potentially destructive they cannot be allowed to exercise their discretion. Decisions to proceed with certain types of research should not be taken within the magic circle of "the academy", where the presumption is always in favour of enhancing knowledge rather than taking precautions. We need an international authority, dominated by laymen but with access to expert technical opinion. The precautionary principle should prevail."

(Ryan) said...

Well put Stefan. Thanks for reading that dreck so the rest of us don't have to.