Scientists may destroy the Earth in 2008 - Reprive, you now have until next year

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I would disagree with this. Things are usually covered better when it is at the fore front of peoples life. To say it is being better looked at because the populace doesn't know about it is backward in my opinion. At least when people are aware of something there is more debate about it.

When there's more coverage, what you have is myriad uninformed people discussing things they know nothing about, and wasting the time of those who are qualified to handle things. Instead of actually finding answers, the scientists spend their time dreaming up ways to assuage the fears of an irrational public using "common sense" analogies. On the other hand, a different bunch of scientists spend their time trumping up remote possibilities as "dangers" in order to get their names out in the public light.

In the end, we get left with a scientific problem being turned into nothing more than a battle that caters to the lowest common denominator. Who can come up with the more exciting/scary/compelling story that will appeal to the masses? That's who wins. For reference, see "Kyoto" as a prime example.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

For reference, see "Kyoto" as a prime example.

Yes and no. Look at all the Kyoto threads how everyone claims that 99% of the scientists say Global warming is caused by humans when the facts only show there is global warming. It works both ways.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Anything that has the chance of destroying the entire universe shouldn't be tried. Period.

Explains a lot of the danger involved with traditional Scottish cuisine and, for that matter, beverages as well.

[Cube Inmate]

Actually I was referring to the fact that the Kyoto debate has become so prominent and publicized that it's no longer about science, even to the scientists. When that happens, logic goes out the window...never a good thing.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Well the public needs to be aware. How many times have we seen things in the past go eyed because there wasn't enough debate and research done. I am not sayin we shouldn't do it I am saying more research and debate is needed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because I can't assess the risk means I can't question it? Come on now.

I didn't say you couldn't question if enough research has been done, I just said that you (and I) aren't in a position to judge if in fact enough has been done or not.

What research exactly are you questioning, and what else would you like to see done?

Yes and no. Scientific American it is not like Poplular Science. Many qualified and verified studies are posted in it (always as brief summaries however). And that is not the only source of information I use.

They also have some stuff that isn't really good science.. I didn't say they were like PopSci, I said they were more towards that end of the scale.

I would disagree with this. Things are usually covered better when it is at the fore front of peoples life. To say it is being better looked at because the populace doesn't know about it is backward in my opinion. At least when people are aware of something there is more debate about it.

Lol, science things aren't "covered better" under any circumstance at all; media does a horrible job of covering science. I wouldn't trust them to represent issues I disagree OR agree with properly.

Plus it's not like this is being kept secret or anything, I've already seen it all over the media for years. What exactly are you expecting? A global vote? That'd be silly.

Agreed, and there are scientists that do not agree that we should be charging ahead so fast with this.

So what, there are scientists that disagree with everything. That doesn't mean the disagreements have any merit.

You can't make this statement because we don't know. It could happen on the first try. No waiting required.

Like I said we may not "know", but I think you are misusing the word "know". We never know until something is done, and even then we never know, we only have strong suspicions. We don't know gravity will work tomorrow, but we're pretty sure. Likewise we don't know exactly what will happen, but we have mountains of evidence of previous similar experiments at lower energies, plus our theory predictions, observations of similar things in the universe, etc etc etc.

That is the problem....it is throwing the dice. All I am saying is maybe we should be sure that it wont happen.

That's impossible. Like I said if you only ever took a step knowing exactly how that would go, there would be no steps to take.

Come on now. No scientist predicted the world would be destroyed with one nuclear explosion.

Actually there were, one of the guys on the Manhattan Project himself speculated that the earth's crust would be cracked by the bomb.

What we are dealing with now is much more complex and dangerous than playing with fire.

Ah, oh so easy to say in hindsight when your understanding far surpasses that at the time.

As for a new plague, yes, it may kill all humans, but a plague could not destroy the solar system.

Again easy to say now when you understand how these things work now, standing on the shoulders of thousands of years of science in your head.

So what exactly would you like to see that would assure you?

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well the public needs to be aware. How many times have we seen things in the past go eyed because there wasn't enough debate and research done. I am not sayin we shouldn't do it I am saying more research and debate is needed.

The public is aware, it's not like this has been kept secret.

What research exactly are you pointing to that isn't sufficient? How much debate has been done that you say it isn't sufficient?

[McG]

i gotta be honest...i'm not a fan of tampering with the space time continuum.

i feel like i posted this last week.

coincidence?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't say you couldn't question if enough research has been done, I just said that you (and I) aren't in a position to judge if in fact enough has been done or not.

Go back and see what you posted about that because that is exactly what you were suggesting.

What research exactly are you questioning, and what else would you like to see done?

I am not questioning any research, infact I have said the research speaks for itself. All the scientists believe that these particle and black holes will appear, the question is will they go away.

More work needs to be done on the theories reguarding the behavior of these black holes and if infact there is such a thing as Hawkings Radiation....because that theory suggests that is the only thing keeping these black holes from becoming stable.

Lol, science things aren't "covered better" under any circumstance at all; media does a horrible job of covering science. I wouldn't trust them to represent issues I disagree OR agree with properly.

We aren't talking about a simple science experiment here. THis is something that can effect everyone of us. This is the point that you are not getting. Why is it that the populace can decide on human cloning and such but we really have no say in an experiment that may destroy the solar system?

Plus it's not like this is being kept secret or anything, I've already seen it all over the media for years. What exactly are you expecting? A global vote? That'd be silly.

I have been watching this for a while aswell, the problem is most people don't go out of their way to educate themselves and most people don't know about this experiment.

So what, there are scientists that disagree with everything. That doesn't mean the disagreements have any merit.

So on one hand you say the scientists that are conducting this experiment can rely on theories to suggest it is safe but the other scientists that rely on theory to suggest it isn't safe have no merit?

Like I said we may not "know", but I think you are misusing the word "know". We never know until something is done, and even then we never know, we only have strong suspicions. We don't know gravity will work tomorrow, but we're pretty sure. Likewise we don't know exactly what will happen, but we have mountains of evidence of previous similar experiments at lower energies, plus our theory predictions, observations of similar things in the universe, etc etc etc.

Again this isn;t a simple science experiment that might blow up in someones face. It has the potential to destroy everything. You are ok with keeping the status quo on it? I am not.

That's impossible. Like I said if you only ever took a step knowing exactly how that would go, there would be no steps to take.

Ok, whatever. That is not the case at all.

Actually there were, one of the guys on the Manhattan Project himself speculated that the earth's crust would be cracked by the bomb.

You are comparing one guy to the many scientists in this case? Not to mention as I have said before, all the scientists basically say it is possible for that to happen they just think the odds are really low. But lets charge ahead, it is only the solar system at stake.

Ah, oh so easy to say in hindsight when your understanding far surpasses that at the time.

You are really being a goof here man. Regardless of the time period....fire doesn't quite do as much damage as a black hole......this is where you just cannot comprehend.

Again easy to say now when you understand how these things work now, standing on the shoulders of thousands of years of science in your head.

WHAT? I just said that it is dangerous and could kill everyone, but it is limited to the biosphere of the planet not the entire solar system. Why can you not comprehend this? You are comparing apples to oranges.

So what exactly would you like to see that would assure you?

Is the value of information gained through this experiment out weigh the possible destruction of every human being? I suggest not. Yes, they are trying to establish a deeper understanding of the universe and no doubt we will benifit from these experiments if it doesn't destroy us.

The question is, why can these experiments not wait until we have more understanding and perhaps a safer location to test it....such as space. If this were done in space, we wouldn't have to worry as much if something did go wrong. If a micro black hole was created it would not near the amount of material to feed itself as it would on earth. I big problem is if it were created on earth it would fall to the core grabbing everyting along the way. Same idea with strange matter.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

First off I just want to say I am not a physicist nor have I had any academic training in physics. I do however read a lot of articles on physics. So much that my friends throw my scientific america into the camp fire when we are camping. Any how, yes we do have good theories, but that is all they are theories. And we also have several theories that go against each other not like you are suggesting that they all agree with each other.

The term "theory" is often misunderstood. In the common parlance, people equate it to something like a hunch. To a scientist, the term has a much different meaning.

People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence. - Dawkins

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

The term "theory" is often misunderstood. In the common parlance, people equate it to something like a hunch. To a scientist, the term has a much different meaning.

Yes I am aware of that, and I think my post would suggest that aswell.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes I am aware of that, and I think my post would suggest that aswell.

No, you seem to be saying one theory is as good as another.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

No, you seem to be saying one theory is as good as another.

Thats not what I said at all. Infact you seem to suggest that theories mean something totally different to scientists than the common person so I could see how you may be suggesting that.

[MarchHare]

As long as the experiment doesn't result in a resonance cascade scenario in the test chamber, we have nothing to worry about.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As long as the experiment doesn't result in a resonance cascade scenario in the test chamber, we have nothing to worry about.

Half life?

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am not questioning any research, infact I have said the research speaks for itself. All the scientists believe that these particle and black holes will appear, the question is will they go away.

More work needs to be done on the theories regarding the behavior of these black holes and if infact there is such a thing as Hawkings Radiation....because that theory suggests that is the only thing keeping these black holes from becoming stable.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Really? All the scientists involve expect the creation of black holes most believe they will disipate before they become stable. It is pretty risky business when they really have no clue what will happen.

Man, you are arguing from a flawed position... This is what the entry says: "Though the standard model predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some nonstandard theories lower the requirements, and predict that the Large Hadron Collider will create tiny black holes [8][9]."

That means that the VAST majority of scientists believe that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes. These are all things that theoretically could possibly happen... most scientists believe none of them are likely.

Also, in regards to Hawking Radiation, you are not going to have someone disprove it. By far the leading authority on Black Holes is Stephen Hawking... he is the best and has written and rewritten almost all of the theories relating to Black Holes.


Also:

Honestly, given what we stand to learn from the experiment and the astronomically small chance of disaster... I say please go ahead, I am eager to learn what the results will be. Could change our whole understanding of life, the universe... everything.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well the public needs to be aware. How many times have we seen things in the past go eyed because there wasn't enough debate and research done. I am not sayin we shouldn't do it I am saying more research and debate is needed.

I'm with photon here, you are totally over reacting.

This armagedden is only putting pieces of theory together.

What if I said that the world is coming to an end, because too many people are dying? You see, the more people that die, the bigger Hell will have to expand. However, the only way you can have matter going to hell is if energy is turning into mass... so you have all this energy getting turned into mass... now how many people are dying a day?

Hell is actually freezing over... the public has to know...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I'm with photon here, you are totally over reacting.

This armagedden is only putting pieces of theory together.

What if I said that the world is coming to an end, because too many people are dying? You see, the more people that die, the bigger Hell will have to expand. However, the only way you can have matter going to hell is if energy is turning into mass... so you have all this energy getting turned into mass... now how many people are dying a day?

Hell is actually freezing over... the public has to know...

For real man???? "shake my head"

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Nehkara;1025694]Man, you are arguing from a flawed position... This is what the entry says: "Though the standard model predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some nonstandard theories lower the requirements, and predict that the Large Hadron Collider will create tiny black holes [8][9]."

That means that the VAST majority of scientists believe that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes. These are all things that theoretically could possibly happen... most scientists believe none of them are likely.

And that is what I have said in my previous posts.

Also, in regards to Hawking Radiation, you are not going to have someone disprove it. By far the leading authority on Black Holes is Stephen Hawking... he is the best and has written and rewritten almost all of the theories relating to Black Holes.

Probably true for the near future, but you are saying that what ever he suggests is truth and that is not correct.

Honestly, given what we stand to learn from the experiment and the astronomically small chance of disaster... I say please go ahead, I am eager to learn what the results will be. Could change our whole understanding of life, the universe... everything.

Look, like I said before, I am all for scientific advancement, and to be honest I really hope that any of these possible outcomes never happen, but it can't be ruled out and the only reason this is a concern to me is because it would be the end of the end.

Yes, it is a small chance, very small, but how many times are we told that something is so small of a chance of happening yet it happens. A lot.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Go back and see what you posted about that because that is exactly what you were suggesting.

No, it isn't. There's a difference.

I am not questioning any research, infact I have said the research speaks for itself. All the scientists believe that these particle and black holes will appear, the question is will they go away.

They all do eh? Where's that? Your quote itself says the major theory predicts the energies are too low to create black holes, and only some nonstandard theories lower the energy requirements that it might be possible. It's even more absurd because those theories that predict that black holes will be made also predict that those black holes would be harmless, yet the media takes only one part of the theory to write their fear stories.

In fact, if that's the case, there are enough high energy cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere that if the LHC can make black holes, then cosmic rays are making 100 black holes a year. Nothing's happened in 4.5 billion years so far.

More work needs to be done on the theories reguarding the behavior of these black holes and if infact there is such a thing as Hawkings Radiation....because that theory suggests that is the only thing keeping these black holes from becoming stable.

Our most proven theory predicts that quantum black holes are unstable, not because of hawking radiation but because there's no conservation law to forbid their decay, so they have to decay, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't valid. This is a pretty safe bet.

We aren't talking about a simple science experiment here. THis is something that can effect everyone of us. This is the point that you are not getting. Why is it that the populace can decide on human cloning and such but we really have no say in an experiment that may destroy the solar system?

People do have a say! It's not like this is a private venture, lots of governments are involved. Canada has contributed to it, who have you written in government to express your views?

So on one hand you say the scientists that are conducting this experiment can rely on theories to suggest it is safe but the other scientists that rely on theory to suggest it isn't safe have no merit?

I have a theory that the LHC will produce chocolate. Does that have merit? Of course not. There's nothing to support it.

You know how science works, if a scientists had objections based on real science they would be heard and listened to.

Again this isn;t a simple science experiment that might blow up in someones face. It has the potential to destroy everything. You are ok with keeping the status quo on it? I am not.

Just because you SAY it has the potential to destroy everything does not make it so.

Have you read the report that they put out in 2003 addressing all of these issues?

Ok, whatever. That is not the case at all.

Tell me which discoveries have been made, which experiments that produced new knowledge, that have been done with a complete foreknowledge of the outcome. Maybe just one? Of course not, otherwise why would the experiment be done in the first place!

All experiments by definition are testing the unknown and don't have a known outcome, even if they're just testing something for the millionth time.

You are comparing one guy to the many scientists in this case?

I just gave one example. Another with the nuclear bomb: there was a fear that it would "ignite" the atmosphere. Oppenheimer ordered a study, and the conclusion was that it should cool down fast enough that nitrogen-14 fusion won't occur. And it didn't. But they didn't know for sure. They gave it the same chance as this destroying the earth: "essentially zero".

And who are the "many scientists"? Do you have a list?

Not to mention as I have said before, all the scientists basically say it is possible for that to happen they just think the odds are really low. But lets charge ahead, it is only the solar system at stake.

All scientists say it's possible because they adhere to the tenants of science. All scientists would also say it's possible gravity won't work tomorrow. In reality there's no evidence of the cavalier attitude that you attribute to them.

You are really being a goof here man. Regardless of the time period....fire doesn't quite do as much damage as a black hole......this is where you just cannot comprehend.

No, you aren't getting what I am saying. I am not comparing fire to smashing particles together, I'm comparing things that are unknown. If you have no knowledge of fire, how do you know dirt doesn't burn?? Maybe it does! Maybe drop the fire once and poof! the whole planet goes up in smoke! Maybe space burns too? Before testing the unknown, you cannot know all the risks, by definition.

My point with that is that any new science is risky, and that without this risk we'd still be in the jungles.

WHAT? I just said that it is dangerous and could kill everyone, but it is limited to the biosphere of the planet not the entire solar system. Why can you not comprehend this? You are comparing apples to oranges.

No, you're just missing the point of what I'm comparing. See above.

BTW, exactly how is the LHC supposed to destroy the solar system? That's a lot of energy to create.

Is the value of information gained through this experiment out weigh the possible destruction of every human being? I suggest not. Yes, they are trying to establish a deeper understanding of the universe and no doubt we will benifit from these experiments if it doesn't destroy us.

You're assuming the destruction of every human being is possible in this experiment and then basing your risk assessment on that, when that hasn't been sufficiently argued. The logic is flawed. First you have to establish that the destruction is a possibility worth looking at.

The question is, why can these experiments not wait until we have more understanding and perhaps a safer location to test it....such as space.

We can't advance our understanding without it. Physics is pretty much at an impasse, and this experiment could be key in moving things forward. Or telling us which experiment we need to do next. You'll be glad to know though that if that next experiment is needed, the energies required will be high enough that it'll be probably hundreds of years before we can do it.

If this were done in space, we wouldn't have to worry as much if something did go wrong. If a micro black hole was created it would not near the amount of material to feed itself as it would on earth.

It doesn't matter, the thing would be going relativistic speeds in a random direction, no matter where we put it it could come straight for us.

I big problem is if it were created on earth it would fall to the core grabbing everyting along the way. Same idea with strange matter.

So what if it does? If stable quantum black holes exist (which go against the standard model), there's probably already a bunch down there! So they eat an iron atom every once in a while, so what?

This is silly... How big would a quantum black hole be? 10^-54m? How much bigger is a single atomic nucleus? 1 with 35 zeroes behind it times as big. A SINGLE atomic nucleus.

Gravity is weak, at that scale the quantum black hole won't eat anything by attracting it, it'll rely on random collisions with particles. With that scale of difference, it'll hardly ever even meet a particle to consume.

Plus the black hole will be going VERY fast, much faster than escape velocity. It would not encounter enough particles on it's way through the earth to slow it enough to stop it from exiting the solar system, let alone stay around and eat the earth.

The sun (and probably the universe) will have died before they grow enough to be a problem.

http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333

I'm far more worried about a super nova wiping out all life than this being an issue; at least we have scientific data that shows that's an eventuality.

I'll re-ask a few of my questions. What exactly would you like to see happen in this case? What things should be done? What risks in your mind have not been studied and addressed? Who are the scientists that are against this, and what papers have they written to support their objections?