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

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

So you're saying that probabilities aren't valid?

Speak in real numbers. Give an example with numbers of this small chance thing that happens a lot please.

[jolinar of malkshor]

This paper explains the nature of the difficulties, and reviews the proposals that have been put forward to deal with them. None of the proposals put forward can so far be considered to be really successful, and simple dimensional arguments show that quantum-gravitational effects might well alter the evaporation process outlined by Hawking. Thus a definitive theoretical treatment will require an understanding of quantum gravity in at least some regimes. Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.
The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of "mini" black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042
click PDF to read article

V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole," Physics Letters A 209(1) (1995) pp. 13-20.
Asserts that Hawking radiation does not exist.

For a limited range of parameters, stable strange quark matter may be negatively charged in bulk due to one gluon exchange interactions. However, the reduction in strange quark occupation in the surface layer, which is responsible for surface tension, more than compensates this for intermediate mass strangelets, which therefore always have positive quark charge (e.g. for baryon number between 10^2 and 10^{18} assuming alpha_S=0.9). While details are sensitive to the choice of renormalisation, the general conclusion is not. This rules out a scenario where negatively charged strangelets produced in ultrarelativistic heavy ion colliders might grow indefinitely with potentially disastrous consequences.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0008217v3

Martin Rees, Our Final Hour, (Basic Books, 2003).
Sir Martin Rees is England's Astronomer Royal. The book is a good read; Sir Martin is a good writer. His warning about colliders (pp. 119-129) parallels that of this website. He mentions the new multidimensional string theories, and points out how cosmic rays collisions are not exactly equivalent to collider collisions. He is very good on the philosophical implications. He does miss one point. He assumes Hawking radiation will work, and therefore estimates the probability of trouble from mini black holes as lower than we might. He focuses concern on other potential collider products. The book is an excellent review of humanity's hazards and opportunities on a universal scale.

Tom Atlee, "What Happens When Science Collides With Citizenship At The Speed Of Light?" Co-Intelligence Institute (1999) This article speaks to the ethics and the appropriate political organization of decisions to proceed with potentially dangerous science, and suggests political forms to address these problems. Skim past the outdated articles about RHIC and read the section titled "So now for a bit of reflection." The author is a member of the Co-Intelligence Institute, which is concerned with the problem of how democracies can address issues of scientific risk. Their website is at www.co-intelligence.org. Go there
They propose organizing a sort of jury or town meeting or focus group of representative citizens to consider each issue of scientific risk. They also endorse a "precautionary principle" which is also advocated by others. We should note that we at this website do not necessarily endorse their approach. We hope that scientists will do good things voluntarily, but if necessary conjecture that these issues might better be addressed by a body with the authority of a global treaty and/or of an international commission. However, we can see town meetings as part of the process, to give citizens a voice. Also, given the present absence of a more formal structure, town meetings might work to raise awareness of the issue. In fact, this website is an attempt to facilitate a conversation that has some resemblance to a town meeting. All the world can be thought of as a town meeting. Readers are encouraged to speak up, here or elsewhere.


If the scale of quantum gravity is near TeV, the CERN Large Hadron Collider will be producing one black hole (BH) about every second. The decays of the BHs into the final states with prompt, hard photons, electrons, or muons provide a clean signature with low background. The correlation between the BH mass and its temperature, deduced from the energy spectrum of the decay products, can test Hawking’s evaporation law and determine the number of large new dimensions and the scale of quantum gravity.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i16/e161602

Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Georgi Dvall; "The Universe's Unseen Dimensions," Scientific American, Aug 2000. Pages 62-69.
This paper develops a theory that the multiple dimensions which string theory postulates to be visible on very small scales, may be visible on somewhat larger scales. The motivation is to unify gravity with other forces that are much stronger. The authors state (on page 62) "If the theory is correct, upcoming high-energy particle experiments in Europe could see unusual processes involving quantum gravity, such as the creation of transitory micro black holes." Our concern is that they might not be transitory. This paper is not available on the Internet.

CERN scientists obviously talk of the scientific wonders and benefits these experiments will bring. Aurélien Barrau and Julien Grain speaking on behalf of CERN say that these "tiny black holes could offer a richer view of physics than their better known, more massive relations … It should be stated … that these black holes are not dangerous and do not threaten to swallow up our already much-abused planet." When it was finally disclosed that this facility would actually be producing, during normal high-impact collider experiments, one black hole each and every second, numerous scientists cautioned that a public risk-assessment by non-affiliated scientists must be conducted for the CERN facility but not by the CERN scientists or the French government. To this very day the French have refused to make such an assessment of the potential dangers that lay ahead for all of humanity once the switch is finally pulled.

[jolinar of malkshor]

. Black holes have been created by cosmic rays without incident; therefore black holes are not a danger to the planet earth.

Response A. No instrumentation or observations have ever detected the formation of black holes in the atmosphere; It is a completely unsubstantiated theory that was fabricated solely to defend the building of CERN. 1,600 hot-tub-size cosmic-ray detectors positioned over a vast area of nearly twelve hundred square miles (the ground array system for the Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory) were installed in the Pampa Amarilla in Argentina, located at the edge of the town of Malargue, in an effort to detect particle showers from disintegrations of microscopic black holes in the atmosphere. To-date this experiment has detected numerous cosmic-ray air showers, (the observatory is presently measuring more than 500 air showers each and every day) but has failed to detect any black holes spawned by cosmic rays. Since this controversial theory is the backbone to the supposed safety of the CERN black hole factory, startup should not be allowed to occur under any circumstances until the Auger Observatory can prove that harmless atmospheric black holes actually exist.

Response B. Even if a black hole could be formed by cosmic rays striking atmospheric particles, it would be a glancing blow at near the speed of light, causing the resultant mass to careen off into space at a velocity much greater than the escape velocity of the earth (11.2 km/s).

While, in contrast, the CERN particles would be striking each other as in a head-on collision, causing the resultant black holes to lose their momentum; making them unable to reach escape velocity; causing them to immediately free-fall, undetected, to the center of the earth.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The black holes CERN creates will not be stable. “Black hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal process”. They will be unstable and will evaporate in a flash as predicted by Stephen Hawking in 1975. The CERN facility was built under the assumption that Hawking radiation was a fact and that the black holes they would automatically create would be unstable and therefore not be a threat to the human race and the planet upon which we reside.

Response A. No instrumentation or observations have ever detected the Hawking radiation being emitted from any black hole. Kip S. Thorne, a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, who has been working on evaporation with Hawking, says: “It’s possible, we understand quantum fields far less that what we believe and it’s a mistake when we think black holes evaporate. It is however true that we should feel more in ease if astronomers could effectively observe clues of black holes evaporation”.

Response B. Black holes by their very definition are stable: Nothing escapes their gravitational pull. And that includes radiation.

Response C. In Dublin Ireland on July 21 2004, Stephen Hawking, at the age of 62, retracted his original 1975 concept whereby matter disappearing into black holes traveled through the black hole to a new parallel universe – just like on Star Trek! After 30 years of thinking about the paradox he created, that violated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Stephen Hawking now admits that he was wrong about the dynamics of black holes. Stephen Hawking went on to say; “I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes.” Hawking’s original theory was more of a personal view, a hunch, which was not necessarily shared by the scientific community or even demonstrated by any cosmic observations. But CERN still looks upon it as the Holy Grail to this very day, even after Hawking admitted that his theory was wrong. Hawking radiation has always been a purely theoretical manifestation. There are many published papers by prominent scientists who have always asserted that such radiation does not exist. CERN, by doggedly relying on false science, could easily end up being the mega-industrial accident that wipes out the entire world.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Hawking, at the age of 33, published his most famous scientific paper in 1975 – that all black holes were unstable and would emit radiation. In effect, the black hole's energy was slowly radiated away until after a certain amount of time, depending on its mass, it ceases to exist – the black hole ‘evaporates’. He based his theory on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – that entropy affected all matter in the universe while at the same time it violated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The paradox lie in his argument that objects really “disappeared” inside a black hole and left no trace, while the 1st Law of Thermodynamics says matter can be transformed but never fully destroyed.

Hawking argued by inference that the 1st Law was wrong while the 2nd law was correct – an obvious untenable paradox.

A colleague of Stephen Hawking at Cambridge University, Gary Gibbons, stated that "His style of doing science is quite dramatic. Hawking will propose a thesis and defend it to the last, until it is overthrown by better reasoning." For thirty years Hawking defended a poorly reasoned idea.

Shall I continue?

All I am saying is maybe we should think about this a little more before we hit the start switch.

[Cube Inmate]

Well... how can you argue with posts and posts of information? I can't, so I'll just ask you a simple question to gauge your mindset, JoM: do you personally believe that the operation of the LHC WILL cause dangerous consequences?

[jolinar of malkshor]

I really don't know, probably not....most likely not.....but when we are dealing with such a dire consequence I think more discussion should be done, more research. This is serious stuff we are dealing with here.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

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

Does this mean Vancouver is going to win the cup?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Shall I continue?

Yes

I honestly can't believe this conversation has become as serious as it is. My god...

So, uh, how much more research do you suggest?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Yes

I honestly can't believe this conversation has become as serious as it is. My god...

Why dont you contribute something worth while instead of your lame remarks?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Why dont you contribute something worth while instead of your lame remarks?

Ok, why don't you give me the 101 on particle accelerators, and how much more research they have to do before its deemed "safe"

Watching the scientist argue with the armegeddonist is just amusing, thats all.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Ok, why don't you give me the 101 on particle accelerators

A Particle Accelerator

Did you know that you have a type of particle accelerator in your house right now? In fact, you are probably reading this article with one! The cathode ray tube (CRT) of any TV or computer monitor is really a particle accelerator.





The CRT takes particles (electrons) from the cathode, speeds them up and changes their direction using electromagnets in a vacuum and then smashes them into phosphor molecules on the screen. The collision results in a lighted spot, or pixel, on your TV or computer monitor.
A particle accelerator works the same way, except that they are much bigger, the particles move much faster (near the speed of light) and the collision results in more subatomic particles and various types of nuclear radiation. Particles are accelerated by electromagnetic waves inside the device, in much the same way as a surfer gets pushed along by the wave. The more energetic we can make the particles, the better we can see the structure of matter. It's like breaking the rack in a billiards game. When the cue ball (energized particle) speeds up, it receives more energy and so can better scatter the rack of balls (release more particles).
Particle accelerators come in two basic types:

• Linear - Particles travel down a long, straight track and collide with the target.
• Circular - Particles travel around in a circle until they collide with the target.

In linear accelerators, particles travel in a vacuum down a long, copper tube. The electrons ride waves made by wave generators called klystrons. Electromagnets keep the particles confined in a narrow beam. When the particle beam strikes a target at the end of the tunnel, various detectors record the events -- the subatomic particles and radiation released. These accelerators are huge, and are kept underground. An example of a linear accelerator is the linac at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) in California, which is about 1.8 miles (3 km) long.

[Phanuthier]

I think you missed the point

You say they need to do more research into it... and how, might you suggest? Until you do the test, they're theories. That's it. Just like my theory that hell is freezing over.

Don't worry, though... I'm sure you'll be ok. Naval Research Labs and NASA have come up with crazier ideas that would keep you awake at night.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think you missed the point

You say they need to do more research into it... and how, might you suggest? Until you do the test, they're theories. That's it. Just like my theory that hell is freezing over.

Like I said before, maybe now is not the time, we learn more as we go on even if the experiment is not done. Maybe we should wait until it can be done in space. I don't have the answer and never claimed to. All I have suggested was: has the world really taken a real hard look at this.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Like I said before, maybe now is not the time, we learn more as we go on even if the experiment is not done. Maybe we should wait until it can be done in space. I don't have the answer and never claimed to. All I have suggested was has the world really taken a real hard look at this.

Like I said, US Research Labs have done tests way more dangerous.

There's nothing more you can learn right now, all you can do is theorize. In fact, this whole thing is mostly done to prove or disprove these theories.

Don't get too excited about theories.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Like I said, US Research Labs have done tests way more dangerous.

There's nothing more you can learn right now, all you can do is theorize. In fact, this whole thing is mostly done to prove or disprove these theories.

Don't get too excited about theories.

How can they have done way more dangerous tests like this when this facility is state of the art and worth billions of dollars?

And yes, the tests are to prove or dispove. It just might disprove the scientists who suggest that the black holes will disperse when infact they become stable.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How can they have done way more dangerous tests like this when this facility is state of the art and worth billions of dollars?

I got to talk to one of the principal members of the technical staff at Los Alomos... holy damn...

(never said it had to be a particle accelerator)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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

You can question it all you want... as long as your name is not Al Gore.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How can they have done way more dangerous tests like this when this facility is state of the art and worth billions of dollars?

Gee, how about an atmospheric detonation of thermonuclear device that "some" scientists thought may burn the atmosphere off the planet? Was that one pretty dangerous? How about on-going experiments that super stimulate the ionosphere that "some" scientists say could result in a catestrophic failure of our atmosphere resulting in the death of every living thing on the planet?

You know, after all the arm waving and crying about the climate change debate, and it being a bunch of sensationalistic BS, to see this thread pop up with the title "scientists may destroy the earth in 2008" it just makes laugh. The contradictions evident are amazing.

I think we should ban all science. We should force everyone to just believe in a supernatural power that made the universe in six days. And not just any supernatural power, but THE supernatural power, as designated by the most narrow minded of people imaginable. We don't need to discover the answers when those answers can be spoon feed to us through any charleton who claims to hear the voice of the supernatural power. Science is evil and will destroy us all!



Thanks photon for taking the time to explain some of this stuff so this is not just another thread of fear mongering.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Shall I continue?

All I am saying is maybe we should think about this a little more before we hit the start switch.

I think a lot of those issues have already been addressed, are incorrect, or are based on speculation. I've read some of those before, but there are a few that are new to me so I'll take a look at them. Forgive me if I don't have the energy to go through them one by one and address their points though, I'm not a scientist no matter what my delusions tell me.

There will always be critics, if no experiment was ever performed until all critics were silenced, then no experiment would ever be performed.

And I think sufficient thinking about it has been done already. There's what, 4000 scientists directly involved with the LHC? That's a lot of minds to contemplate what's being done. There's decades of research and thinking that have gone into it.

I can appreciate that you want more research and/or discussion, but you still haven't said exactly what you want to see done.

Plus I'd really like to know exactly how a quantum black hole would threaten the earth.

[mrdeeds]

Hey this is all fine and dandy debating this schtuff....


but what of Lazarus?