Lawsuit to Stop CERN Suggests Risk of Black Holes

[Caspian88]

The International Herald-Tribune has an article about a lawsuit (in Hawaii) that is trying to obtain a temporary restraining order against CERN
until it produces an environmental impact statement and a safety review, claiming the risk of the accidental creation of a black hole or other weird stuff.

[Complexity]

I'd like to see a lawsuit against those trying to get the temporary restraining order that tries to get a temporary restraining order against their reproducing until an environmental impact statement and a safety review are obtained.

What idiots.

[Jimbo07]

To the O.P.: what jurisidiction would this lawsuit have?


What idiots.

Agreed.

...

If I recall, you're not a big fan of Publicly-funded "Big Science." Do you feel similarly about LHC?

[HghrSymmetry]

Silly to think a court in Hawaii would have jurisdiction.

Lots of "ifs" in there as well.

If 7 trillion electron volts would be enough energy...
If evaporation didn't wipe it out immediately...

But William Unruh, of the University of British Columbia, whose paper exploring the limits of Dr. Hawking’s radiation process was referenced on Mr. Wagner’s Web site, said they had missed his point. “Maybe physics really is so weird as to not have black holes evaporate,” he said. “But it would really, really have to be weird.”

Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a paper last year that black holes would probably not be produced at the collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum gravity might appear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=collider%20sued&st=nyt&scp=1

PS: You guys are quick, I almost opened a thread on this, but spotted this one in the nick of time.

[skeptigirl]

They probably saw the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433883/) and got ideas.

[Gate2501]

I had read that if it is actually possible for a collider to produce a tiny black hole, then it would mean that tons of the little buggers form constantly when cosmic rays (containing more energy than we could even get into a collider), smack into the earth.

I love science fiction, but sometimes I feel that idiots should not be informally introduced to scientific concepts outside of a learning environment. You know, make the person take a test on the television before you can watch that new episode of Battlestar Galactica or Stargate.

[nathan]

IIUC atomic physics experiments of this type do a sanity check onto whether they're likely to generate ICE9, or the equivalent as a matter of routine.

[Verde]

I love the final paragraph:

Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”

'Beyond here be Dragons'. A worthy sideline for the catastrophists.

V.

[Pato2747]

7 trillion Electron volts.

That doesn't even make a joule of energy. The force of my finger clicking the "Post quick reply" button has a lot more energy than that.

[ceo_esq]

Silly to think a court in Hawaii would have jurisdiction.

I suspect, though, that CERN is only one of many defendants, although the IHT (a Europe-based paper) may have focused on that party. If I had to guess, I would say that the plaintiff has probably named the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation as defendants and that, while he sought orders against all defendants, his hopes are focused on the U.S. government agencies, which obviously are subject to a federal court's order. An injunction against those agencies could effectively suspend the project at least temporarily. CERN is, after all, simply the project host; the United States government is a large capital contributor, sits on steering committees, provides U.S. scientists to staff the project, and may well (though it would depend on the collaboration agreement) own key components of the infrastructure.

[MattusMaximus]

I think we should file lawsuits against people like those filing this lawsuit against CERN. I mean, if their concern is really about the spontaneous creation of black holes, then we need to prevent these folks from coming near the rest of us, since their brains seem to be the densest objects in the known universe :rolleyes:

This whole woo about the LHC creating black holes that'll destroy the planet is addressed at the following Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_hadron_collider#Safety_concerns

With this kind of loony fear-mongering going around, I as a physics educator will always be employed ;)

[Complexity]

To the O.P.: what jurisidiction would this lawsuit have?



Agreed.

...

If I recall, you're not a big fan of Publicly-funded "Big Science." Do you feel similarly about LHC?


I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

[David Wong]

I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

I'm just thankful this internet we're using to discuss this wasn't built with any public money at all.

[INRM]

Well sometimes it's better to look everything over twice than make a mistake then be royally sorry.

INRM

[Complexity]

I'm just thankful this internet we're using to discuss this wasn't built with any public money at all.


I wish it hadn't been.

I'd rather that we didn't have it at all than have it paid for in part through stolen property.

[fuelair]

I'd like to see a lawsuit against those trying to get the temporary restraining order that tries to get a temporary restraining order against their reproducing until an environmental impact statement and a safety review are obtained.

What idiots.A wonderful idea in so many ways!!

[Dancing David]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/823924.aspx


Runaway black holes: Some physicists say the LHC could create microscopic black holes that would hang around for just a tiny fraction of a second and then decay. Sancho and Wagner worry that millions of black holes might somehow persist and coalesce into a compact gravitational mass that would draw in other matter and grow bigger. That's pure science fiction, said Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York. "These black holes don't live very long, and they have microscopic energy, and so they are harmless," he told me.


Strangelets: Smashing protons together at high enough energies could create new combinations of quarks, the particles that protons are made of. Sancho and Wagner worry that a nasty combination known as a stable, negatively charged strangelet could theoretically turn everything it touches into strangelets as well. Kaku compared this to the ancient myth of the Midas touch. "We see no evidence of this bizarre theory," he said. "Once in a while, we trot it out to scare the pants off people. But it's not serious."


Magnetic monopoles: One theory suggests that high-energy particle collisions might give rise to massive particles that have only one magnetic pole - only north, or only south, but not the north-south magnetism that dominates nature. Sancho and Wagner worry that such particles could be created in the LHC and start a runaway reaction that converts atoms into other forms of matter. But physicists have seen no evidence of such reactions, which should have occurred already as the result of more energetic cosmic-ray collisions in Earth's upper atmosphere.

[INRM]

How could you verify that a bunch of micro black-holes couldn't coalesce... Isn't that entirely within the realm of physics?

As for the strangelets... would those persist forever... or would there be a point at which they would break down into ordinary stuff, or would stop converting other stuff?


INRM

[TobiasTheCommie]

Strangelets would, for all intents and purposes, persist forever, a nd keep converting new material.

Even if a bunch of micro black-holes would coalesce, they would still evaporate through hawking radiation.

[ponderingturtle]

I wish it hadn't been.

I'd rather that we didn't have it at all than have it paid for in part through stolen property.

Good and you would be then mailing these messages to who exactly?

[ponderingturtle]

How could you verify that a bunch of micro black-holes couldn't coalesce... Isn't that entirely within the realm of physics?

As for the strangelets... would those persist forever... or would there be a point at which they would break down into ordinary stuff, or would stop converting other stuff?


INRM

The thing is that the idea of a high energy form of matter that is lower energy than normal matter(hence could convert it and change the fundamental type of matter in the universe) is silly. This is not an unusualy high ammount of energy and if this type of matter was so preferable it would be the dominant form of matter.

So that we are here is very very good evidence that these ideas are silly.

[Jimbo07]

I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

I can understand the idea of wishing something had been done in a certain way, even advocating for a new path in the future (we are, after all, political animals), yet still being impressed with an end result. I've experienced the same sort of thing with a couple of projects.

I disagree with you, but still appreciate your internal self-consistency (or perhaps, intellectual honesty about this inconsistency)... it's more than can be said of some views of the world...

[bokonon]

Maybe just to be on the safe side, we should build it on the moon. I assume if the moon collapsed into a black hole, the earth would still be well outside its event horizon (the mass would still be essentially the same, right?). We could offset the extra expense by garnishing 100% of the wages of anyone involved with filing or prosecuting this lawsuit.

[sol invictus]

I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

I find this point of view totally incomprehensible.

I think it's probably true that in the history of the human race there has never been a society in which people didn't share resources with each other. Indeed, that (a group of people sharing resources) is probably not a bad definition of "society". Do you disagree?

And even in hunter-gatherer societies I don't think the sharing was voluntary: if you lived in the society and wanted to stay, you helped with the hunt and you shared the resulting meat - whether you wanted to or not. Taxes and public funding are the same idea on a larger scale.

Now, you might say that just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it should stay that way. But if it were possible for societies to function in any other way, why hasn't it ever happened? It's just an opinion, but I think that any society organized the way you seem to want would collapse, or at best be abandoned by most of its citizens in favor of a more effective and reasonable one.

[Soapy Sam]

Mind you, this is a potentially neat explanation of the "paradoxical" absence of SETI hits from hi-tec civilisations.
They reach the stage of creating their first quantum black hole...and vanish down their own rabbit hole .

[technoextreme]

The International Herald-Tribune has an article about a lawsuit (in Hawaii) that is trying to obtain a temporary restraining order against CERN
until it produces an environmental impact statement and a safety review, claiming the risk of the accidental creation of a black hole or other weird stuff.
What is new is old and what is old is now new. This is isn't the first lawsuit and I'm going to go out on a limb and say this woo meister is the same one that sued to stop RHIC.

[Philip]

double post

[Philip]

I'll mostly repeat what I posted elsewhere about this:

I think the lawsuit is a scam to get gullible people to contribute to the plaintiffs' legal fund.

The plaintiffs have a website where concerned persons can contribute to their legal fund: http://www.lhcdefense.org/

On the website one of the plaintiffs, Walter Wagner, refers to himself as a "nuclear physicist" but doesn't mention that his doctoral degree is in law and that he's never worked as a nuclear physicist. His undergraduate "cosmic ray research" was probably a class project. The website also mentions his appearance on that paragon of scientific reporting "Coast to Coast AM".

There's more about the case in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342854,00.html) and about Wagner's indictment for identity theft and theft in this article (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS0101/802290352/1003/NEWS0101).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, I wouldn't care even if there was a small risk of annihilating the universe. After all, once annihilated, I don't think we'd be around to feel guilty.

~~ Paul

[zosima]

I wouldn't be so disparaging of Wagner. While I think his worries are extremely unrealistic, from what I've read the magnetic monopole work he did at one point was legit. Although it couldn't be verified it did warrant a lot of interest and publication in the maintream physics community. Moreso, than say, any cold fusion claims.

The counter counter argument the lhc defense people make to the cosmic ray counter argument is that cosmic rays would be moving quickly and thus any black holes created would pass on through the earth, whereas the lhc micro black holes would be at zero velocity due to conservation of momentum and thus would be drawn to the earth's center where they could slowly gather up matter.

I think this argument has 2 weaknesses.
1. Even though most cosmic ray collisions would probably have non-zero velocity post collision(one relativistic particle collides with one stationary particle of equal mass and there is still quite a bit of left over velocity). But the sheer combinatorial possibilities over the massive length of time of the earth's existence would probably result in at least one low velocity micro black hole(for example relativistic particle collides with stationary particle of much greater mass).
2. The schwartzchild radius of the micro black hole would be so small that even if it was floating around the earth's core it would probably never collide with another particle during the course of the earth's existence, much less the numerous particles that would be required for it to actually have enough gravitational pull to actively encourage collisions.

Of course this whole argument is predicated on cherry picking your science, believing certain suspicious parts of string theory that suggest that black holes to be created with particle accelerators smaller than the solar system, but not believing in the widely accepted hawking radiation.

I also have a question...I don't understand how a magnetic monopole would be dangerous. What is their scenario there? Wouldn't it be just like an electron except with magnetic charge?

Finally, there is one thing that isn't really addressed,but that I find interesting, namely that if they are correct, it would go a long way towards explaining all the missing matter in our galaxy.

[INRM]

When will the LHC go online, and when did/when will CERN go online?

INRM

[malbui]

I live next door to CERN and am very much looking forward to their open day on Sunday when I'll have a chance to visit the site and go down into the tunnels and poke stuff with screwdrivers listen to the scientists explain what they're doing. I figure that if they do create a black hole and I get sucked to my doom, it will at least be nice in that split-second to know that I'd seen the equipment responsible.

[MattusMaximus]

I wish it hadn't been.

I'd rather that we didn't have it at all than have it paid for in part through stolen property.


So, to stand on principle, you're going to stop using the Internet, right? So I assume to avoid any charges of hypocrisy the post to which I am responding will be your last one... EVER. ;)

[MattusMaximus]

I'll mostly repeat what I posted elsewhere about this:

I think the lawsuit is a scam to get gullible people to contribute to the plaintiffs' legal fund.

The plaintiffs have a website where concerned persons can contribute to their legal fund: http://www.lhcdefense.org/

On the website one of the plaintiffs, Walter Wagner, refers to himself as a "nuclear physicist" but doesn't mention that his doctoral degree is in law and that he's never worked as a nuclear physicist. His undergraduate "cosmic ray research" was probably a class project. The website also mentions his appearance on that paragon of scientific reporting "Coast to Coast AM".

There's more about the case in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342854,00.html) and about Wagner's indictment for identity theft and theft in this article (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS0101/802290352/1003/NEWS0101).


Wow, what a freakin' scam. Thanks for this info, as I have had students coming to me asking about this lawsuit and concerned that the LHC might kill us all with a monster black hole.

[INRM]

malbui,

CERN will open this Sunday, April 6th? When will the LHC open?

You can actually go into the particle-accelerator tunnels? Or just the labs?

Either case, I hope you're joking about poking stuff with a screwdriver! That would be so incredibly dumb and stupid.

BTW: I assume your being sarcastic, but you do know that none of the scientists at CERN, or even the LHC would want to create a stable black-hole!

[technoextreme]

Wow, what a freakin' scam. Thanks for this info, as I have had students coming to me asking about this lawsuit and concerned that the LHC might kill us all with a monster black hole.
It isn't a scam because this isn't the first time that he's done this. The fact that he has a prior lawsuit shows that he is serious. Fortunatly, he failed miserably with the first lawsuit. He honestly believes that CERN can create a devastating blackhole. Now mind you this belief has no basis in reality but being members of JREF we know that a basis in reality doesn't have a tendancy to stop people. The history of this myth is rather fascinating and long because I've been waiting for that black hole since 2001.

[MattusMaximus]

It isn't a scam because this isn't the first time that he's done this. The fact that he has a prior lawsuit shows that he is serious. He honestly believes that CERN can create a devastating blackhole.


And he is also honestly concerned with using this situation as a way of making money off of scared and gullible people.

Not much better than TV psychics or televangelists, in my book. It should be noted that some of those folks actually do believe they can talk to the dead or directly to God. It doesn't make them any less deluded or deceptive.

In short, it's still a scam.

[malbui]

CERN will open this Sunday, April 6th? When will the LHC open?

You can actually go into the particle-accelerator tunnels? Or just the labs?


There is indeed an open day on the 6th:

http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/openday.html

I think the LHC is due to be ready during May, but my sources on-site are telling me there's a bit of end-of-project rush to get it all finished on time.

Either case, I hope you're joking about poking stuff with a screwdriver! That would be so incredibly dumb and stupid.

BTW: I assume your being sarcastic, but you do know that none of the scientists at CERN, or even the LHC would want to create a stable black-hole!


:rolleyes:

[zosima]

Note: the fact that particle colliders of the past have not killed us says nothing about their probability to do so in the future. In fact if viewed with a set of reasonable assumptions, it is more likely than not that human history will end soon. (Or at least more likely than not that my correction that human history will end is correct)

See:
Earth Day, Doomsday, and Chicken Little
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=79

[dogjones]

I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

Are you in the Michigan Militia?

[technoextreme]

And he is also honestly concerned with using this situation as a way of making money off of scared and gullible people.

But if he's using it to fund his lawsuit then that isn't really a scam. The evidence points to the fact that he is tilting at windmills.. There is a difference as much as you probably won't admit.

[zosima]

lol,
complexity is either a troll, mentally unbalanced, or has lived a very privileged life. My guess is that its the latter of the three. Not to imply that I haven't lived a very privileged life, I think I have.

What I mean is that if we didn't reap the benefits of public institutions none of us would have any privileges and no one would be in a position to make regressive statements like that...unless of course they were mentally unbalanced trolls...:)

[Groovydoc]

Are you in the Michigan Militia?

He's just saying next time take the money from the animals and such, not the people.

[zosima]

Smallest black hole ever, just discovered:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080401-smallest-blackhole.html

[ponderingturtle]

lol,
complexity is either a troll, mentally unbalanced, or has lived a very privileged life. My guess is that its the latter of the three. Not to imply that I haven't lived a very privileged life, I think I have.


Well he is spouting a pretty basic libertarian line.

[Complexity]

I find this point of view totally incomprehensible.

I think it's probably true that in the history of the human race there has never been a society in which people didn't share resources with each other. Indeed, that (a group of people sharing resources) is probably not a bad definition of "society". Do you disagree?

And even in hunter-gatherer societies I don't think the sharing was voluntary: if you lived in the society and wanted to stay, you helped with the hunt and you shared the resulting meat - whether you wanted to or not. Taxes and public funding are the same idea on a larger scale.

Now, you might say that just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it should stay that way. But if it were possible for societies to function in any other way, why hasn't it ever happened? It's just an opinion, but I think that any society organized the way you seem to want would collapse, or at best be abandoned by most of its citizens in favor of a more effective and reasonable one.


On odd days, you'll find me saying that that there are some things that people who opt in to a society should contribute towards, including police, courts, prisons, and the military.

Even on odd days, however, I think a line must be drawn - taxes should not ever be spent on things beyond that line. For me, that line doesn't permit much more than the list I just presented.

On even days, oddly enough, I'm rarely in a mood to allow that much.

What we're arguing about is what a state should be permitted to spend money on.

Another fun topic is the extent to which the state should be able to intrude in or try to affect our lives. Guess where I stand.

Sol, I know you don't agree, and don't understand where I'm coming from, but I'm glad you'll still say hi.

[Complexity]

So, to stand on principle, you're going to stop using the Internet, right? So I assume to avoid any charges of hypocrisy the post to which I am responding will be your last one... EVER. ;)


Don't be silly.

I've had far too much money taken from my wallet to not drive on 'publicly funded roads' or to use the 'publicly funded internet'.

If I had my way, these types of 'publicly funded' things wouldn't exist.

I would, however, still be driving around on roads and using an internet. I'd simply be voluntarily paying for doing so, and these things would have been built without being funded by stolen funds or through eminent domain.

If they couldn't be built privately, then they wouldn't be built at all.

Respect you, Mattus, but think you're way off base here.

[Complexity]

lol,
complexity is either a troll, mentally unbalanced, or has lived a very privileged life. My guess is that its the latter of the three. Not to imply that I haven't lived a very privileged life, I think I have.

What I mean is that if we didn't reap the benefits of public institutions none of us would have any privileges and no one would be in a position to make regressive statements like that...unless of course they were mentally unbalanced trolls...:)


A troll? Nope.

Mentally unbalanced? I've battled with depression, OCD, and anxiety - and won! - but I don't think that makes me unbalanced.

A privileged life? Compared to most of the world, yes. Compared to other Americans, pretty much in the middle. By the way, you're not using 'privilege' very carefully.

'Regressive' statements? Not at all, and what a silly concept.

I'm simply trying to point out defects in your sense of morality and suggesting, albeit too kindly, that you stop what you've been doing.

I'm not terribly surprised that you don't welcome the criticism.

[sol invictus]

I'm simply trying to point out defects in your sense of morality and suggesting, albeit too kindly, that you stop what you've been doing.

I'm not terribly surprised that you don't welcome the criticism.

Will you respond to my post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3577903#post3577903) on the previous page? It was meant honestly and earnestly - I really don't understand your position, particularly your claim that it is "moral", and I'd like to see where you're coming from.

Is it simply that you regard the control of personal property as a moral value that trumps all others?

[BenBurch]

I'm not in favor of any ... science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

Fixed it for you.

Because thats really what you are saying.

[INRM]

malbui,

Wow, I didn't know it was going to be opened so early.

Regarding the lHC... I hope when you say rush that they aren't cutting corners or endangering safety.

I had a feeling you were joking about poking things with a screwdriver.

[zosima]

A privileged life? Compared to most of the world, yes. Compared to other Americans, pretty much in the middle. By the way, you're not using 'privilege' very carefully.



This is totally the wrong forum for this, but let me be clear, by what I mean. I'm going to assume you aren't the type of libertarian that just makes up economic theory...maybe this a is a poor assumption, oh well. I'm also taking your word for it that you're not a troll....but who can trust a troll right?

In economics there are things called common goods, the government exists to price them. They can be things like public parks and clean air, but extend to more abstract things like the right to property, free speech, and even scientific discovery. If it did not take someones resources to do these things they would not exist. There are also barriers to market entry, and to make an economic system function correctly(ie approach the theoretical limit of an infinite number of firms in a market), barriers to entry must be lowered(ideally to 0)

Thus in the world you seem to be advocating, you would, in all likelihood, either be someone's slave or dead. This is because when wealth is allowed to concentrate without bound there are many more have-nots than haves, so statistically you are much more likely to be a have-not, with a vanishingly small probability of anything better.



'Regressive' statements? Not at all, and what a silly concept.



If we take sol's statement to be correct, that such a state of affairs is not possible, then I concede it is silly. Otherwise, I see it as incredibly regressive, in that taking your comments to their logical conclusion would mean no stadiums, no LHC, and a huge amount of suffering. If you think this is silly, go right ahead, but that would really make you too sociopathic to warrant a conversation.



I'm simply trying to point out defects in your sense of morality and suggesting, albeit too kindly, that you stop what you've been doing.

I'm not terribly surprised that you don't welcome the criticism.

As sol noted above, you really haven't provided any criticism because there are no warrants supporting your claims. It only realistically suggests a defect, if you analyze my sense of morality and belief.

Otherwise you've just spouted a bunch of childish opinions, in a manor that is brusque and inflammatory.

Let me conclude with this caveat since you haven't really clarified your position:
Not everything need be priced, but some things do, and enforcement of those prices has a non-zero cost. If your qualm is what should be priced by the government and what should not, more power to you, but if your claim is that we should not have to pay to provide those services then I stand by my claim that you are only in a position to say this because you are lucky enough to have been provided an education at the expense of others rather than have been made the sex-slave of some despot for free.

[Complexity]

Fixed it for you.

Because thats really what you are saying.


Don't be a jerk.

We'll continue to disagree vehemently on this subject, but I haven't written you off in other regards.

[Complexity]

zosima - I've been dealing with fools for far too many years.

I've really lost interest in debating or arguing with them.

I'm really not at all interested in trying to persuade you of anything. I no longer think that it matters.

I didn't raise the topic, and I didn't welcome the fact that someone else raised it in this thread. Someone asked a question, and I answered it honestly.

Take from this exchange what you will. I really can't bring myself to care any longer.

[MattusMaximus]

Don't be silly.

I've had far too much money taken from my wallet to not drive on 'publicly funded roads' or to use the 'publicly funded internet'.

If I had my way, these types of 'publicly funded' things wouldn't exist.

I would, however, still be driving around on roads and using an internet. I'd simply be voluntarily paying for doing so, and these things would have been built without being funded by stolen funds or through eminent domain.

If they couldn't be built privately, then they wouldn't be built at all.

Respect you, Mattus, but think you're way off base here.


Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die :rolleyes:

[zosima]

zosima - I've been dealing with fools for far too many years.

I've really lost interest in debating or arguing with them.

I'm really not at all interested in trying to persuade you of anything. I no longer think that it matters.

Hey thats fine, I don't expect to be able to convince you of anything either, anyone who holds opinions so extreme probably isn't open to well reasoned argument. Plus I'm sure since you have the opportunity to live in a society like ours and reap the benefits of it, I'm not the first and won't be the last one to point out that the opinions you've espoused are hypocritical and antithetical to the fundamental tenets of said society. But If someone makes a statement that if taken seriously would undermine many of the things that I deeply care about, I hardly think it is foolish to rebut it.


I didn't raise the topic, and I didn't welcome the fact that someone else raised it in this thread. Someone asked a question, and I answered it honestly.

I really can't care less if you answered someone else's question honestly. If someone asked me what I thought about the holocaust and I honestly answered that I thought it was hunky dory, that wouldn't make my statement any less morally abhorrent. I certainly wouldn't complain if you kept this sort of stuff to yourself.


Take from this exchange what you will. I really can't bring myself to care any longer.

At least you're consistent. Nihilism and anarchy complement each other well.

[INRM]

Zosima,

If we've just found a black-hole that's below the normal threshold. Doesn't that mean that a stable black hole might be easier to form than expected?


INRM

[Jimbo07]

I didn't raise the topic, and I didn't welcome the fact that someone else raised it in this thread. Someone asked a question, and I answered it honestly.

Yeah... oops! :o

If someone asked me what I thought about the holocaust and I honestly answered that I thought it was hunky dory, that wouldn't make my statement any less morally abhorrent. I certainly wouldn't complain if you kept this sort of stuff to yourself.

wow...

I've stated that I disagree with Complexity, but I did not use the term morally abhorrent!

The private sector is notoriously bad for poor participation in fundamental research, which is why I'm a little surprised (and also fascinated) with Complexity's position, but I refuse to condemn it outright as you are...

[zosima]

I've stated that I disagree with Complexity, but I did not use the term morally abhorrent!


I think the holocaust is morally abhorrent, maybe the analogy didn't come across like I meant it too. I do think, however, that if enough people thought the way he did we would be in very dire straights, maybe I think it is practically abohorrent? ;)


Zosima,

If we've just found a black-hole that's below the normal threshold. Doesn't that mean that a stable black hole might be easier to form than expected?

INRM


Its measured in solar masses, so probably it doesn't say anything about the LHC stuff, but only really about the dynamics of stellar collapse.

[jj]

Ok, look, the total energy available from the TEV collider is something like 6 orders of magnitude less than that from cosmic rays.

And we're bathed in them the whole time. 5 billion years is a long time to run an experiment.

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah... oops! :o



Yeah dude, way to derail ;)

Seriously though, I agree that we shouldn't let the thread derail into a discussion of libertarian politics. Let's stick with dealing with all the LHC end-of-the-world woo for now...

[MattusMaximus]

Ok, look, the total energy available from the TEV collider is something like 6 orders of magnitude less than that from cosmic rays.

And we're bathed in them the whole time. 5 billion years is a long time to run an experiment.


Maybe we just got lucky for that whole time? You know, as soon as humans start meddling with nature like this, we're sure to destroy ourselves ;)

Anyone heard anything new on the lawsuit?

[skeptigirl]

They mentioned it today on the college radio, can't say what program was on. Anyway, the fact the scientists used the usual "we can't be positive" language of science disturbed the people discussing it as if that meant there really was a possibility of destroying the planet. It was obvious the scientist quoted was only saying you can't be sure of anything because he followed the statement with another saying that they couldn't be sure the experiment wouldn't make a dragon either. People just don't understand what "we can't be sure of anything" in scientific terms really means.

[MattusMaximus]

They mentioned it today on the college radio, can't say what program was on. Anyway, the fact the scientists used the usual "we can't be positive" language of science disturbed the people discussing it as if that meant there really was a possibility of destroying the planet. It was obvious the scientist quoted was only saying you can't be sure of anything because he followed the statement with another saying that they couldn't be sure the experiment wouldn't make a dragon either. People just don't understand what "we can't be sure of anything" in scientific terms really means.


I think the problem you're mentioning is two-fold.

1. Too many scientists don't understand that the general populace has no clue what "we can't be sure" means in scientific terms, so they don't really lay it out in terms that can be easily understood. It'd be best for scientists to put it into context, such as by mentioning that people don't go around worrying that a plane is going to fall out of the sky on top of them; then go on to explain that the odds of an LHC-induced planet-eating blackhole destroying us all is gazillions of times less likely.

2. The media usually doesn't do a very good job of communication when it comes to such topics. Many times the people editing stories will try to emphasize the potential for doomsday scenarios (especially in the headlines) as a way of sensationalizing the story and thereby selling more air time or papers.

Of course, another big part of the problem is that more and more media outlets don't have full-time dedicated science journalists on their staff to thoroughly explore and report on these topics. And without such journalists, is it any wonder that the quality of science reporting has declined over the years?

[skeptigirl]

But these scientists did put it in context by adding they couldn't rule out the project would create dragons either.

I agree with you completely that the scientists were not planning on anyone taking their initial comments out of context when they clarified it with the dragon analogy. The problem as I see it, is because the scientists made the wrong assumptions. Their perfectly logical comments were misinterpreted. We don't pay enough attention to these subtle communication problems and it leads to dumb things like lawsuits.

It behooves us (the scientific and skeptical communities) to look at communication as more than just translating technical terms into lay language.

In the Congressional hearings on global warming and NASA censorship, one of the Republican Congressmen, an attorney, really tried to pin one of the NASA scientists into a corner asking questions like you would in a court room. "But you can't say it for certain, can you"!

The scientist did an excellent job refusing to answer that question with a "no I can't". He phrased the answer over and over in a proper response that was factual and not twisted into the uncertainty the Congressman was trying to purposefully get a misleading answer to indicate. It takes skill and problem solving to deal with this particular scientific principle and the lay public's misunderstanding of it.

[Damien Evans]

I'm not in favor of any 'publicly funded' science. Or education. Or stadiums. Or nearly anything.

The LHC is very, very cool. Too bad it was paid for by money taken from people.

So, in other words, you hate all taxes?

[Beausoleil]

1. Too many scientists don't understand that the general populace has no clue what "we can't be sure" means in scientific terms, so they don't really lay it out in terms that can be easily understood. It'd be best for scientists to put it into context, such as by mentioning that people don't go around worrying that a plane is going to fall out of the sky on top of them; then go on to explain that the odds of an LHC-induced planet-eating blackhole destroying us all is gazillions of times less likely.



"we can't be sure" is not a very scientific term at all, though. What do they mean?

1 We know how these things work, we've done the calculations, and it is less that a 1 in gaxillion chance. I don't think so since if we know how such things work well enough we wouldn't need an LHC.

2. Collisions such as those at the LHC have happened x gazillion times over the Earth's history. Of those, some known fraction would have resulted in something that could stay in the Earth's vicinitiy and chew up the planet if it was a black hole. Hence we know that fewer than 1 in a umptizillion collisions will produce a bad example and that's a gazillion more than we will produce over the lifetime of the LHC.

Something like the latter seems like a doable calculation. If it's been done that would seem to me to translate into "being sure" when talking to a layman. So when they say they aren't sure I think it does give cause for concern.

The thing is that everyone is sure of many things that are only extremely likely, and completely rules out things that are only extremely unlikely. Scientists using "being sure that won't happen" only for logical impossibilities isn't helpful - "being sure" is a colloquial thing not a scientific concept.

[zosima]

"we can't be sure" is not a very scientific term at all, though. What do they mean?

1 We know how these things work, we've done the calculations, and it is less that a 1 in gaxillion chance. I don't think so since if we know how such things work well enough we wouldn't need an LHC.

2. Collisions such as those at the LHC have happened x gazillion times over the Earth's history. Of those, some known fraction would have resulted in something that could stay in the Earth's vicinitiy and chew up the planet if it was a black hole. Hence we know that fewer than 1 in a umptizillion collisions will produce a bad example and that's a gazillion more than we will produce over the lifetime of the LHC.

Something like the latter seems like a doable calculation. If it's been done that would seem to me to translate into "being sure" when talking to a layman. So when they say they aren't sure I think it does give cause for concern.

The thing is that everyone is sure of many things that are only extremely likely, and completely rules out things that are only extremely unlikely. Scientists using "being sure that won't happen" only for logical impossibilities isn't helpful - "being sure" is a colloquial thing not a scientific concept.

I really think you and mattus are saying the same thing. I think you may have thought that mattus was saying something stronger than he was.

That said I think his(her?) point is strong

[MattusMaximus]

I really think you and mattus are saying the same thing. I think you may have thought that mattus was saying something stronger than he was.

That said I think his(her?) point is strong


Agreed.

[cbraun]

I'm just thankful this internet we're using to discuss this wasn't built with any public money at all.

Ummm...I'm hoping you're being sarcastic.

Just in case you're not though...

In 1985 and 1986 the NSF commissioned the construction of network backbones that became NSFNet and were the starts of the Internet we know today. And the NSF is a government agency funded by taxes. The NSF currently funds about 20% of all federally supported research conducted at US colleges and universities with computer sciences among the top few fields.

[zosima]

Ummm...I'm hoping you're being sarcastic.

Just in case you're not though...

In 1985 and 1986 the NSF commissioned the construction of network backbones that became NSFNet and were the starts of the Internet we know today. And the NSF is a government agency funded by taxes. The NSF currently funds about 20% of all federally supported research conducted at US colleges and universities with computer sciences among the top few fields.

Read the whole thread, he's being very very sarcastic.