Page 1 of 4

Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:59 am
by LSR
An independent review of the long-term risks associated with possible black hole production at the LHC:

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/LHCrisk.pdf

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:53 am
by Stephen
This article seems very accurate and fact based. You can just skip to the conclusions section to get the general idea, because the paper is very long. Is there any way to disprove it, or is the author right in his conclusions and the catastrophic implications to the LHC? I'm getting really scared. :sad-pacing:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:19 am
by Wallmott
Stephen wrote:This article seems very accurate and fact based. You can just skip to the conclusions section to get the general idea, because the paper is very long. Is there any way to disprove it, or is the author right in his conclusions and the catastrophic implications to the LHC? I'm getting really scared. :sad-pacing:
You can make everything seem accurate and fact based if you want to.

Who is this guy? And why would he be right? The whole science community does agree that there is no danger. Why would some random guy be right?

And oh, i think its from that James Blodget anti LHC site. That guy know NOTHING and i mean NOTHING about physics. He does not even know the basics of it.

He is just afraid of the LHC and wants to stop it.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:38 am
by Stephen
But can you address the specific claims he makes?

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:32 am
by Wallmott
Stephen wrote:But can you address the specific claims he makes?
I remember that they had a long discussion with him on the randi.org forums a long time ago. Basically it is all wrong and he does not know what he is talking about, nor does he understand physics or anything about it.

All he have is fear and he is trying to make the LHC look dangerous when its not.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:39 am
by Stephen
Can you give me a direct answer as to why his claim about white dwarfs, magnetic fields and neutron stars aren't true, aside from saying that he is an idiot?

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:32 am
by Kasuha
Stephen wrote:Can you give me a direct answer as to why his claim about white dwarfs, magnetic fields and neutron stars aren't true, aside from saying that he is an idiot?
Why?
You have got many direct answers here already. It doesn't seem you understood many of them as this paper is just the same old story in a new coat.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:34 am
by CharmQuark
Don't tell me it's another Ivan :angry-screaming: This does not please me :angry-tappingfoot:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:37 am
by Stephen
Please point out to any answers I received on this specific issue. It's getting really old to hear "physicists are brilliant and everyone who dares to doubt them is insane" instead of getting actual answers to the questions asked.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:42 am
by CharmQuark
Stephen wrote:Please point out to any answers I received on this specific issue. It's getting really old to hear "physicists are brilliant and everyone who dares to doubt them is insane" instead of getting actual answers to the questions asked.
Stephen please stay calm :romance-kisscheek:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:51 pm
by Danny252
First off, his first (and most often used) source states that BH creation is "extremely hypothetical scenario" in the opening paragraph.

He makes comments about millions of black holes being created by White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars. This raises the question of "why do we see White Dwarfs if they make so many black holes?". The first source discusses this in detail, stating that of these millions, around 5000 are captured by the white dwarf per million years. Also, as White Dwarfs have been seen to be older than 100 million years old - implying that these black holes must eat through them very, very, very slowly, if at all.

Seeing as the Earth is larger than your average White Dwarf, this means that any black holes created at this energy must take even longer to munch through the earth. This is, of course, discounting the fact that such black holes would be created anyway, at higher energies, by cosmic ray collisions with the earth itself - as has been stated so bloody many times...

In short, the linked paper selectively quotes the papers it lists as sources at the best of times for the parts I bothered to check.

Anyway, you're not going to stop the LHC, and you'll hardly have much time to do anything should the world be engulfed by a BH, so seriously, get over yourself and listen to what everyone here has told you for the last 6 months...

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:08 pm
by CharmQuark
Came on Danny the poor guy is scared stiff......... he can't help feeling like this.........and yes it has been explained to him over and over again, but maybe he just don't understand enough physics to get a grip on things.......must be really horrible for him.......... :ugeek:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:40 pm
by Danny252
Minor apology, I've been a bit dicky all night. I blame annoying people.

But it still holds that the paper doesn't seem to hold up.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:46 pm
by Kasuha
emmylou wrote:Came on Danny the poor guy is scared stiff......... he can't help feeling like this.........
It looks more like kind of a social game to me.

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:09 pm
by DCWhitworth
emmylou wrote:Came on Danny the poor guy is scared stiff......... he can't help feeling like this.........and yes it has been explained to him over and over again, but maybe he just don't understand enough physics to get a grip on things.......must be really horrible for him.......... :ugeek:
I'm not sure I agree. *I* don't understand enough physics to get to grips with the arguments one way or another in which case you have to be aware that you are likley to be preyed upon by people who want to frighten you for their own ends.

You have to ask yourself whether you are going to let yourself be a victim or whether you are going to trust reliable sources that tell you everything is going to be OK.

The modern world is now more full of shysters and scaremongerers than at any time in history due to the ease of mass communication.