Review of Long-Term Black Hole Risks

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Xymox » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:20 am

:romance-grouphug:

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:02 pm

Kasuha wrote: I fail to see how survivability of neutron stars can affect safety of LHC.
Neutron stars and white dwarfs are the main objects being used to demonstrate the safety of the LHC by physicists. The rest of your post just doesn't make sense, as CERN scientists were the first ones to bring up this argument.

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by DCWhitworth » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:09 pm

Xymox wrote:I moved this to controversial topics as that is what it is...
:animals-dogrun: That means I'm outta here . . .
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:12 pm

Xymox wrote:Wow my goodness...

We all need a group hug now dont we...
Image

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:16 pm

Did Chris say group hug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

:romance-grouphug:

Stephen it's been a pleasure getting to know over the past few months :D you have come a long way even if you don't realise it ;) Just think it's nearly my birthday :happy-jumpyellow: although someone said it was the 31st :eh: wonkie that is imagine sleeping through my Birthday :whistle: keep strong and you know where i am if you need me :shh: :D
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Kasuha » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:07 pm

Stephen wrote:
Kasuha wrote: I fail to see how survivability of neutron stars can affect safety of LHC.
Neutron stars and white dwarfs are the main objects being used to demonstrate the safety of the LHC by physicists. The rest of your post just doesn't make sense, as CERN scientists were the first ones to bring up this argument.
Fact #1: There is no proof the whale can exist at all.
Fact #2: There is no proof the whale can be created by particle collisions.
Fact #3: Nobody has ever observed the whale being created although particle collisions are going on in whole universe ever since Big Bang and we are watching whole universe through thousands eyes all the time.
Fact #4: Nobody has ever observed any effects the whale is supposed to have on celestial bodies.

The document you are referring to is basically just trying to explain why nobody has ever observed the whale, trying to make grounds for even hypothetical existence of the whale.

So it's like - it exists because we cannot see it.

If this makes sense to you and my posts don't .... enjoy your ride.

User avatar
spencer
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:11 am
Location: Rockville, MD
Contact:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by spencer » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:12 pm

SAVE THE BABY WHALES !

There may be a 50 % probability that homeless baby whales might be created at the LHC.

This can not be tolerated !

In this event, i suggest that all profits from ticket sales go to purchasing better magnets.

(maths not important, this is serious).

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:18 pm

spencer wrote:SAVE THE BABY WHALES !

There may be a 50 % probability that homeless baby whales might be created at the LHC.

This can not be tolerated !

In this event, i suggest that all profits from ticket sales go to purchasing better magnets.

(maths not important, this is serious).
:lol: this pleases me :crazy:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:58 am

Can anyone clarify to me why this paper's conclusions about white dwarfs not being qualified to be used as safety arguments are not true? So far you guys attacked the author and repeated the old safety arguments, but haven't given an explanation as to why his specific claims are false.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's right or anything. I would just really appreciate it if someone could disprove his claims.

User avatar
March_Hare
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:09 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by March_Hare » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:25 pm

re: Campaign to save the baby whales
Just install a large swimmingpool at the bottom of each experiment. Due to their mass they'll come into existence at near zero velocity so they'll drop right into it.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
~Douglas Adams

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Xymox » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:29 am

Whoa ! Damn !

This is GOOD... LHC creates whales !

But what if,,,, a whole lot of them got created ! Like one per collisions !!!! OMG...

10E12 whales per second...

Very bad... Whales could destroy the world... This is bad... we need to alert Ivan...

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Xymox » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:32 am

We need to address Stephen's point... Im not smart enough...

But I like whales...

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by CharmQuark » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:15 am

Stephen wrote:Can anyone clarify to me why this paper's conclusions about white dwarfs not being qualified to be used as safety arguments are not true? So far you guys attacked the author and repeated the old safety arguments, but haven't given an explanation as to why his specific claims are false.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's right or anything. I would just really appreciate it if someone could disprove his claims.
Stephen was this not was being discussed in chat yesterday? Hope you are alright :thumbup: remember keep smiling we are all gonna be alright ;)
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:35 am

If whales could actually be created in the experiment, it would indeed be dangerous. Similar to the world being destroyed by nanotechnology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dYPnui3rM&feature=hd
Last edited by Stephen on Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Review of Black Hole Risks

Post by Stephen » Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:48 am

CharmQuark wrote: Stephen was this not was being discussed in chat yesterday? Hope you are alright :thumbup: remember keep smiling we are all gonna be alright ;)
We discussed magnetic fields in neutron stars, and reached the conclusion that they should have trapped black holes regardless of that. However, the people who reached this conclusion acknowledged the fact that this educated assumption could very well be wrong. So while it makes me feel better, it would be even more great to find additional information on the subject and to address the issue of white dwarfs as well.

It's definitely important to remind ourselves that we're going to be alive after the collisions 5 days from now, and not eaten by strangelets, magnetic holes, vacuum bubbles, chain reaction, black holes, something unknown, hungry whales etc. I love your new nickname, by the way.

Post Reply