CERN's Black Hole that can eat the earth

[SkepticLance]

To John Cuthber

 

If I, or anyone else, knew all the answers related to the LHC, we would be able to give a definitive risk probability. I do not know. Nor does CERN with 100% certainty, which is why the risk is non zero. However, as we said, the risk will be very low. Just not zero.

[Mr Skeptic]

To John Cuthber

 

If I, or anyone else, knew all the answers related to the LHC, we would be able to give a definitive risk probability. I do not know. Nor does CERN with 100% certainty, which is why the risk is non zero. However, as we said, the risk will be very low. Just not zero.

 

What if next time you fart, you destroy the world? If you or anyone else knew all the answers related to farts, you could give a definite risk probability. But you don't know, nor does anyone else, which is why the risk is non zero. The risk may be very low. Just not zero. However, I feel that not enough people are concerned about the (non zero) risk that someone's fart will destroy the world.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr. Skeptic

 

It has been said that sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. I am sure you are not incompetent or at your last resort, so the sarcasm is not appropriate.

[iNow]

That statement is used to describe violence, not sarcasm.

[ydoaPs]

To Mr. Skeptic

 

It has been said that sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. I am sure you are not incompetent or at your last resort, so the sarcasm is not appropriate.

 

There is a extremely small yet nonzero chance that all of the air in this room will move to the corner of the room and I will suffocate. Does this mean I should be worried? Should I wear an air tank?

 

I think the sarcasm was appropriate; skillful use of sarcasm can prove a point.

[D H]

Cosmic rays are not the same as colliding streams of high energy particles.

You are correct. Same stuff, much higher energy.

 

In all probability, there will be no catastrophe. However, as said, it is not zero probability.

Do you drive a car or take public transportation? Eat meat? Consume alcohol?

[iNow]

As has been repeatedly implied, there's a non-zero probability for just about anything one can conceive. There's a non-zero probability that I will have sex with Scarlett Johansson on my 30th birthday, but that doesn't mean I'm changing my life around as a result of that non-zero probability.

[SkepticLance]

It is kind of interesting to see the reaction to the statement that the risk is non zero. We are getting sarcasm, expressed emotion, and irrelevancies. I wonder why? It is hardly as if the 'non zero risk' statement is anything special, unscientific, or unusual. Somehow it has touched an emotional chord.

[ydoaPs]

It is kind of interesting to see the reaction to the statement that the risk is non zero. We are getting sarcasm, expressed emotion, and irrelevancies. I wonder why? It is hardly as if the 'non zero risk' statement is anything special, unscientific, or unusual. Somehow it has touched an emotional chord.

 

infinitesimal yet non-zero=/=relevant

[Klaynos]

It is kind of interesting to see the reaction to the statement that the risk is non zero. We are getting sarcasm, expressed emotion, and irrelevancies. I wonder why? It is hardly as if the 'non zero risk' statement is anything special, unscientific, or unusual. Somehow it has touched an emotional chord.

 

Because it's the kind of thing nutters get hold of and say, "so it's non-zero so it IS dangerous and should be banned"

[SkepticLance]

To Klaynos

 

Yet no-one has actually said that. I am left wondering why the over-reaction.

[Klaynos]

To Klaynos

 

Yet no-one has actually said that. I am left wondering why the over-reaction.

 

Experience has made us bitter...

[D H]

To Klaynos

 

Yet no-one has actually said that. I am left wondering why the over-reaction.

You are coming across as one of the nutters who are saying exactly that, and saying so in lawsuits to attempt to prevent the startup of the LHC. You, like the nutters, are picking and choosing which parts of physics you agree with. You are choosing the physics that says we might create previously unseen particles with the LHC but you are ignoring the physics that says the Earth is being hit by particles with much more energy than the LHC can muster. You are choosing the physics that says we might create quantum black holes but are ignoring the physics that says such black holes will have a very short half-life and you are ignoring the very well established physics that says these quantum black holes are many orders of magnitude smaller than atomic nuclei. You are choosing the physics that says there is a non-zero chance of something bad occurring but ignoring the physics that says this non-zero chance is negligibly small, even after taking the consequences into account.

[Mr Skeptic]

What if next time you fart, you destroy the world? If you or anyone else knew all the answers related to farts, you could give a definite risk probability. But you don't know, nor does anyone else, which is why the risk is non zero. The risk may be very low. Just not zero. However, I feel that not enough people are concerned about the (non zero) risk that someone's fart will destroy the world.

 

To Mr. Skeptic

 

It has been said that sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. I am sure you are not incompetent or at your last resort, so the sarcasm is not appropriate.

 

Who said it was sarcasm? A fart has noxious chemicals and bacteria. Bacteria are capable of decimating entire species, and have certainly done so in the past. Also, bacteria are real and have been shown to exist. Compare this to the possibility of a theoretical black hole that might not follow the other theory and somehow gets formed in the LHC despite the much higher likelihood that it would have formed due to a much more powerful natural source of very highly energetic charged particles. So I think it is perfectly valid to say that a fart is more likely to destroy civilization than the LHC.

[markamerica]

and lots of sarcasm and nasty remarks directed at SkepticLance, but what it looks like from here is exactly what Lance suggests: A terribly visceral reaction against questions. Questions, for Pete's sake. This is the science forum, is it not?

 

Who are the "nutters," exactly? Anybody who asks a question? Well golly, I guess that makes me a nutter, too, huh? Get off your high horses. If you're concerned that some level of ignorance will present problems to your experiment, enlighten the ignorant rather than chastising them. The simple truth that you're hoping to avoid in all of this is: If all those who are woefully ignorant of the nature of the LHC and what it intends to accomplish should decide that it won't be permitted, then guess what? It won't be permitted.

 

After all, most of the money that is paying for said project, and almost all those like it, are paid by people you seem ready to dismiss as ignorant savages and/or nutters. This seems highly inappropriate, and terribly unappreciative. The least you could do is tell them why their money is being spent.

 

No, easier to dismiss their questions as fodder for "nutters."

 

You'd better get used to one simple fact: The average IQ is around 100. The average IQ of the folks toting this bill is not likely to be much higher. Yet you scorn questions as irrelevant or nonsensical. I seem to remember some saying about "the only stupid questions are the ones not asked." Is this the model you prefer, or are you folks going to stick to your "questions=nutters" thesis?

 

I realize that we are not all experts on particle physics, quanta, and the like, but you know, if more people understood it, maybe you'd have less to worry about from prospective lawsuits. I realize too that some people will never "get it." I realize that for some people, ignorance is a permanent veil that will never be lifted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't test the veil, operating instead on the basis of a faulty assumption about the veil's intransigence.

 

Now, where was I before I had to take leave of this forum? Oh yes, I was about asking some super-duper-stupid questions of the apparently more expert among us.

 

John was explaining to me that the speeds were related to the energies involved, which spawned a new question for me(damn the luck). In the classical model, force is going to be a function of mass and acceleration. We're clearly choosing certain more massive ions over lighter ones for these experiments. We're also clearly choosing dual beams, to create a head-on collision, and your answer vexes me somewhat, but again, here is where my ignorance shows, so please, explain it if you can by whatever means you find most efficient: Since the relative closing speed of the particles can never exceed c, under any circumstances, ever, how does it make a difference whether two particles relative to one another are moving at a combined velocity approaching c, or instead a single moving particle approaching c at a fixed target? Am I wrong in thinking the same relative velocity is attained either way? If you would be so kind, please either explain it or point me to a source that explains it.

 

As I said, this field is hardly my specialty, but I am nevertheless interested in learning about it. I'm doing my best to lift my own veil of ignorance in the limited time I can afford to such pursuits. Curiosity killed the cat, after all.

 

Thank you,

 

Mark

[uncool]

To Mr. Skeptic

 

It has been said that sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. I am sure you are not incompetent or at your last resort, so the sarcasm is not appropriate.

 

I do agree, sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. That is why I use sarcasm much more quickly.

=Uncool-

[Mr Skeptic]

In all fairness, the two colliding beams is a difference from cosmic rays, but not in any way related to energy. You are not dealing with Newtonian physics here, you need to use relativity. The speeds don't add up as [math]v = v_1 + v_2[/math] but rather as [math]v = \frac{v_1 + v_2}{1 + v_1v_2/c^2}[/math]. Note that this means that at speeds near c adding two speeds together makes only a tiny change in speed. Yet again, the masses of the particles are irrelevant, only the energy counts. So even though the cosmic rays are mostly light particles and the LHC heavy particles, the cosmic rays have more energy because they are going that little bit faster. The total energy of the particles is [math]E = \sqrt{m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2}[/math], where [math]p = \frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/math]. Obviously, then, the mass starts to lose relevance when the speeds are higher than 0.9c when the momentum contribution to energy is double the mass contribution to energy, and at much higher speeds the momentum becomes completely dominant.

 

That's some standard relativity for you. But then again, I doubt that more than 1% of the people "concerned" about the possibility of black holes are able to understand any of the relevant theory (which is far more complex than the stuff here), nor willing to spend the time to learn about it. It is very hard to explain these things clearly to people who don't even understand the basics.

 

Also, a large number of the "concerned" are unable to understand that a good scientist will never say that something is impossible. I have raised a legitimate concern that there is a non-zero possibility that someone's fart will destroy civilization, but everybody laughed at that. Why? Because the possibility is so small. But, I still think it is likelier that a fart will destroy civilization than the LHC.

 

Anyhow, the only reason that I see that the collisions at the LHC would be any different than those of cosmic rays is because they would happen in the rest frame of the earth rather than at a very rapid velocity, so if a black hole formed it might stay while cosmic ray black holes go through. However, the universe is a large place and one would very much expect that if high-energy particle collisions at energies of the LHC could form black holes, than not only our planet but several other planets and stars would be black holes. Considering then the number of collisions of particles throughout the universe, and the fact that there are no small black holes found, and comparing to the number of collisions in the LHC, you can calculate a maximum probability that a collision can create a black hole, regardless of any other theories.

 

This is also why some people say that impossible should mean "less than [math]10-^{-50}[/math] probability rather than "zero probability". Because people don't understand small numbers.

[John Cuthber]

Cosmic rays cover a large range of energy and a large range of nuclei.

It's fair to say they include at least some that are comparable with the products of the LHC.

 

The bit about 2 beams vs 1 beam is a red herring. It matters from the point of view of a physicist sat on the plannet and trying to watch the reaction products. It's not important from the point of view of the collision itself.

From the point of view of each of the particles in the LHC colision, each is stationary, the other one comes and hits it. The same is true for the cosmic ray hitting a particle in the atmosphere or on the moon.

There's a difference in the energy transfered but that's easilly overcome by looking at a different bit of the cosmic ray energy spectrum

 

Saying something has a non zero probability is practically meaningless, so it's no wonder it was followed by an outbreak of sarcasm.

It's entirely possible that the lawyers will collapse into a black hole and eat the earth*- perhaps we should ban them.

 

* This requires that Maxwell's demon hates lawyers, but that's not too strange an idea.

[Sayonara]

Okay, the probability of something going horribly wrong is really reallly small, but non-zero.

 

Point made, move on.

[SkepticLance]

If you take a look at the internet, you will find that there are literally thousands of references to the possibility of the LHC creating a planet-busting catastrophe. Dozens of people have been involved in those suggestions, including professional physicists. Even New Scientist had an item describing the theoretical risk.

 

When I checked google under 'lhc+catastrophe' I got just under 100,000 hits. The more serious references suggest a chance of disaster of 1 in 50 million over 10 years. As we have said all along, this is small but non zero.

 

Again, I find it hard to understand why, when we say something that is absolutely scientifically correct, we get met by sarcastic and emotional responses. This is the science forum, for Finagle's sake!

[swansont]

If you take a look at the internet, you will find that there are literally thousands of references to the possibility of the LHC creating a planet-busting catastrophe. Dozens of people have been involved in those suggestions, including professional physicists. Even New Scientist had an item describing the theoretical risk.

 

When I checked google under 'lhc+catastrophe' I got just under 100,000 hits. The more serious references suggest a chance of disaster of 1 in 50 million over 10 years. As we have said all along, this is small but non zero.

 

Again, I find it hard to understand why, when we say something that is absolutely scientifically correct, we get met by sarcastic and emotional responses. This is the science forum, for Finagle's sake!

 

Because of the context in which it has been said.

 

Several people stress that the probability is small, but when the response "but it's not zero," the tone is that of contradiction.

 

"It's really small" means don't worry. A response of "But it's not zero" is taken as "On the contrary, we should worry." As is a mention of how many Google hits mention the LHC+catastrophe is taken in the same light.

 

If you are in agreement that the risk is negligible, perhaps it's best not to post in a fashion that suggests otherwise, and fans the embers.

[markamerica]

SkepticLance,

 

1 in 50 million? Heck the odds of winning the Texas lotto is only 1 in 25 million. So assuming that small chance is accurate, we're looking at half the probability of winning the Texas lotto in a single drawing played with a single dollar.

 

That's not much to worry about.

 

On the other hand, people do win the lottery under those conditions.

 

As for the sarcasm, well, it may be somewhat deserved in certain circumstances, but it's still not helpful.

 

Mr. Skeptic, thanks for the answer. When I get done with my other chores for the day, I'll look at it again and think it over.

 

Mark

[timo]

"It's really small" means don't worry. A response of "But it's not zero" is taken as "On the contrary, we should worry." As is a mention of how many Google hits mention the LHC+catastrophe is taken in the same light.

>> glEnable(GL_LIGHT_0);

wtc+conspiracy -> 300k hits. No need to worry

 

>> glEnable(GL_LIGHT_1);

z+boson+lep -> 80k hits ....

[Severian]

Let me put it this way. If you don't believe the scientists who say that the black hole would evaporate, why do you believe the scientists who say that a black hole might form in the first place? After all, they are the same people.

 

If I tell you there is a 1 in 50 million chance that your car will explode next time you get it, would you never use it again? After all, I am a scientist so everything I say is true (and the photon is massless).

[markamerica]

swansont,

 

What are you worried about? If it's negligible, why take the doomsayers so seriously? (Or "nutters", I've since learned they're described here.) People like certainty. They generally loathe uncertainty. They make choices and evaluate things based on probabilities, but they'd prefer certainties. The market is a great example of this. So when people ask: "But it's not zero?" they may instead be merely trying to evaluate what the risk really amounts to with respect to their lives. So? Would you prefer to tell them "zero" even if you knew it wasn't zero, just to calm any undue fears?

 

It's as if you believe you're smart enough to handle the truth, but everybody else is not. Ever hear of "informed consent?" It's a concept in ethics. I'd suggest you rethink the attitude, because nothing will put an end to these experiments faster than the general public coming to believe "big science" isn't being perfectly forthcoming.

 

Mark

 

Severian,

 

That's just it. I don't take anything on faith. Not from anybody. Trust is accrued over time, with respect to particular individuals, but I am not one to accept the word of anybody without checking it out for myself. That's a small part of why I'm here, after all.

 

Think of it this way: I've seen opinions all over the map on this, and they center around two basic variables. Those variables are whether black holes will form, and whether Hawking radiation operates as proposed.

 

Therefore, the opinions I see fall into these categories:

Black holes will not be formed and therefore, whether Hawking radiation works or not is irrelevant.

Black holes will be formed, but Hawking radiation will intervene to stop it from growing.

Black holes will be formed, and Hawking radiation will fail to operate, or operate sufficiently to stop it from growing.

 

Obviously, of these, only one presents any difficulty, if true. It's the only one that offers a change of state for those considering it.

 

Therefore, it's only natural that this is the possibility to which people are drawn.

 

I don't know who I believe, at this point. Looks to me like I have doubts that black holes will be created at all. I also have doubts about Hawking radiation, independent of my doubts regarding black holes, etc.

 

That's why I'm here, asking questions.

 

Sorry if the questions seem inane, redundant, or superfluous. I'm nevertheless sincere in asking them.

 

Mark