The Large Hadron Collider is perfectly safe

[Graviphoton]

First, according to quantum physics, any black hole does not have an upper limit of size, but it must have a lower limit: The planck length.

 

This is why th electron can be a black hole. I think you will find the event horizon problem is just one of many problems physicist Brian Greene can remove.

 

Klaynos

 

Rubbish? Maybe you have read this claim many times. I have also read that white holes are still indeed [possible], and whilst black holes may exist, it is only logical to assume their time-reversed counterpart. Without them, its one-sided, and puts doubt on the black holes existence.

 

Now Swanson, i think its only fair that you remove the warning, because you applied it as a warning against theories not acceptable. I've shown it is mainstream

 

check

 

wikipedia: Is the Electron a Black Hole?

 

You will find it tells you about the history of idea, and some of its implications.

 

I have to admit, i'm quite surprised you rallied to giving me a warning, without asking me first. Wasn't very wise was it?

 

I'm not one of these trolls like zephir who makes claims that are totally unsupported. I give my work more credit than that.

 

Fanghur

 

Actually, Dr Wagner is a friend, and i know he has made these lawsuits. I agree with him. So there you go.

 

And please, for the second time. The Cosmic Ray Collision arguement has been overthrown and accepted by the LHC scientists. Leave that to rest please, and stop keeping using it.

 

(suffice to say), i may not agree for the same reasons as his counterpart Dr Dixon. It seems to me that exciting supernovae of type la is just far too much for me to believe in. However, both their principle states my own: We don't know whether the equations are sound, therefore, how can we be 100% sure nothing bad can happen?

 

This is what people ignore, and show how ignorant they are.

[Klaynos]

Again you seem unclear as to what science is, what a scientific theory is and how to show things in physics. You've shown nothing at all.

 

If you note even the wikipedia page you suggest says it's speculation! There is also a long list of reasons why the idea has been debunked.

 

There is also no logical reason that you have shown to say that, there are black holes therefore there must be white holes.... it is a valid speculation but thermodynamics steps in and says "NOPE sorry, NEXT!"

 

You have not shown that the cosmic ray idea is wrong, you've just said it is... it can easily be shown that the LHC will have 2 beams energies of 7000GeV, whereas cosmic rays have energies of up to10²⁰eV, MANY MANY times more, and are massive, 87% are protons, 14% are ⁴He, most of the rest is heavier, with a few electrons and gamma rays... Have a look at the "Oh my god" particle

 

You can't be 100% sure that turning on your light isn't going to cause photons to create a micro-black hole in your room that with some magical way hawking radiation doesn't evaporate it and it swallows up the earth quite quickly through some massive amounts of luck... so DON'T TURN ON YOUR LIGHTS!!!!!!!!!! That really is not a reason not to do something, again this shows a lack of understanding the scientific method when we say we're not 100% sure of a theory....

[Graviphoton]

Look,

 

A scientific theory is a theory which makes a conjecture on science

Simple

[Klaynos]

Look,

 

A scientific theory is a theory which makes a conjecture on science

Simple

 

Nope, you're wrong I'm afraid. It has to conform to the scientific method, and be able to make falsifiable predictions, which pretty much means it needs maths as well.

[Graviphoton]

I know i never gave any work, because it isn't my work. If you want a reference, you will need to ask Dr. Wagner, who has published some of his work on sciforums.

 

However, the energies required to create black holes in the lab with a mass of about 22 micrograms we would need about 10^16 TeV just to produce it... and guess what. The Fermilab can now reach 10^33 TeV... so watch this space

 

Yes, but i never went into details. A theory using science, whether speculative or not, mathematically enhanced, or retarded, it is still a theory using scientific conjecture, and in definition, is a scientific theory, so long as it is rigorous in what it claims,and not over-speculative, basing things on hard science.

 

Now, this is what Brian Greene has done. And i disagree with wiki. It hasn't been debunked, as in dead. It is still alive, because Greene hasn't retracted his statements. It is also considered by many physicists in the field to be an experimental way to probe black holes.

[Klaynos]

Publishing work on sciforums is not publishing. But the thing is even if you can (not saying you can I've not calculated it or seen calculations) create black holes they evaporate so amazingly quickly it doesn't matter.... The Tevatron Fermilabs largest accelerator can achieve energies of 1000GeV (two beams at that energy 1 proton, 1 anti proton). I am well aware of that...

[Graviphoton]

The energies are sufficient to create black holes... more than enough now.

 

So how can anyone say we are 100% safe?

 

The ignorance, not so much from you, but in general is astounding. They hold to equations which have never been observed or experimented with... equations that are supposed to allow hawking radiation, ect ect. What if it doesn't radiate away its energy? Speculative, i know... just as speculative as the nature of black holes.

[Klaynos]

The ignorance, not so much from you, but in general is astounding. They hold to equations which have never been observed or experimented with... equations that are supposed to allow hawking radiation, ect ect. What if it doesn't radiate away its energy? Speculative, i know... just as speculative as the nature of black holes.

 

Then the universe would be full of tiny black holes, the atmosphere would be teaming with them, so either they can't be created as easily as we think or they evaporate.

 

There is some experimental evidence for hawking radiation, but it's indirect:

 

Emil T Akhmedov, Douglas Singleton On the physical meaning of the Unruh effect

[Graviphoton]

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Also, if that is the level of your arguement, i can also counter by saying: The universe was thriving in primordial micro black holes, but are diluted due to inflation. The same kind of theory which answers for magnetic monopoles.

[Klaynos]

That still does not explain where all the ones being created in the atmosphere are now.

[swansont]

First, according to quantum physics, any black hole does not have an upper limit of size, but it must have a lower limit: The planck length.

 

 

Last I checked we didn't have a quantum theory of gravity. The Planck length is the scale where one is needed, since the classical theory breaks down, but it's quite a leap from that to the conclusion that electrons are black holes.

 

You told me¹ you had references to back all of this up. Where are they?

 

¹private communication

[Hypercube]

Originally posted by Graviphoton

 

The Fermilab can now reach 10^33 TeV

 

Graviphoton, what the hell are you talking about? 10^33 TeV at Fermilab? Not even the most powerful cosmic rays known to science have that much energy, and anyone who suggests otherwise seriously needs to go back to school.

 

As for your white hole argument, there is not one single shred of evidence be it direct or indirect that they exist. Give up Graviphoton, you're just making yourself sound like an idiot.

[insane_alien]

The Fermilab can now reach 10^33 TeV

 

yeah, fermilabs own site says only 1Tev. you pulled that number out from deep inside your rectum and you know it.

 

Refference: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/accelerators/chainaccel.html

[Hypercube]

That's where Graviphoton is pulling all of this crap, anyone who would actually think that particle accelerators could produce anything dangerous but cosmic rays couldn't should seriously think about choosing a different branch of science to study.

[Graviphoton]

Femilab is yet to update their page. Now, i'm not an idiot, and i don't appreciate being called one.

 

Listen to this:

 

''The current energy levels at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have been increased from 1.2 TeV to 33 TeV (trillion electron volts) for the the Tevatron 2 trials scheduled for this March or April 2001.

Please check the Luminoisty Webpage at Fermilab to verify this enormous increase.

 

Clearly, this is enough energy to access those energies resident in de Sitter space thus produing a supernova. This is termed a Type Ia supernova and is used as a standard candle for distance estimates in observational astonomy.

 

Even though research is often risky this is an unacceptable risk since supernova production will destroy everthing out to a perimeter of some 50 light years.

 

Please contact me at <dixon@hawaii.edu> for further information. Go to: ( Paul Dixon Supernova) on Google.com or (Paul W. Dixon supernova) as well to check various webpages on this topic.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.

Supernova from Experimentation''

 

Now, even though i do not believe this, theory, it still states the energy difference. Now if you are having problems with me, contact him for yourself.

 

Not 10^33TeV... I'm doing so much work, i'm getting mixed up.

 

By work, i mean i am doing several things at once, with a child screaming in one ear.

[Hypercube]

Graviphoton, the Tevatron is nowhere near large enough to produce 33 TeV on each beam, not even the Large Hadron Collider is that powerful. I don't know where you are getting these figures, but I looked for this page you cited, and it doesn't exist. Or if it does it certainly doesn't claim that the Tevatron can produce energies of 33 TeV, but if that is the case then we know for sure that the LHC is safe don't we? since it only produces 14 TeV. Again Graviphoton, you are pulling things out of the aether.

[Klaynos]

Yet to update their page since 2001?

 

Do you have any peer reviewed articles from Dr P Dixon on this? I can't find any.

 

And anyone can work out the energies that an accelerator can create given the parameters of it's construction the Tevatron gets to about 1000GeV and then can go not much further...

[Hypercube]

He got that from BadAstronomy.com

 

What a reliable source, take my advice Graviphoton, stop making yourself look like a fool, and just admit that you are wrong.

[Graviphoton]

No, i didn't get it from BAUT.

 

Now, speak to Dr Dixon about the energies, because i dare say it cannot be false, since he is using the arguement in court.

[Fanghur]

Yeah, Hypercube's right. Unless you can back up the things you say, stop talking.

[Graviphoton]

I mean come on. Why are you pressing me about the knowledges validity. Its not me who's trying to stop your precious collider from being in operation. I gave you his e-mail contact, now i am going to leave it at that.

[Hypercube]

If that is the case then why the hell are they going to court!?!? If the Tevatron really did produce particle collisions with that kind of energy than why are we worried about the Large Hadron Collider whose energy is only 14 Tev? Why is the LHC hailed as the most powerful particle accelerator ever made? I'll tell you why, because this whole thing you are citing about the Tevatron is a load of crap.

 

P.S. I'm on bad astronomy right now looking at the letter you copied, nice try though.

[Klaynos]

No, i didn't get it from BAUT.

 

Now, speak to Dr Dixon about the energies, because i dare say it cannot be false, since he is using the arguement in court.

 

He's not here spouting his bad science, YOU are.... Now, cite peer reviewed articles or STFU.

 

Hahaha, you just got shot down Graviphoton.

 

It's the second time that's been put to him though and he pretty much ignored it the first time.

[insane_alien]

if fermi lab managed 33TeV, why can't i find any reference to it on their site? at all. surely reaching more than twice as high as the LHC is supposed to get would be a stupendous achievement that they would want to show off(particle physicists tend to have severe 'mines bigger than yours' issues).

 

i can't find any references to it appart from on forums in threads that are decidedly dodgy.

[Graviphoton]

Put it this way. I find it highly unlikely that their core arguement be wrong, expecially when going to court. It would be a professional embarrasment on their behalfs. Now, i will not answer again in this thread. I gave you references, and even contacts... and you all keep pressing me for the holy grail. Find it yourself.