113 replies to this topic

[s123]

http://www.cyriak.co...hc-webcams.html

[Ghostrider]

See http://www.hasthelar...heworldyet.com/

To be safe, make sure to click reload often!

Even if they won't find the Higgs thingy, the jokes seem endless. Great.

I don't see why so much money was invested in this or the space projects for that matter. Why not invest $10 billion in cancer or stem cell research? Sometimes, I think most people really do want to die.

[forever freedom]

See http://www.hasthelar...heworldyet.com/

To be safe, make sure to click reload often!

Even if they won't find the Higgs thingy, the jokes seem endless. Great.

I don't see why so much money was invested in this or the space projects for that matter. Why not invest $10 billion in cancer or stem cell research? Sometimes, I think most people really do want to die.

I agree. It's a very unfortunate thing. At least it's spent on science and not in some other stupid areas..

Edited by sam988, 13 September 2008 - 02:23 AM.

[luv2increase]

I feel disappointed, because 6 people voted no. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is the only beautiful thing in life. The right to acquire knowledge should become part of the universal declaration of human rights.

What good would that knowledge be if no one were to benefit from it? No one living in existence in this dimension we know anymore causing all previous scientific achievements to be irrelevant anymore.


Do you really think the benefit outweighs the risk? Absolutely 100% not. It is risk taking to the utmost, dangerous extreme.

[kismet]

Currently the best physicists in the world assume the benefits outweight the risks, as there are not many risks, in the case of the LHC.
I don't know if this sub-board is suited to discuss the philosophical implications of your question (but my personal answer is still "yes").

[luv2increase]

Currently the best physicists in the world assume the benefits outweight the risks, as there are not many risks, in the case of the LHC.
I don't know if this sub-board is suited to discuss the philosophical implications of your question (but my personal answer is still "yes").

Here is an analogy for you all. Assume there is an individual who uses chewing tobacco because he likes the gratification it gives him along with the improved thinking capabilities. There is a problem though that is always lurking in the back of this person's mind. Realize also that this person is very smart and realizes the possible implications his chewing habit may lead to ---> cancer. The person is so caught up in his habit and the benefits he derives from it that a substantial amount of time has passed. He awakes one gloomy, raining morning to notice a weird type irritation and pain in his cheek. Suddenly panic strikes this intellectually smart individual as he realizes he may be in deep trouble. He races to the mirror and see a huge white nasty looking patch in this cheek area. In his mind, doomsday has arrived before he even knew it was upon him. I mean, there is only a small chance that one can get cancer from chewing tobacco. He goes to a dentist whom agrees that a biopsy is indeed warranted. The results come back from the lab, and the intellectually smart individual is given the news that he has cancer. "OMG, if I could only go back and do things differently, I wouldn't have put myself in this horrible nightmare of a predicament!", he says to himself.

It seems the vast majority of the scientists think that the LHC won't cause the ultimate destruction of our Earth, "YET" there are some intellectually smart scientists whom think there is a real chance it could have disastrous results.

If you can understand the analogy which I have given above, you'd realize that the scientists whom think all is well with the LHC may be saying the same thing the guy in the scenario above said, "OMG, if I could only go back and do things differently, I wouldn't have put myself in this horrible nightmare of a predicament!". The only difference here is that the scientists won't only be jeopardizing their own lives but the lives of every person who lives on this planet!!!

[forever freedom]

Currently the best physicists in the world assume the benefits outweight the risks, as there are not many risks, in the case of the LHC.
I don't know if this sub-board is suited to discuss the philosophical implications of your question (but my personal answer is still "yes").

Here is an analogy for you all. Assume there is an individual who uses chewing tobacco because he likes the gratification it gives him along with the improved thinking capabilities. There is a problem though that is always lurking in the back of this person's mind. Realize also that this person is very smart and realizes the possible implications his chewing habit may lead to ---> cancer. The person is so caught up in his habit and the benefits he derives from it that a substantial amount of time has passed. He awakes one gloomy, raining morning to notice a weird type irritation and pain in his cheek. Suddenly panic strikes this intellectually smart individual as he realizes he may be in deep trouble. He races to the mirror and see a huge white nasty looking patch in this cheek area. In his mind, doomsday has arrived before he even knew it was upon him. I mean, there is only a small chance that one can get cancer from chewing tobacco. He goes to a dentist whom agrees that a biopsy is indeed warranted. The results come back from the lab, and the intellectually smart individual is given the news that he has cancer. "OMG, if I could only go back and do things differently, I wouldn't have put myself in this horrible nightmare of a predicament!", he says to himself.

It seems the vast majority of the scientists think that the LHC won't cause the ultimate destruction of our Earth, "YET" there are some intellectually smart scientists whom think there is a real chance it could have disastrous results.

If you can understand the analogy which I have given above, you'd realize that the scientists whom think all is well with the LHC may be saying the same thing the guy in the scenario above said, "OMG, if I could only go back and do things differently, I wouldn't have put myself in this horrible nightmare of a predicament!". The only difference here is that the scientists won't only be jeopardizing their own lives but the lives of every person who lives on this planet!!!

I understand your point, but you must understand that most of our technological advancements/discoveries have or had some risk of turning into a nightmare. Think of atomic bombs, biotechnology and the risks of developing new diseases, AI and the risk of creating hostile strong AI, etc.

Now would you be against all of these just because there's some risk of things turning bad? Now with the LHC, the risk of things going wrong is much smaller than the risk of the existence of atomic bombs being used in an atomic world war, or even a new virus that wipes out a large part of humanity.

My point is, there are so many risks around us, and compared to the probabilities of these risks, the risk of the LHC is negligible. Go focus your doomsday fears elsewhere..

And yes i am aware that if things go wrong with the LHC then we are ALL dead in contrast with other disasters that could wipe out "only" a few billions of people. But in this case, the world would take decades if not centuries to recover and we can say goodbye to the singularity or extreme LE therapies in our lifetimes so it wouldn't make much of a difference to me.

[luv2increase]

I understand your point, but you must understand that most of our technological advancements/discoveries have or had some risk of turning into a nightmare.

You are drastically underestimating the "nightmare" the LHC could bring forth once is ramps up to full power and actually starts smashing atoms!


It is not a doomsday fear but a logical, rational, real fear... I'm not the only one. There are many scientists who think it is a bad idea; scientists that are much smarter than you and I both.


edit: come to think about it, this thread is about the large hadron collider in general which welcomes all input of all types. You telling me to "take my doomsday fear elsewhere" is a very dumb remark considering the fact that this here very thread is where it should be. Get with the program.

Edited by luv2increase, 14 September 2008 - 05:35 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

I understand your point, but you must understand that most of our technological advancements/discoveries have or had some risk of turning into a nightmare. Think of atomic bombs, biotechnology and the risks of developing new diseases, AI and the risk of creating hostile strong AI, etc.

Now would you be against all of these just because there's some risk of things turning bad? Now with the LHC, the risk of things going wrong is much smaller than the risk of the existence of atomic bombs being used in an atomic world war, or even a new virus that wipes out a large part of humanity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't run the large hadron collider, but I don't think this is a valid comparison. Atomic bombs were a nightmare (just not on as large a scale as it could've been). As for biotechnology and AI, these advancements have the potential to save lives. Basically, I believe that we shouldn't do anything that is more likely to take lives than save them (unless the people in danger are all willing to accept the risk). Nothing is more valuable than a human life. The LHC is unlikely to save lives so if there were a legitamate chance that it could kill us (which I don't think there is), I wouldn't run it.

[luv2increase]

Basically, I believe that we shouldn't do anything that is more likely to take lives than save them

Exactly. The only benefit to this is an additional chapter in an advanced physics textbook.

(unless the people in danger are all willing to accept the risk)

Well, I didn't hear of any worldwide census about whether or not to run this thing or not! What gives these scientists the right to possibly cause the demise of billions of people?????? And for no benefit to human life... All they are trying to do is disprove God as scientists have been trying to do for a long time now. Even if they do find the god particles, who do you think created that and put that in motion???

[forever freedom]

I understand your point, but you must understand that most of our technological advancements/discoveries have or had some risk of turning into a nightmare. Think of atomic bombs, biotechnology and the risks of developing new diseases, AI and the risk of creating hostile strong AI, etc.

Now would you be against all of these just because there's some risk of things turning bad? Now with the LHC, the risk of things going wrong is much smaller than the risk of the existence of atomic bombs being used in an atomic world war, or even a new virus that wipes out a large part of humanity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't run the large hadron collider, but I don't think this is a valid comparison. Atomic bombs were a nightmare (just not on as large a scale as it could've been). As for biotechnology and AI, these advancements have the potential to save lives. Basically, I believe that we shouldn't do anything that is more likely to take lives than save them (unless the people in danger are all willing to accept the risk). Nothing is more valuable than a human life. The LHC is unlikely to save lives so if there were a legitamate chance that it could kill us (which I don't think there is), I wouldn't run it.

Any advance in our knowledge of physics will make life better in the long term. The risks with the LHC are negligible. There's no reason not to run it.

It is not a doomsday fear but a logical, rational, real fear... I'm not the only one. There are many scientists who think it is a bad idea; scientists that are much smarter than you and I both.

There are much, MUCH more smart people (and probably more informed) that think that the LHC won't pose any problem.

[forever freedom]

http://blog.wired.co...rs-infiltr.html



Ha didn't i say that neo luddites weren't doing much to stop the LHC? Apparently they hadn't shown all their cards yet..


I just hope security gets doubled at least.

[Cyberbrain]

[PWAIN]

Any advance in our knowledge of physics will make life better in the long term. The risks with the LHC are negligible. There's no reason not to run it.

I have yet to get an answer to my oft repeated question. How has mine or anyone else on this forums lives been enhanced by the discovery of the slepton, the Mu or the Tau? The Higgs Boson is just another few pages in the text books and a Noble for the scientists. I am not against big science, just against pointless big science that has an element of risk to the entire planet.

There are much, MUCH smarter people (and probably more informed) that think that the LHC won't pose any problem.

There.....fixed it for you!!

Supposedly very smart people thought that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter and that we would only ever need 1 computer on this planet and that 640Kb is enough for anyone......etc...etc....

Relying on the supposed elite, smarter people without interaction is a sure path to the demise of a civilization.

Edited by resvhead, 15 September 2008 - 11:04 PM.

[forever freedom]

Any advance in our knowledge of physics will make life better in the long term. The risks with the LHC are negligible. There's no reason not to run it.

I have yet to get an answer to my oft repeated question. How has mine or anyone else on this forums lives been enhanced by the discovery of the slepton, the Mu or the Tau? The Higgs Boson is just another few pages in the text books and a Noble for the scientists. I am not against big science, just against pointless big science that has an element of risk to the entire planet.

Pointless?? Nothing in physics is pointless. If you think in this way, you will see that most of what we discovered in physics was "pointless".... We wouldn't be able to be where we are now, technology-wise, if we didn't try to discover new "pointless" knowledge. I don't know how they will use this information, but i'm sure that one way or the other it will enable us to build new technologies. Any new knowledge is welcome and possible to use to make our lifes better somehow.

There are much, MUCH smarter people (and probably more informed) that think that the LHC won't pose any problem.

There.....fixed it for you!!

I didn't mean smarter, but a greater quantity. But ultimately you're right that i made a mistake. Instead of using much, i should've used many.

Supposedly very smart people thought that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter and that we would only ever need 1 computer on this planet and that 640Kb is enough for anyone......etc...etc....

Relying on the supposed elite, smarter people without interaction is a sure path to the demise of a civilization.

What do you mean by "smarter people without interaction"? Anyway, if you want to make any point, i suggest you go study everything there is to know about the LHC and it's possible effects, specialize in it to the point where you know as much as the scientists there do, and then if you still believed that the LHC posed a real threat to humanity, you would be heard.

[cyborgdreamer]

Basically, I believe that we shouldn't do anything that is more likely to take lives than save them

Exactly. The only benefit to this is an additional chapter in an advanced physics textbook.

(unless the people in danger are all willing to accept the risk)

Well, I didn't hear of any worldwide census about whether or not to run this thing or not! What gives these scientists the right to possibly cause the demise of billions of people?????? And for no benefit to human life... All they are trying to do is disprove God as scientists have been trying to do for a long time now. Even if they do find the god particles, who do you think created that and put that in motion???

I can see where you're coming from but is there really any risk that the LHC could destroy the world? I suspect that the hype is mainly from people who don't understand physics thinking "black hole = death vortex of armageddon".

[PWAIN]

For all we know, this could be the result of a black hole spontaneously created (by a cosmic ray collision?) on a black body in deep space:

http://www.skyandtel...html?pageSize=0

Technical:

http://www.skyandtel...html?pageSize=0

cyborgdreamer,
My understanding is that the physicists (even the ones doing work on the LHC) do not rule out the possibility of a mini black hole being created but they feel that it will simply evaporate too quickly to do any harm thanks to Hawkings radiation. Hawkings radiation is purely theory with NOTHING but speculation and reams of mathematical models to back it up. Mathematical models have also indicated a near infinite number of solutions for string theory. Scientists have not proved infallible in the past so why the sudden blind trust?

[PWAIN]

Pointless?? Nothing in physics is pointless. If you think in this way, you will see that most of what we discovered in physics was "pointless".... We wouldn't be able to be where we are now, technology-wise, if we didn't try to discover new "pointless" knowledge. I don't know how they will use this information, but i'm sure that one way or the other it will enable us to build new technologies. Any new knowledge is welcome and possible to use to make our lifes better somehow.

Despite your loud protestations about nothing in physics being pointless, you fail to provide any example of a practical use for this knowledge. Certainly it would be nice to have this knowledge but not while there is even the remotest chance of a negative outcome to humanitys future from doing the experiment. If they want to build it in space, then fine. It is also a lot of money to spend for a fairly small amount of new knowledge.

We have known about (and all characteristics of) sleptons, Mu and Tau for quite a long time now. NOTHING has come of this knowledge. This knowledge has not advanced us technology wise, it has not enabled us to build new technologies, it has not been used to make our lives better somehow. (I feel like a Dr Seuss character)

THESE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS!!!

What do you mean by "smarter people without interaction"? Anyway, if you want to make any point, i suggest you go study everything there is to know about the LHC and it's possible effects, specialize in it to the point where you know as much as the scientists there do, and then if you still believed that the LHC posed a real threat to humanity, you would be heard.

The smarter segment of society tends to isolate itself from the unwashed masses. I am not intrested in the morality of this here, just that the unwashed masses often have insites that are not recognised. If the arrogant guys at IBM actually had gone to the people who work for the various businesses they serve and asked the right questions, they might have learn't that people do not like the bottlenecks created by accessing a single computer. They may also have realised that users applications were having trouble fitting into 640Kb and that users had expectations for considerable improvements in their software which in turn would be memory intensive.

As for your second point, I guess I had better not vote in any election since I do not have a masters degree in political science. I shouldn't choose my own supplement routine or for that matter my own diet, I should only ever do that which is prescribed to me to do by "experts". We obviously don't need to waste time trying to think for ourselves, only in our chosen field of excellence.

YEAH RIGHT!!

[Arcanyn]

Pointless?? Nothing in physics is pointless. If you think in this way, you will see that most of what we discovered in physics was "pointless".... We wouldn't be able to be where we are now, technology-wise, if we didn't try to discover new "pointless" knowledge. I don't know how they will use this information, but i'm sure that one way or the other it will enable us to build new technologies. Any new knowledge is welcome and possible to use to make our lifes better somehow.

Despite your loud protestations about nothing in physics being pointless, you fail to provide any example of a practical use for this knowledge. Certainly it would be nice to have this knowledge but not while there is even the remotest chance of a negative outcome to humanitys future from doing the experiment. If they want to build it in space, then fine. It is also a lot of money to spend for a fairly small amount of new knowledge.

We have known about (and all characteristics of) sleptons, Mu and Tau for quite a long time now. NOTHING has come of this knowledge. This knowledge has not advanced us technology wise, it has not enabled us to build new technologies, it has not been used to make our lives better somehow. (I feel like a Dr Seuss character)

THESE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS!!!

One use for muons.
http://en.wikipedia....in_spectroscopy

The use of muons is one possible way in which nuclear fusion for the purposes of power generation might be achieved:
http://en.wikipedia....atalyzed_fusion

Oh, and I should mention that sleptons have not been discovered - they are predicted by certain theories and are one of the things that they hope might be discovered by the LHC. And sleptons would be very useful indeed if they did exist, well, specifically the selectron as this would give us a stable, heavy lepton. Heavy leptons, like muons and tau particles, have interesting properties when substituted for electrons in atoms. Their increased mass means that they orbit much closer to the nucleus, and experience much higher binding energies. Molecules formed this way will be much smaller, and the covalent bond strengths are several orders of magnitude stronger - with muons, for instance, a chemical reaction would involve a similar amount of energy to what would be expected from a nuclear reaction. This opens up a number of potential applications - high density, extremely high strength materials (indestructible body armour, anyone?). The increased energy of quantum level transitions would also open up such possibilities as gamma-ray lasers and the like. The reason we can't do things like this at the moment is because the two heavy leptons we know of, the muon and the tau particle, are very unstable, with half-lives of 2.2us and 2.9x10^-13 s respectively. However, the selectron, is expected to behave simply as a heavy electron - i.e. it should be stable, and therefore usable in such applications. If such particles could be shown to exist, and a way to reliably produce them could be developed, then such a discovery would likely revolutionise such areas as electronics, energy storage and materials science.

[forever freedom]

thanks pyrovus, i was too lazy to look out for it myself.


revshead must think like: "who needs those smartasses like eistein, newton, and many others with their useless theories and equations!"..

[eternaltraveler]

My understanding is that the physicists (even the ones doing work on the LHC) do not rule out the possibility of a mini black hole being created but they feel that it will simply evaporate too quickly to do any harm thanks to Hawkings radiation. Hawkings radiation is purely theory with NOTHING but speculation and reams of mathematical models to back it up. Mathematical models have also indicated a near infinite number of solutions for string theory. Scientists have not proved infallible in the past so why the sudden blind trust?

it is irrelevant to the fate of the world if tiny black holes are created and they do not evaporate.


QUOTE (jaydfox)

Luckily, such a small black hole would take a very, very long time to swallow the earth. Probably billions, if not trillions of years. At first, its surface area would be smaller than a proton: it would have a hard time swallowing the occasional atom.

By the time the black hole could work itself up to the size of a large atom (say, a nanometer in diameter), it would have a mass oon the order of 10^15 kg, the merest fraction of the earth's mass. At that size, even if we assumed that material was being sucked in at the speed of light, through a surface area of about 12.5 nm^2, the rate of mass consumption would only be about:
1.25x10^-17 m^2 * 3x10^8 m/s = 3.8x10^-9 m^3/s

That's 4 cubic millimeters per second. That's nothing. After a billion seconds, about 30 years, that's four cubic meters. Still nothing. After 30 million years, that'd be 4 million cubic meters, less material than is spewed from a large volcanic eruption.

We don't need to worry about black holes this small, even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist.

QUOTE (Jaydfox)

Of course it would accelerate. By the time the black hole could double in mass, it would have four times the surface area, so the rate of mass consumption would increase by a factor of four. So four cubic millimeters per second would go up to 16 cubic millimeters per second! To get a lower bound on the time it would take to double in mass from 10^15 kg to 2x10^15 kg, let's assume the full 16 cubic millimeters per second, and let's assume a density of 25 grams per cubic centimeter.

At 1.6*10^-8 m^3/s * 2.5*10^4 kg/m^3, we get 4*10^-4 kg/s. So it would take about, oh, 2.5*10^18 seconds to double in mass, as a lower bound. That's billions of years, to accelerate by a factor of four. The next factor of four would take half the time (twice the mass through four times the surface area), so the acceleration itself would accelerate. But it would take billions of years before the acceleration had any meaningful effect.

The bottom line is, a black hole this small is effectively insignificant, at least as far as the fate of earth is concerned.

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry138019

do please at least try to find old threads on the subject and restart those, instead of making brand new ones that need to go through all the stages the old ones already went through before any new information is brought forth...

[PWAIN]

Not exactly a bastion of impartiality (Wikipedia), but what is around here?

http://en.wikipedia....icro_black_hole

Some string theorists have suggested that the multiple dimensions postulated by string theory might make the effective strength of gravity many orders of magnitude stronger at small distances (very high energies). This might effectively lower the Planck energy, and perhaps make black-hole-like descriptions valuable at even lower masses such as those which are reachable at the LHC.[7][8][9] This higher-dimensional component to gravity is, however, purely theoretical as of 2008.

Elrond, if your last comment is referring to me, then please don't patronise me about duplication, I was not the person who created this thread - I am just responding to comments here.

There are a lot of unknowns and at these energies and at these scales, very weird things can happen that we are still learning about. There is a lot of theory that has exceptions that are only found out about later on (Newton physics superceeded by quantum mechanics at certain scales). How much of a nut case would I have sounded if I had made comments about the possibility of inaccuracy in Newtonian physics 200 years ago? As I have said, the probablitiy of a disaster is in my opinion excruciatingly small but still non zero. This probability is balanced by the magnitude of the implications.

[PWAIN]

We have known about (and all characteristics of) sleptons, Mu and Tau for quite a long time now. NOTHING has come of this knowledge. This knowledge has not advanced us technology wise, it has not enabled us to build new technologies, it has not been used to make our lives better somehow. (I feel like a Dr Seuss character)

One use for muons.
http://en.wikipedia....in_spectroscopy

Ok, I will concede that this would fit the criteria of the first 2 ie it has advanced us technology wise and it has enabled us to build new technologies, however it has not been used to make our lives better. I would also add that the amount that is has done these things is exceedingly small.

The use of muons is one possible way in which nuclear fusion for the purposes of power generation might be achieved:
http://en.wikipedia....atalyzed_fusion

This has not actually been achieved and appears to have some quite hard problems (possibly insurmountable) to overcome first.

Oh, and I should mention that sleptons have not been discovered - they are predicted by certain theories and are one of the things that they hope might be discovered by the LHC. And sleptons would be very useful indeed if they did exist, well, specifically the selectron as this would give us a stable, heavy lepton. Heavy leptons, like muons and tau particles, have interesting properties when substituted for electrons in atoms. Their increased mass means that they orbit much closer to the nucleus, and experience much higher binding energies. Molecules formed this way will be much smaller, and the covalent bond strengths are several orders of magnitude stronger - with muons, for instance, a chemical reaction would involve a similar amount of energy to what would be expected from a nuclear reaction. This opens up a number of potential applications - high density, extremely high strength materials (indestructible body armour, anyone?). The increased energy of quantum level transitions would also open up such possibilities as gamma-ray lasers and the like. The reason we can't do things like this at the moment is because the two heavy leptons we know of, the muon and the tau particle, are very unstable, with half-lives of 2.2us and 2.9x10^-13 s respectively. However, the selectron, is expected to behave simply as a heavy electron - i.e. it should be stable, and therefore usable in such applications. If such particles could be shown to exist, and a way to reliably produce them could be developed, then such a discovery would likely revolutionise such areas as electronics, energy storage and materials science.

Just went with the first 3 particles that came into my head but you are quite correct, sleptons have not been discovered yet. Take your pick from other discovered particles to replace sleptons - how about muon, pion or kaon? The point is that this is not a field that is rich in practical useable results - I wish it was.

The bit about the selectron is intresting, even quite exciting, however should be tempered with reality a bit. This is speculative especially the bit about creating super strength body armour. Most likely microscopic size clumps of this super strength material will be created if it is even possible. If we can create it without a 10 billion dollar collider then perhaps we should be exploring options for that otherwise, in all honesty, I cannot see how this can ever be seen as practical. Imagine how long it could take to create a single piece of body armour if that is even possible. The bit about gamma ray lasers is intresting too but I can't help wondering about issues faced there and whether other alternatives may be a better line to follow. Any time we need a huge and expensive piece of equipment to create something, either the quantity required needs to be tiny or the impact to humanity huge. That could happen but it doesn't appear to have done so yet.

[PWAIN]

thanks pyrovus, i was too lazy to look out for it myself.


revshead must think like: "who needs those smartasses like eistein, newton, and many others with their useless theories and equations!"..

If you respect them, you could at least capitalise the first letter of their names and spell Einstein correctly:)

I have very great admiration for these scientists that forged ahead and went against the prevailing beliefs. They were true scientists who were brave enough to think for themselves instead of following the dogma of the time. I am certainly NOT anti science, but logic tells me that with limited resources (time, manpower and $$$s) we need to be careful in our selection of which areas research is done. Logic also tells me that we need to take care with things we do not yet fully understand because they may harm us. My social interactions tell me that human nature can choose to ignore these things in the persuit of self intrest or pride. I want more resources devoted to scientific research but I also want better allocation of the resources that are currently available for scientific research so as to maximise the benefits to humanity.

So if all this makes me a Luddite in your view, then so be it. I clearly won't be able to change your view of me.

[luv2increase]

I can see where you're coming from but is there really any risk that the LHC could destroy the world? I suspect that the hype is mainly from people who don't understand physics thinking "black hole = death vortex of armageddon".

Apparently you haven't read much about it. There are many physicists against the LHC! I would say those are people that "understand physics thinking" wouldn't you know?

[luv2increase]

Pointless?? Nothing in physics is pointless. If you think in this way, you will see that most of what we discovered in physics was "pointless".... We wouldn't be able to be where we are now, technology-wise, if we didn't try to discover new "pointless" knowledge. I don't know how they will use this information, but i'm sure that one way or the other it will enable us to build new technologies. Any new knowledge is welcome and possible to use to make our lifes better somehow.

Despite your loud protestations about nothing in physics being pointless, you fail to provide any example of a practical use for this knowledge. Certainly it would be nice to have this knowledge but not while there is even the remotest chance of a negative outcome to humanitys future from doing the experiment. If they want to build it in space, then fine. It is also a lot of money to spend for a fairly small amount of new knowledge.

We have known about (and all characteristics of) sleptons, Mu and Tau for quite a long time now. NOTHING has come of this knowledge. This knowledge has not advanced us technology wise, it has not enabled us to build new technologies, it has not been used to make our lives better somehow. (I feel like a Dr Seuss character)

THESE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS!!!

What do you mean by "smarter people without interaction"? Anyway, if you want to make any point, i suggest you go study everything there is to know about the LHC and it's possible effects, specialize in it to the point where you know as much as the scientists there do, and then if you still believed that the LHC posed a real threat to humanity, you would be heard.

The smarter segment of society tends to isolate itself from the unwashed masses. I am not intrested in the morality of this here, just that the unwashed masses often have insites that are not recognised. If the arrogant guys at IBM actually had gone to the people who work for the various businesses they serve and asked the right questions, they might have learn't that people do not like the bottlenecks created by accessing a single computer. They may also have realised that users applications were having trouble fitting into 640Kb and that users had expectations for considerable improvements in their software which in turn would be memory intensive.

As for your second point, I guess I had better not vote in any election since I do not have a masters degree in political science. I shouldn't choose my own supplement routine or for that matter my own diet, I should only ever do that which is prescribed to me to do by "experts". We obviously don't need to waste time trying to think for ourselves, only in our chosen field of excellence.

YEAH RIGHT!!

Beautiful!!!!!!!

[luv2increase]

My understanding is that the physicists (even the ones doing work on the LHC) do not rule out the possibility of a mini black hole being created but they feel that it will simply evaporate too quickly to do any harm thanks to Hawkings radiation. Hawkings radiation is purely theory with NOTHING but speculation and reams of mathematical models to back it up. Mathematical models have also indicated a near infinite number of solutions for string theory. Scientists have not proved infallible in the past so why the sudden blind trust?

it is irrelevant to the fate of the world if tiny black holes are created and they do not evaporate.


QUOTE (jaydfox)

Luckily, such a small black hole would take a very, very long time to swallow the earth. Probably billions, if not trillions of years. At first, its surface area would be smaller than a proton: it would have a hard time swallowing the occasional atom.

By the time the black hole could work itself up to the size of a large atom (say, a nanometer in diameter), it would have a mass oon the order of 10^15 kg, the merest fraction of the earth's mass. At that size, even if we assumed that material was being sucked in at the speed of light, through a surface area of about 12.5 nm^2, the rate of mass consumption would only be about:
1.25x10^-17 m^2 * 3x10^8 m/s = 3.8x10^-9 m^3/s

That's 4 cubic millimeters per second. That's nothing. After a billion seconds, about 30 years, that's four cubic meters. Still nothing. After 30 million years, that'd be 4 million cubic meters, less material than is spewed from a large volcanic eruption.

We don't need to worry about black holes this small, even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist.

QUOTE (Jaydfox)

Of course it would accelerate. By the time the black hole could double in mass, it would have four times the surface area, so the rate of mass consumption would increase by a factor of four. So four cubic millimeters per second would go up to 16 cubic millimeters per second! To get a lower bound on the time it would take to double in mass from 10^15 kg to 2x10^15 kg, let's assume the full 16 cubic millimeters per second, and let's assume a density of 25 grams per cubic centimeter.

At 1.6*10^-8 m^3/s * 2.5*10^4 kg/m^3, we get 4*10^-4 kg/s. So it would take about, oh, 2.5*10^18 seconds to double in mass, as a lower bound. That's billions of years, to accelerate by a factor of four. The next factor of four would take half the time (twice the mass through four times the surface area), so the acceleration itself would accelerate. But it would take billions of years before the acceleration had any meaningful effect.

The bottom line is, a black hole this small is effectively insignificant, at least as far as the fate of earth is concerned.

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry138019

do please at least try to find old threads on the subject and restart those, instead of making brand new ones that need to go through all the stages the old ones already went through before any new information is brought forth...

Instead of humans being afraid of viruses and bacteria, there would be a new threat to humanity, these little damn black holes floating around and through our Earth. Sounds great.

So elrond, how would you like one of these black holes shooting through your body? There wouldn't be a way to contain them because they would inevitably devour all matter in their way!

[luv2increase]

Well, at least we have a few more months to spare....


It is out of commission!

http://www.foxnews.c...,425669,00.html

[forever freedom]

At least the failure didn't bring any major consequence like a bigger explosion, with deaths. That would be the news of the year for neo luddites.

[cyborgdreamer]

Okay, maybe I was jumping the gun a bit when I said there weren't any risks. But the risks don't have to be nonexistent; they just have to be less likely than the (admittedly small) probability that we might discover something that could be used to save lives. (Of course, you'd still have to scale the probability by the number of people that would be affected.)