It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I think CERN is lying.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JTankers
The Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider now contains a summary of some of the basic safety arguments of the organized safety opposition, after a long battle with CERN supporters to fight censorship of these concerns.

The concerns are not just from legal action and from what is raised in the media as the article still tends to imply. The safety concerns are lead by world recognized, credible scientists. Dr. Otto Rossler is an eminent award winning professor of theoretical sciences and a significant contributor to Chaos Theory. Professor Rossler's research indicates that safety has not been reasonably proven, and danger is very plausible.

Published peer reviewed papers from science professors that question one of the of the primary safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) are still censored from the article. A 2004 Delphi study showing up to 50% doubt among physicists polled is still censored from the article. (Physicists do have reasonable doubt about Hawking Radiation, contrary to what the article implies).

From the Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider:

Concerns raised in the media

Nuclear physicist Walter L. Wagner has argued that if Micro black holes are produced at the LHC, they might not decay as predicted by CERN, since Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon and might not exist.[8][22]

Professor Otto Rössler has stated that micro black holes created in the LHC would grow exponentially, accreting the Earth in 50 months to 50 years, and he has sought scientific debate on his research[23] before the LHC particle collisions begin.[24]

----

A number of scientists are very concerned, and papers challenging safety arguments related to neutron stars and cosmic rays are currently in progress.

Learn more at LHCFacts.org or LHCDefense.org


Quoted because I thought their arguments were that science said it was safe...

To see Dr Otto Rossler amongst those concerns makes me shiver - To say that if a black hole goes wrong we have 50 months left...

Dec 12, 2012 any one ? end of time ?




[edit on 14-7-2008 by Dan Tanna]




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The only thing I want to know is when the heck will this monster of a machine be activated?


And I don't mind the kind of money they're spending on this machine seeing as how the US government spends that sort of money in a matter of days over in Iraq. At least CERN is attempting to understand the universe around us, unlike weapons of war that cost a fortune and do nothing but kill people.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Personally, I don't have a problem with these scientists. Although we do not know everything, we do have a great deal of confidence that pieces of physics that we do know about are extremely close to being nearly absolutely correct.

It is another thing to have a theory of everything, but we DO have almost every single piece of it. We just don't know how to tie it all together.

What I am trying to say is that with that knowledge they can deduce a lot of effects out. They have done so for thousands of times, but you only encounter to the ones they didn't expect. That can happen of course, but they still have a great deal of capacity when ruling out impossibilities. Physics is not dice, even if quantum physics is when observed. Ever wonder if its not dice when NOT observed?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 


My prediction is they will continue the thread that they have been on for the last 10 years.

They will be floored with amazement.

None of their predictions will actually pan out.

They will not find 'Higgs Bosons' -- But they will hail the "non-detection" of them as a total victory..

Just as they hailed the "non-detection" of gravity waves with LIGO a victory...

Hmmpph .. a Non-detection!..





posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Okay... I've just done a little bit of research on the subject googling through internet for websites that would explain why CERN says that the blackholes that are created will be completely safe.

First, from my understanding, they are creating a machine that creates blackholes under the assumption that blackholes even exist.

Second, they are creating their blackhole based on theory. What would happen if the theories they are basing the creation of the blackhole on are just wrong?

How can they say that a blackhole won't collide with other protons on Earth? How can they know that for sure? And couldn't a blackhole do considerable damage within 1 millionth of a second... say... if they did their calculations incorrectly?

Again, my problem with CERN now lies within the fact that they're only doing this based on theory, and, that's what worries me. What if all of these theories are wrong?

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Ok I am going to share a little something I learned about science and theory in college many years ago.

Theorys are not descriptions of the actual universe and it's operations, as much as the Physics community would like to think they are.

Theory's are best guess descriptions of how you think something works, which provide a degree of predictability about the outcome of actions.

When a new theory comes along which is simpler or provides more predictability, that theory dominates and the old theory is obsoleted.

There can be 20 theorys say about the perception of color through the eye.
Each covering it's own little niche area of predictability. Some of those theory's can be in absolute contradiction with others, and all be accepted theorys.

In short a theory does not claim to actually describe the true nature of the subject. Something could always go BOOM when the theorys said it should not and all the theorys might need to eventually be replaced by a new model in complete contradiction about the "Mechanism".



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 



I wish it was the case...

But for conventional cosmology... they just keep inventing new crap "Ad Hoc" to fill in the holes left by the new shattering observations.

Now they have dragged us so deep into the pits of obscurity... We have no idea what is up or down.

It is beyond absurd.

I wish they would actually pay attention to the data they collect.

Then we could make some real progress.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I get the feeling that the Ad Hoc stuff is just fluff for public consumption.

The real science is all propriatary. If anything of significance is found, the most important thing is burying it so no one else finds out.

I feel reasonably sure there are people out there who still do science. Well bits and pieces of it anyway.

The corporations use lots of little specialists who are not privledged to see the big picture when it finally comes in. Just the lower left hand corner, in ultraviolet spectrum only.

But there are a privledged few who get to see the big picture of what they are working on to reach the new goal. Then they need to bury everything but how to do the new trick. And if you want more you have to come through them! Until they die and take it with them.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Okay... I've just done a little bit of research on the subject googling through internet for websites that would explain why CERN says that the blackholes that are created will be completely safe.

First, from my understanding, they are creating a machine that creates blackholes under the assumption that blackholes even exist.
The machine does not create black holes. It's just a very very unlikely side effect


Second, they are creating their blackhole based on theory. What would happen if the theories they are basing the creation of the blackhole on are just wrong?
Wouldn't that have shown by now? Physics experiments have been carried out since physics was discovered. Particle accelerators have been around for some 80 years. Once again, if they were wrong, wouldn't that have shown by now.


How can they say that a blackhole won't collide with other protons on Earth? How can they know that for sure? And couldn't a blackhole do considerable damage within 1 millionth of a second... say... if they did their calculations incorrectly?
As someone else said in this thread the distance between the particles and the micro black hole will be too great for it to swallow anything. It wouldn't be able to swallow any actual molecules (or atoms?) as they're too big. Ontop of this, it'll last less then a nanosecond and it's far from certain a micro black hole will even be created.


Again, my problem with CERN now lies within the fact that they're only doing this based on theory, and, that's what worries me. What if all of these theories are wrong?
As I said earlier, wouldn't that have shown by now?

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Drapan]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SavageHenry
 


I apologize for being a jerk to you. I misunderstood your first post in that you were referring to cosmology, as opposed to the entirety of physics. I have seen people try to explain all of physics purely in terms of classical electrodynamics (Tom Bearden for example) and I know that it does not work.

However for the record, I did not state that plasma is a gas. I stated that it is a gas-like state in which the atoms are stripped of their electrons. And magma most certainly is NOT a plasma. Magma is a liquid. I do not know if it conducts electricity. However, liquid salt, metals, and I'm sure plenty of other pure liquids are entirely capable of conducting electricity. This does not make them plasmas.

Furthermore, plasma is gas-like. Most definitions of it that I have seen have defined it as an ionized gas. However, its properties are sufficiently different than that of a normal gas that it is considered a different state of matter.

Actually, GR is what was used to originally predict the existence of black-holes. The Schwarzschild solution is an exact solution to the field equations of GR for a spherically symmetric mass, and predicted the existence of black holes. So far from implying the nonexistence of black holes, it predicts them, albeit incompletely.

However, behavior of black holes in GR is singular, which does not make it impossible. It only means that GR breaks down at black hole scales. It does predict their existence, but is incapable of explaining their interior workings. This is to be expected for GR, as it is a classical theory.

I am also fairly certain that the existence of black holes is confirmed by cosmological observations. When I am talking about a black hole, I am not necessarily referring to a naked singularity. I am referring to collapsed massive body that possesses an event horizon, the interior of which is incapable of being explained by GR.

And as for your comment about Magnetic fields not existing without a current, you are correct in your interpretation of Maxwell's laws. However, Maxwell's laws are only considered valid in regards to classical phenomena. It is a classical theory (like GR), and is thus limited in scope. QED is quite capable of explaining static magnetic fields, which are caused by electron spin.

I am not well versed in the field of cosmology, nor plasma physics (though I have done some work with magnetohydrodynamics (derivation of classical MHD governing equations, essentially just the Navier-Stokes equations with conservation of charge and Lorentz force terms, over my last Christmas break). I am actually far more interested in QFT at the moment, which is certainly incredibly challenging for someone whose main work is classical (apart from blackbody radiation and such for thermal analysis of satellites, which is still of course not very "quantum" in nature).

Anyways, sorry for misinterpreting your post, and blowing up at you. I thought you were another Tom Bearden protege, or another crank that believed in the luminiferous ether.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drapan

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

Snip!


How can they say that a blackhole won't collide with other protons on Earth? How can they know that for sure? And couldn't a blackhole do considerable damage within 1 millionth of a second... say... if they did their calculations incorrectly?
As someone else said in this thread the distance between the particles and the micro black hole will be too great for it to swallow anything. It wouldn't be able to swallow any actual molecules (or atoms?) as they're too big. Ontop of this, it'll last less then a nanosecond and it's far from certain a micro black hole will even be created.

Snip!

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Drapan]


What happens if a particle which is too big for a black hole gets sucked into one?

Might it jam the black hole open in some new and unexpected way? Will it oscillate in and out like some bizzare micro jackhammer at a frequency never before witnessed and exerting a pressure field of unimaginged consiquence? Ok I am being imaginative here but you get the picture. You don't have an answer for every what if and no one does.

Risk is inherant to exploration. Problem is they are doing this in our backyard. The only backyard we have. We all know that the smaller the scale they go, the more destructive the reactions they spawn can be. This is the one thing we all understand about the nuclear age.

This experiment should be done off planet. I could live with it if they had to wait a hundred years for their answers.

Tinyer makes bigger Boom!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


I'm sure they've thought of it, I mean, why wouldn't they think of it? You've got to remember, they're humans as well and I bet they're not suicidal. If they didn't think it was safe for they earths population, they wouldn't go through with it.

Maybe you could live with it waiting a 100 years for them to get their answer, but you haven't devoted your life to physics and spent the last X years waiting for this thing to be built.

Beers on me if we all die sometime in august... oh wait...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 



I agree.... It makes tactical sense to do this.

In fact I think this is the real reason they freak out about countries getting nuclear weapons...

Not that we could be scared because Iran or North Korea has 4 of them..

As we have over 20,000 dial a yield from .01 k-tons to 10 mts..

We have nothing to FEAR.. except the ignorant becoming enlightened..

If we broadcast this on the Discovery channel it would get figured out pretty quick



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by erkokite
And magma most certainly is NOT a plasma.


It MOST certainly IS.


Originally posted by erkokiteMagma is a liquid. I do not know if it conducts electricity. However, liquid salt, metals, and I'm sure plenty of other pure liquids are entirely capable of conducting electricity. This does not make them plasmas.


It does..







and that does.

Plasmas obey the powers of Electromagnetics... above all other forces.

Plasmas have free electrons in them.. that is what makes them so..

They can be Liquid, Solid, or Gas...

It all depends.



Originally posted by erkokiteActually, GR is what was used to originally predict the existence of black-holes.


It was used .. incorrectly.

And the existence of black holes is still a Prediction.. that has to keep having the goal posts changed.


Originally posted by erkokite The Schwarzschild solution is an exact solution to the field equations of GR for a spherically symmetric mass, and predicted the existence of black holes. So far from implying the nonexistence of black holes, it predicts them, albeit incompletely.


It DOES NOT!

Schwarzchilds paper.

Take a look at it...

It is not Schwarzchild's solution that says that at all.. it was Hilberts ham handed and wrong interpretation of it that sparked that intellectual abyss.

Hilberts paper that does what you and they say Schwarzchilds paper did.. when it did not ... This is an example of cheerleading failure.


Another paper that uses GR and SR to discount the existence of Black Holes..

Brillouin's paper



Originally posted by erkokiteI am also fairly certain that the existence of black holes is confirmed by cosmological observations. When I am talking about a black hole, I am not necessarily referring to a naked singularity. I am referring to collapsed massive body that possesses an event horizon, the interior of which is incapable of being explained by GR.


They have not found that.. nor have they found Dark Matter .. or Invisible Universes.. etc..etc...


See.. There are areas of space that pump out VAST energies... however they are not BLACK HOLES that suck everything into them forever..

If they are anything they are MECO's which obey the laws of Electromagnetics... and not Gravity!!!!

en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by erkokiteI am not well versed in the field of cosmology, nor plasma physics (though I have done some work with magnetohydrodynamics (derivation of classical MHD governing equations, essentially just the Navier-Stokes equations with conservation of charge and Lorentz force terms, over my last Christmas break).


I think you should re-read some of the founding father of MHD Noble Laureate Hans Alfven said with a new light.


Originally posted by erkokite
Anyways, sorry for misinterpreting your post, and blowing up at you. I thought you were another Tom Bearden protege, or another crank that believed in the luminiferous ether.


We cool..

I remember being interested in Bearden a while back.. it was interesting for a bit.. then you felt yourself hit the logical wall... and saw what kind of failure he was peddling...

What is interesting .. is his failures lead me to a better understanding of reality (as all human failures have the potential to do)..

I think we all know in our gut when we hit that wall for ourselves... and that is the moment we take a theory or concept out of the envelope of belief.

Be good.


*edited to add an image.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by SavageHenry]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Hi all. This is my first post, so hopefully I'm not commiting any logistical blunders.

As someone who works on a particle collider I feel a certain obligation to spend some time correcting misinformation about this topic, since there is a *lot* of misinformation floating around out there. Perhaps you will find the perspective of an insider on this controversy interesting. But note that I speak only for myself - I do not represent any institution.

Do we know exactly what is going to happen at the LHC? No, if we did there would be no reason to do the research. Hundreds of theoretical physicists have spent years dreaming up possible scenarios about how the universe works, and making predictions about what that would mean for when the LHC turns on. But there is no danger under any of these scenarios as far as anyone can tell. Two of the doomsday scenarios I have seen you guys discuss here already include the production of stable black holes, and strangelets, but they really are nothing to worry about. As has been mentioned, it is theoretically certain that black holes will fall apart immediately if they were created at the LHC. But even if this theory is wrong then we should still be ok.

This is because of cosmic rays. Cosmic ray particles hit our atmosphere with far more energy than can be produced at the LHC. If stable black holes or strangelets can be produced by such collisions then why are we still here? One counter argument is that perhaps cosmic rays *do* produce something dangerous, but since they're produced at such high speeds they'll pass through the earth without interacting and we'd never know, whereas it is possible that the LHC could create something that would be moving slow enough to cause a problem. But even if cosmic rays produce dangerous things that move too fast to be caught by the earth, there are much larger objects called neutron stars that get hit by the same rays. These *would* capture stable black holes, but we have never observed a neutron star being destroyed in this way, and we know that some have been around for billions of years.

So is there a danger to starting up the LHC? Well, there's always a possibility that something dangerous will be created at LHC energy scales that no one ever thought of, which for some reason hasn't already killed us through the cosmic rays. You can't rule that out. And there is always a certain element of danger when you do research because you don't know what will be discovered. Past research has allowed the development of fearsome military weapons, and technology that has spread pollution and wiped out many of the earth's species. Who knows what dangers will come from the discoveries of the next generation of scientists. I, for one, am willing to risk the dangers because I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks, and I want to see humanity reach its full potential, but this is a decision that society should collectively make.

One more thing. If you really are frightened of the scientific unknowns such as the LHC startup, then perhaps you should really be more worried about the dangers of *not* running the LHC. What I mean is this: by studying space, astrophysicists have determined that only about 4% of the energy out there is in a form we understand (stars, planets, radiation, etc). About 22% of the universe's energy comes from a fundamentally different kind of matter which we can only see through its gravitational pull and have never identified (dark matter). And the remaining 74%? Something is making the universe accelerate apart at amazing speeds and we have no idea what it is (we call it dark energy). In other words, we can only speculate about how 96% of the universe works. The LHC is another step down the road to understanding the answers to these questions, and it seems to me that that should make you feel more secure.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSheepish
 


Oh, hey! You work on a particle collider? What do you do? Which collider? I'm right by the Brookhaven.

Great post, by the way.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I admit that at first, with no knowledge of anything before hand, that I was freaking out a little inside.

It didn't help that a good friend of mine sent me a link to the Black Mesa wikipedia page, apparently from the game half life. When I read things, I sometimes scan over it first, especially on wikipedia, where I normal skip the entire first introduction paragraph, and go right down to where the real facts are. So, I'm reading, and I miss the part where in the beginning it states its from a video game, and I thought the story really happened for about 5 minutes until I saw what the pictures looked like on the page. I guess it was a good moment for a laugh.

But this made me realize that I was freaking out for no good reason, and made me really read all I could on the subject. I'm really fascinated by LHC so far, and for me the worst thing that could happen is nothing. I'm no physicist but there is no way a bunch of people who live on earth who are working on a machine that's purpose is to tell us more about the earth would risk eliminating it completely.

I think also that I read this is not funded by tax payers, but the money is privately donated.

Eventually, if the human race wants to survive, humans will have to find a way to exist on another planet. I think this is a step in the right direction for that.

Also, while I was reading about it, I stumbled on another thread. Apparently about half way through all the post, a man that works at CERN starts contributing to the discussion. That thread can be found here: SA: LHC



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drapan
Before they detonated the first atom bomb "some" people were claiming that the entire atmosphere would be caught in a chain reaction of explosions which would wipe out all life on earth. Did it happen? No. I'm sure there's more examples.


No, that didn't happen.

But now take a moment to think about how it has enabled us to KILL, cause SUFFERING and POLLUTE.

And now think about our atmosphere, which is full of radioactive particles, and what potential they have for destruction.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Hi Johnmike,

I work on the Fermilab collider in Illinois, which is called the Tevatron. It was the LHC of its day, with its reign running from ~1995-present, but it's a dinosaur now, and when the LHC turns on in the near future with about a factor of 7 more energy, far greater luminosity, faster computing, better detection technology, etc, it will blow the Tevatron out of the water. So like many others out here, I'll be packing my bags and moving to Switzerland in the near future.

The Brookhaven collider is also very interesting. By a matter of interpretation it is low energy, but it can study very different kinds of physics than anything else that has ever been built. Except again, for the LHC, which will be adapting to run Brookhaven style experiments eventually with far greater potential. I suspect the Brookhaven collider also won't be around too many more years.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Grr, I think I lost the first copy of my reply. Here goes again.

Hi Johnmike,

I work out at the Tevatron collider at fermilab in Illinois. The Tevatron was the LHC of its day, with its reign running from ~1995-present. But it's a dinosaur relative to this new kid on the block, and there really won't be much point to keeping it running. So like many others I will soon be packing my bags and moving out to Switzerland.

Brookhaven has a very interesting collider. It isn't high energy, since it spreads the energy out over all the particles in the nuclei of the atoms, but the sheer number of particles involved allows you to study very different kinds of physics. Of course, the LHC is planning to eventually do heavy ion runs as well at much higher energies, so I wouldn't be surprised if Brookhaven shuts its collider down in a few years as well.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join