It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Double Eights
Originally posted by jtma508
Yea, but they were saying the same thing during the Manhattan Project. Some scientists believed it was possible that the fission reaction they were about to trigger would create a black hole that could destroy the earth.
That's a bad argument.
You're essentially saying, that yes, the world didn't end during the Manhattan Project...however, what you're failing to realize is that we created the means to end the world with the Manhattan Project.
This particle collider might not end the world, but what if it creates the means to end the world?
Originally posted by mattifikation
Grog have idea! Grog rub stick with stick, see what happen.
Thag say no! No rub stick! Might do black hole!
Grog think that silly. Stick no make black hole. Stick rub on stick all of time. Grog only want SEE stick rub on stick, see what happen!
But Thag say might do black hole!
Grog tell you, no black hole! Just stick and stick, and maybe fire!
BUT FIRE MIGHT DO BLACK HOLE!
No black hole Thag! Watch!
*ten minutes later.*
Grog, I Thag was wrong. You find good thing, you find how make fire!
Grog try to tell Thag. See what Grog made!
Yes, Thag learn less... wait! What Grog doing now?
Grog making square rock into round rock, see what happen! Grog think round rock might be wheel!
NO! ROUND ROCK MIGHT DO BLACK HOLE!!!
Originally posted by eaganthorn
LHC has been covered time and time again and because someone at Fox News has reported on some more of the same dribble that has been previously settled, life again has been breathed into this hapless miscarriage.
I see nothing new being discussed here that hasn’t been said in the vast multitude of previous posts on this subject, other than Fox News has finally discovered a “scientist” that supports the gloom and doom scenario that has long since been debunked, and of course the above mentioned member with the free power comment.
Possibility, Actuality, Probability and Necessity
a) As acknowledged - there is a difference between flying bird and flying pig. It cannot be a difference of possibility (there are no degrees of possibility; both are equally thinkable) - so the difference can only be of probability. Things are more or less probable; probability does `have degrees'. Nothing can be `a little bit possible' any more than a woman can be a little bit pregnant - but things are slightly or highly probable.
b) Probability is not a `logical notion' (in the way that possibility and actuality are); it is a `psychological notion'. It is intelligible only in terms of our expectations of what will occur.
We can, therefore think of the probability of X being so (in somebody's view) as ranging from .001% to 99.999%. We do not want to say 100% because to assert 100% probability would be to assert an actuality - and it is at least odd to call the actual `probable'.
Nor can we say it ranges from NIL. Every possibility must have some degree of probability - or it would not be possible. We cannot assert both that it might be the case and that there is no probability that it is the case.
So, what we utter categorically is never what must be the case. No state of affairs (actuality) can be a necessity since it must be a possibility. What we utter (categorically) is what we believe to be the case, which is why believing is the next topic for us to consider.
Originally posted by optimus primal
Well wise there's also the possibility that in less than an hour we'll all be dead from gamma radiation from a nearby star exploding. Would you like to move underground just in case?
The ridiculous fearmongering about the LHC needs to end. So does the misuse of terms from physics like phase transition...
[edit on 27-1-2009 by optimus primal]
Originally posted by Rren
This is new. The original ('duration') numbers were off (by about one second). There's no need for the scare quotes around scientist (their PhDs are in the relevant field(s)). These scientists don't support "the doom and gloom scenario" which you would know had you read the paper they published on arxiv (here, again, is the .pdf) or had just simply read their conclusion which FOX quoted in the Op article.
Have fun fishin'
Microscopic black holes
Nature forms black holes when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. Speculations about microscopic black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons, each of which has an energy comparable to that of a mosquito in flight. Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.
According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects. Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays. Whilst collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays, one can still demonstrate their safety.
The specific reasons for this depend whether the black holes are electrically charged, or neutral. Many stable black holes would be expected to be electrically charged, since they are created by charged particles. In this case they would interact with ordinary matter and be stopped while traversing the Earth or Sun, whether produced by cosmic rays or the LHC. The fact that the Earth and Sun are still here rules out the possibility that cosmic rays or the LHC could produce dangerous charged microscopic black holes. If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.
However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.
"To think that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity." Academician Vitaly Ginzburg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Lebedev Institute, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences
"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
"I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations." Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University
Originally posted by eaganthorn
Excellent, another thinker. Glad to see you, I stand corrected and thank you for the read.
None the less, they should report their theory as they see it as all good scientists do.
I am surprised to see Fox take this type of move on the topic, a fearful spin, if you will, but some would suggest that I shouldn’t be all that surprised. I’ve made the necessary correction and removed the quotes from “scientist” and put them where they belong as I do agree with your point. Good catch!!
In the context of which I wrote earlier, that there is a calculable range of probability for any idea once conceived, is, and has been a valid point of science even since the turn of the last century whereas concepts like Phenomenology began to receive mainstream acceptance. Over the years, science has been forced to write and rewrite not only it’s calculable theories and formulas of probability, but the terminology used to describe them.
BTW, fish aren’t biting, at least not by Pier Park or the base.