Twists in the doomsday debate

Johnny Lee — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:36:16 GMT

Well, good luck with the activities - I guess... and if it turns out bad, nice knowing you all.

Twists in the doomsday debate

marc, northern Va — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:38:04 GMT

There will always be nay-sayers, always be people who are fearful of change and the unknown. I truly don't understand how in 2008 we give credence to fringe, inexpert opinions and give them enough credence to force a defense of sound, proven scientific knowledge. What we find out from this new Collider could provide insights into an array of information, including dark matter, the properties of black holes, and even the energy of the universe which seems unlimited. The vast majority of experts in the field believe this will be a major leap forward in our understanding of the universe. They have determined there is no threat. Dismiss the lawsuit, hold Wagner in contempt, and lets move on.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Loren, SF Bay Area, CA — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:40:53 GMT

I'm guessing they're only trying to determine the "accountable parties" for purposes of legal service of documents. Because if the world *did* end from something the LHC did, who would sue and who would collect?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:06:42 GMT

Knowledge is power and power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts...what price will be paid for this knowledge...will we find what we were looking for....yes we will and what price will that knowledge cost.

Twists in the doomsday debate

steve smyth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:19:00 GMT

Doesn't it seem that this issue is actually becoming a test of just how much the public is prepared to accept prescient scientific knowledge.
Do we really know enough to mess with this?
Does anyone but the Folks here know about this topic?
If you believe, find the film of Johnny Von Neumann in the bunker, waiting to see if his calculations RE no terminal chain reaction upon detonation of the A-Bomb were correct.
He was close to wetting his britches.

Twists in the doomsday debate

janaya — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:28:26 GMT

How much energy will be created when two particles (even though at a very small scale) collide when each is moving at nearly the speed of light?

I am not sure I would like to find out.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Caroline,GA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:02:04 GMT

I suppose if we aren't willing to take risks then we will never know how far we can advance as a society both technologically and socially. My question here is "How will these new discoveries help us or hurt us and is the risk, no matter how large or small, worth it?" It is one thing to grow' it is another to destroy.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Max Planck, Rpid City SD — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:10:18 GMT

I'm embrassed that these plaintiffs are from the US. Anybody who buys into these concerns is a fool unworthy of membership in the human race.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Kyle — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:22:26 GMT

As an undergraduate in astrophysics, this case just shows how little the plaintiffs actually know. The solar wind and cosmic rays slam into the moon all the time with much more power then the LHC could ever produce. The moon has been sitting there in space for over 4 billion years and hasn't been swallowed by a black hole or turned into a some kind of subatomic goop. What this really is about is attention getting, fear mongering anti-science bull. This is the same mentality that locked Galileo up for his discoveries or the same mentality tries to replace the way biology is taught with 'intelligent design' in schools. Anyone with half a brain should realize this lawsuit is frivolous. You don't need to be a nobel laureate to figure that out.

Twists in the doomsday debate

PAQ Pepperell MA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:54:31 GMT

Why get all hot and bothered? Half of Americans think that god will cure terminal illness if you prey. We let W into office twice. Can humanity really be worth saving? I for one would rather go out searching for true knowledge than be shackled by the ignorance and prejudice that our brethren of faith seem to prefer.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Derek, Aurora, Colorado — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:08:19 GMT

Their concerns are well-founded in my opinion, regardless of what the experts think. At the end of the day, all science, no matter how absolute we believe in it, is human theory. There's no way of knowing exactly what will happen when the accelerator comes online - if we did, then why would we bother building and using it?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Francisco G Watsonville CA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:18:21 GMT

I agree with who ever wrote this comment:

"Knowledge is power and power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts...what price will be paid for this knowledge...will we find what we were looking for....yes we will and what price will that knowledge cost."

This is just like the creation of the A bomb. In my opinion it has just been a wate of money. Just imagine what we as the human race could have done to solve the world's problems with all the money that has gone to create and develop and also build "Shields" to protects us from the very same thing that was supposed to make the world a better place?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bodach — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:21:38 GMT

I played a very small part in the LEM program. There were very knowledgeable people, at that time, who were absolutely convinced that the Lander and crew would sink and disappear into the lunar soil because it had been pulverized by meteorites in a fine talcum-like powder. Sometimes people just like to bitch and grab a little spotlight.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Cay, Milford, CT — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32:49 GMT

I wonder how many people on this planet could have been fed, clothed, and given medical care with the money that will be spent to make and run this machine....

Twists in the doomsday debate

Charles Edwards Sr. 1985 County Rd.N Niagara,Wisconsin 54151 — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:45:06 GMT

This is so cool,that we could be standing on the threshold of infinity.There is a few other things to look at though.What if we are able to harness a new kind of energy,and on the other hand the bible does say that the next time the earth will be purged by fire, well if this collider has this much power then I say damn the torpedeos and full speed ahead Good Luck to all Americans and via con dehois I hope

Twists in the doomsday debate

"Erwin Schrödinger" — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:50:52 GMT

All I know is the end of the world is slated for December, 2012. This CERN/DOE project is just one more thing to add credence to the thought that humankind will bring about it's own undoing. How ironic would that be? Einstein once lamented, pondering the thought of how his works unlocked the power of the atom and the nuclear age, "If I had only known, I would've been a locksmith". We may not have the benefit of hindsight on this one if it goes amok.

Twists in the doomsday debate

L. Picciano — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:57:12 GMT

If Mr. Wagner expects to get some sort of absolute safety guarantee, it will never happen. There's a degree of risk in everything that's impossible to eliminate. You can only minimize it to an extent. Given Mr. Wagner's apparent obsession with Doomsday senarios, even though they have been disproven in the past, it seems unlikely he will never be satisfied with any safety assurances he may get from officials of the LHC or the courts. It seems to me, any decision not in his favor will probably result in yet another challenge involving a different disaster prediction.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Kay, CA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:07:25 GMT

Please...let's not assume that since "the majority of experts" believe something is true, it is. If this was the case, we wouldn't have terms like "Superseded scientific theories" for this is a THEORY (even if it is "...based on extremely well tested theories of Physics...")until it actually happens. Wasn't that long ago that space was supposedly filled with ether.

Twists in the doomsday debate

randy a michael, goshen, ohio — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:12:08 GMT

Let's round up all the nukes on earth and load them on a spaceship and drive it into the sun. The quest for energy related knowledge is surely worth the risk.
I kinda hope the darn thing blows it all to hades. Of course I'm being sarcastic. Just the possibility of what they say might happen should be reason enough to shut it down. Go gain knowledge in another field, like hydrogen power, cancer research...something freakin useful.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Angel Cruz, San Juan, Puerto Rico — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:19:12 GMT

Creating a Black Hole and sustaining it are two very different things. I don't belive they have the capacity to sustain such a large amount of energy. At best they will touch the surface and spend decades studying the information collected.

Twists in the doomsday debate

UnderWelmed — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:24:36 GMT

So many idiots with so few soapboxes on which to grandstand.

To the lady who wants to know how many poor souls could have been fed with the money that was used to build the LHC, well tens of thousands could have been fed for weeks at least. . . . and then they would be hungry again with hands out and begging for more. People, this is a tool for learning the secrets of our universe. It promises to unlock the mysteries that may one day provide us power, food, transportation to worlds beyond. Who knows what might be discovered, it is still waiting to be found. Don't be short-sighted and don't allow cowardice and ignorance to imped the work of the educated and brave. Relax . . . the world is not going to end.

Twists in the doomsday debate

John, Evergreen, Colorado — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:39:38 GMT

This device has the power to unlock energy and potential beyond our wildest dreams making it worth one million times the cost to make it. However, the problem is that miniscule black holes can engulf entire galaxies in their lives purely because of their extreme mass as everybody knows. Therefore, there's good news even in the face of bad news. Either the device helps to better humanity or we all die a hopefully quick death because of how fast we'd be sucked into the black hole. Besides, I'd kinda like to see light be stretched like silly putty :D

Twists in the doomsday debate

Peace — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:13:21 GMT

Looking back at the past, when technology and science were in their seeming infancy, and were accepted as quite sophisticated in their time just as ours is today- those people who challenged that accepted wisdom long ago were also called cooks and crazies and nay-sayers for daring to stand against the truths of their time and challenge them.

Sometimes common sense comes before the proof is available to dispute a claim.

Why the rush?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Joaquin Solorzano — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:15:40 GMT

Although I don't think any real benefit will come from this research, I personally am not too worried about it. My wife, however, with her degree in childhood development, has expressed concern that it might destroy the world. These elitists with PhDs in astrophysics and such may well have investigated the doomsday/Armageddon/bye-bye Earth/everybody dies scenarios and feel certain that the collider is perfectly safe, but it's too bad they didn't have degree's in psychology. If they did they would have thought of the psychological harm this could cause to countless people. After 9/11 there was a documented spike in drugs such as Prozac all the way to California. These subatomic black holes can't be kept in a bottle. They will go missing and the researchers will say,"Oh, don't worry, they dissipate with (theoretical)Hawkings radiation", but others will wonder if there are tiny black holes eating away at the center of the Earth, eventually swallowing it whole. Whether any increase in physcotropic drugs is small, world wide, or just limited to my wife, these folks are responsible.

Twists in the doomsday debate

RJG from So Cal — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:15:54 GMT

Here's the basic problem-- and incredible danger with this machine in a nutshell: according to Cern's own downloadable literature (FAQ's in LHC- The Guide) the dangers of the LHC are dismissed because the reactions only "make the energy of the motion of a flying mosquito..." BUT...CERN also says (pge. 25 )"in the collision, the temperature will exceed 100,000 times that of the center of the sun."
I'm sure everyone reading this would certainly agree that's mighty hot temperature-- even if it's located in Switzerland. I think it would be extremely helpful if professional journalists/science experts such as Mr. Boyle would further examine (and discuss) the risks associated with temperatures "100,000 times that of the center of the sun" here on good ol' planet Earth. AND, if such temperatures are possible, what safeguards are in place to protect us from the reactions if they go awry (such as the earlier accident during the building of the LHC).
Kudos, by the way, MSNBC, for being one of only a few global media outlets looking into the launch of the LHC.

[ALAN ADDS: Thanks for the good word ... yes, it's a bit confusing to keep all the superlatives straight. The collisions are due to occur with maximum energy of 14 trillion electron volts (TeV). That means two beams hitting each other, each with energy of 7 TeV. When you're talking about one proton hitting another at an energy of 1 TeV, that's equivalent to the energy expended by a flying mosquito. But CERN also says that when the bunches of billions of protons collide with each other, that's equivalent to the force of two bullet trains slamming into each other at 100 mph.

[As for the temperature, that temperature reading would be correct, but we're talking about that scale of heating in a vanishingly small volume. In this sense, the collisions will be like the phenomenon known as sonoluminescence, which involves mere bubbles in liquid. (A supposed manifestation of this known as "bubble fusion" got a scientist in hot water recently.)

[Here are a couple of links about sonoluminescence and bubble fusion:]

Tiny bubbles get hotter than the sun
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7082639/

Panel finds misconduct by fusion scientist
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740120/

Twists in the doomsday debate

Wendy, Seattle — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:19:45 GMT

My Gods. We have schools without enough teachers and books and money to buy student lunches. We have poverty and homelessness and diseases. We have people with no healthcare, sick children and people who can't afford life saving medications. We have people in this world who are suffering from a lack of fresh water and nutrient rich foods. Places where people work for pennies an hour just to be able to feed their famlies something every day. We are a greedy, immature, selfish and wasteful race. Of all the things for our countries to pool their resources together to pay for, this multi-billion dollar project took priority over all the rest.

If this LHC does destroy us- we will have deserved it.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Warren, NYC — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:22:23 GMT

I agree with (PAQ Pepperell MA). I'd rather die searching for truth. Don't waste time worrying about it, because if we do go - it will be soooo fast we wont even realize were gone. One millisecond your walking your dog - the next millisecond you don't exist.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Rhett Schley, Mission Viejo, California — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:33:21 GMT

I feel it is wrong to trial a european organization in the United States. I would also believe it is wrong to trail a United States Organization in Europe. These "nay-sayers" have no knowledge of anything these people are doing except what the press is releasing. I'm doubting we'll learn anything substantial from these experiments, but it's not U.S. money so i'm not too worried.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dave, USA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:43:00 GMT

I have just one question. Will this research help the world today or will it help it along to its death? I figure there are bundles of money involved and brilliant people working on this. They are in a kitchen, get them out into the real world where they may see where their efforts may make a difference in the world today. This outer world stuff can wait. First take care of business at home!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Jeremy, San Diego, CA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:45:46 GMT

"I wonder how many people on this planet could have been fed, clothed, and given medical care with the money that will be spent to make and run this machine...."

we spend more PER MONTH on the Iraq War:
Cost to build the LCH: about $9.4 billion
Cost of Iraq War (So far): over $540 billion

you do the math. and don't be angry at the people who actually are seeking to expand human knowledge and create better technologies that COULD help needy people.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Michael, Arlington, VA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:58:20 GMT

I don't ever recall the world giving the US legal system control over what their citizen do. Once again, we have US suing other organization or government, as if they have the right. We don't like it when other get into our affairs. Don't be a hater, cause you didn't develop the damn thing. It was nice knowing you, if the world does get swallowed up, though.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Marion, Virginia — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:02:49 GMT

There is nothing that can be done about fearful opponents. They will always concoct a rationale for their fear, once a credible reason is put forth and even though it is later fully and easily refuted.

Still, I blame those who call the supposed problem a "microscopic black hole" for the static. If the effect did in fact take place, the resulting event horizon would be several orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. We know better than to call an electron "microscopic" (eg. can [only] be seen with a microscope). Using the term with the theoretical black hole is misleading. It makes people think the thing might be something like a micrometer in diameter. One that size would indeed pose a threat. Something so small that can pass through atoms' electron clouds for thousands of years before ever hitting a single electron is not microscopic.

Twists in the doomsday debate

dan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:14:19 GMT

janaya, the most energetic cosmic rays (single atomic nuclei traveling at relatavistic speeds) can carry the energy of a good fastball (baseball), which is pretty amazing considering how tiny it is.
The LHC doesn't come close to those energies for a collision, the physicists would love to have something that did have those energies.
the difference is that the collisions can be made to happen in a place where the huge devices for observing the results of these collisions are, and that is not going to happen with an occasional random cosmic ray.

Twists in the doomsday debate

KAV, INDY — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:25:46 GMT

Every few years something comes along to make people afraid of progress. Stem Cells. X-Rays. The Microscope. The Telescope. Hell, even moveable type. Someone was going to split the atom. I, for one, am glad it was us. No self-respecting scientist will support the concept of a miniature quantum singularity. Does anyone out there know why? duh! No matter how hard religions or governments try to stop them, people will think. Mass ignorance is not an option. It never has been and it never will be. Ask Crick. Ask Einstein. Ask Copernicus. Ask Luther. Ask Euclid. Ask yourself.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Alex, Boston, MA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:44:45 GMT

Perfect Hollywood material -- would make a great blockbuster movie!!! Can't wait for the opening day!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Arnell Sacramento, CA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:46:45 GMT

One way or the other, this thing will go through. Whether we destroy all of mankind (Earth) or help unlock the basis of our universe, this is eventually going to happen. We can't stop the advancement of science. In the past society has always had a dark face on science. It will be the demise of us all, but yet it hasn't happened. There are very few of us with nearly the knowledge of these scientists, and yet, we feel like we know what is actually happening. All we fear is the unknown. If we never moved forward on experiments such as this, we wouldn't be where we are today. Understanding our world. This is a collaboration of scientists from different countries and different fields. I think they know what they're doing and I'm confident that they've weighed the risks. We'll revisited this soon and see how silly we sounded.

Twists in the doomsday debate

John R Woodland Park Clorado — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:59:31 GMT

I think that it good that one side is working on getting us a better understanding and possibly "enhance or expand" our lives based on knowledge learned, I also think it is good that another has the guts to stand up and take on a fight in 'OUR" best interests. The sad part is this learning exercise has proven that one fraction can impose a timeline without our direct input as we sit 8000 miles away. Say “I” built this thingy that “I” believe will change the world and low and be hold I was wrong, what mechanism is in place for the Global community to ensure they have Input, Day, Guidance in insuring our destiny remains intact?
Widows Son
John.

Twists in the doomsday debate

W. Sitze, Las Cruces, NM — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:05:51 GMT

People are being fed, clothed, and given medical, as well as housing, transportation and other things with the money being spend on building and running this machine. It's called salaried jobs. Furthermore, money spent with those salaries pay for other people jobs, and so on. If the money was simply distributed to those only in need, then productive people would have nothing to spend, and we would all be poor. The same nonsense was tendered over the space effort. Nothing was spent in space. It was all spent here, and from it we have our desktop computers, cell phones, modern medicine, whole industries, and an ever growing source of wealth. Just as with the frivolous lawsuits, giving the money to those in need is another tired old myth that keeps churning around.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ralph Garner Merritt Island Florida — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:33:47 GMT

How ignorant can a civilization get. I think it would have been better if that meteor that landed on Jupitor had hit earth. These so called human species are lower than animals. They do not want to progress above mass murderers. They have been killing and slaughtering each other for so long it has become entertainment. Lay off jackasses and let the only intelligence on earth carry on their discoveries into what makes for the cancer of earth. Ignorance is the only thing that will bring an end to civilization not science.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Chris Tate, Biloxi, MS — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:34:17 GMT

Isn't it the current scientific consensus that black holes are collapsed stars? How would a machine collapse a star on Earth? Wouldn't the uncollapsed star destroy us just as well? The black hole claim is as silly as claiming that the collider will create supermassive rubber duckies that will squash all life.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dr. Steven Albee-Scott, Logan, UT — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:02:56 GMT

Kyle is absolutely correct. Not only have these "high" energy particles collided with the moon, but they have also collided with earth; and, the last time I checked, we are still here. Anti-science movements are often spawned through ignorance and untestable emotional rhetoric. Unfortunately, scientists often neglect these assaults on thinking to their detriment. Humans love microwave ovens and cell phones, but fail to understand where or how these things originate. By extending this argument, humans also love the results of the scientific method and critical thinking, but fail to understand how the scientific method or critical thinking is applied. If the LHC performs as expected, then we are likely to discover processes that will lead us down a path of energy independence. If it performs unexpectedly, then they will simply shut it down. Again, to reiterate, quantum singularities are produced already by particles striking the earth; and, the earth has yet to resemble Swiss cheese. Now expand this thought to 13 billion years of current physical processes. If the naysayers are correct, then there should be massive numbers of these tiny black holes (incidentally, I think here on out these small black holes should be named similarly to subatomic particles and be called weensies or perhaps teeny weenies, sorry I couldn’t help but make a crude joke).

Twists in the doomsday debate

Shane, Kansas City, Mo — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:19:22 GMT

we as humans are just out of the jungle. If it is bigger and smashes better, someone will build it, and someone will turn it on.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Van Baker, Bloomington, Ill. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:25:26 GMT

Since we are discussing absolutely new research I don't understand the confidence of those who say those who oppose this project are fools or fringe holders of inexpert opinions. What happens in space every day and what may or may not happen in totally different conditions in that CERN collider may be two different things. There would be no reason for these experiments if science knew exactly what was going to happen. Would these scientists ever step back from the brink of a possible disaster, having spent all this money? Can we trust them to know "when"?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Gary — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:07:53 GMT

Attorney welfare at the expense of good science - so whats new?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Stephen Skelton, Greenwood, Mississippi. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:13:43 GMT

During World War II some scientists believed that when the A-bomb was exploded it would destroy the earth. One theory suggested that it would catch the atmsophere on fire. That was sixty-three years ago.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Prakash Man Shrestha, Kathmandu, Nepal — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:29:39 GMT

Nothing bad will happen for sure.
But, if actually happens, it would be the best means of achieving the real Nirvana.

Twists in the doomsday debate

rlator — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:32:44 GMT

Many of you really don't have common sense, with the bomb for example, the other side was developing the bomb at the same time we were, we all know that if we would have given up there would have been about 200,000 to 400,000 soldiers dead if the war continued without the bomb. And if the other side had the bomb and we gave up. todays world would be a much difference place. Listen for all things in life of death there must be alway a balance. The way thing are know we are as whole about 50 years behind our development due to people screaming that the world is flat.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:54:34 GMT

Any time we have a topic like this there are people who express the thought that the money would be better spent fighting world hunger, homelessness, or some other social issue du jour. The response is generally that these projects result in a net gain for those social issues. We could have directed research money to food distribution and fed 100,000 people once, a noble cause. Instead the research resulted in an improved food supply which will feed 500,000 for their entire lives. If you feel the need to post the sentiment that the money should go elsewhere, after all these are generally good causes, please have the decency and intelligence to state how much money is being spent for the research and how much is already being spent on your cause generally. (Governmental funds, not private sector.) DOE contribution $200 M for construction over 12 years before overruns, let’s say 25 million per year. US funding to third world countries $15 B for AIDS (5 years or 3 Billion per year), Food for Peace $1.2 B FY2004 alone. We’re spending about 50 times as much to feed people as to do this research. Past research has proven to be critical to being able to feed them now. Would you really rather have $51 dollars go where $50 is going now and give up future developments that might make that $50 go 10 times as far? Also, let us know that you make six figures but live in poverty yourself so that others can eat.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:55:02 GMT

Francisco G Watsonville CA,
And yet at its use in war it was heralded as saving how many lives? If money wasn’t being spent on nukes how many tanks would’ve been built instead? Are you saying that without atomic weapons we would have all been friends and played nice?

Cay, Milford, CT,
It’s one thing to wonder and another to pursue knowledge. The amount of money spent on this is dwarfed by the amount of money spent to feed, clothe and treat people. And again, though it’s already been said many times, pursuing technologies like this in the past is why so many are being fed now. To take the money going toward this research and use it to feed, clothe and treat people one time and give up the knowledge we would otherwise gain that will feed, clothe and treat them in and for the future. It’s in line with “Give a man a fish and you feed him once, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” I wonder how wise or how stupid it would be to give up this research and it’s potential gains for society for a tiny bit more humanitarian work than we’re already doing.

"Erwin Schrödinger",
Nobody has ever “slated” the world for an end in 2012 with more credibility than a five year old. Unless the calendar I’m using right now has the world slated for an end on Dec. 31, 2008. And if that’s the case then the calendar I was using last year was just wrong. And the one before that. And the one before that. And so on. It doesn’t lend much credence to the accuracy of calendars.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:02:44 GMT

At great speed these particles will appear to have more mass than they have at rest. This is worked out as a momentum, a mass of kinetic energy. We've been moving particles pretty fast for a while. Does anybody know if this apparent mass shows up as a gravitational mass also. I’ve just been wondering this for the last couple of days and haven’t done any checking. Thought someone might have seen some research results or know of a lab taking measurements.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Xeno — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:11:15 GMT

I'm VERY excited about the new atom-smasher!!! I've been waiting years for this machine to be turned on so we can discover new things that exist in the universe! The hold up due to ignorant law suits is just a hold up...

Twists in the doomsday debate

Jonathan Ebert, Reno, NV — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:19:58 GMT

It seems that many people are misinformed or perhaps ignorant in the study of particle physics and cosmology. In order to have a black hole that can swallow a planet, which by the way it does not swallow, but rather pulls apart, is if the black hole was created by the aftermath of a supernova or the collapse of a neutron star. Supernovas involve the biggest stars collapsing under their own gravity and the same occurs with neutron stars. Furthermore, these black holes emit Hawking Radiation and over time collapse. If the Large Hadron Collider produces a nano-black hole, it will collapse on itself because of the Hawking Radiation. I would suggest that people visit Wikipedia to further educate themselves on this subject or consult the works of Brian Greene or Michio Kaku. Also, since when do politicians know the inner-workings of particles anyway? Instead of looking at the dangers of this project, which theoretically are nonexistent, why not look at how this will expand our knowledge of the universe? Besides, mathematics has not failed society once in its existence, it may have been unfinished or constricted by limited technology, but math has not failed. Scientists have been studying black holes for several decades, placing the most prodigious mathematicians and physicists at the front lines. Why not put trust in them, who spend their lives on this subject, rather than the skeptic, who does not research his argument and cannot claim to be a scientist? Thank you.
Sincerely, a disgruntled college student.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dave — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:34:12 GMT

I find it interesting that the scientific communities on both sides of this argument seem to agree on one thing. That is the LHC will most likely create black holes. The questions therefore become, Are we comfortable enough with our current knowledge to keep these under control? Are they predictable? Are we capable of shutting them down if they do gain strength?
If what I am reading in the original article is correct, then I feel it is only prudent to ask these and other questions. After all, isn't that what science is all about?

[ALAN ADDS: Actually, most physicists would say black-hole production in the LHC is highly unlikely ... unless there are extra unseen small-scale dimensions in the universe, and the right number of unseen dimensions at that. Another commenter asked how it could be that the LHC could create black holes without collapsing a star. The answer is that a black hole is just the term for a concentration of mass-energy (remember that mass and energy are equivalent based on E=mc^2) so dense that even light is pulled into its gravitational grip. In the LHC's case, energy might be concentrated enough on a small scale to satisfy that definition for an instant.

[The current mainstream view is that gravity is not strong enough to affect things on a subatomic scale, but the LHC could test the idea that gravity spreads out in the extra dimensions, and would actually be as strong as it "should" be on ultra-small scales.

[As others have noted, current theory states that black holes would eventually dissipate due to Hawking radiation. Stellar-mass (or galaxy-scale) black holes are so massive and ultra-cold that the Hawking radiation wouldn't come into play until about 10^60 years from now (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes), physicist Leonard Susskind observes in the book "The Black Hole War." However, the microscopic black holes we're talking about in the LHC are so small and hot that they should dissipate microseconds after they arise. (That's the part of the theory that is contested by folks who worry about the LHC.)

[Any black holes in the LHC would not be detected directly, but only by the signature of the particles they leave behind.

[For more about black holes and what they mean, check out this past posting: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180976.aspx]

Twists in the doomsday debate

Kwame, Detroit, MI — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:55:58 GMT

This would make a great Dr Who episode.

Twists in the doomsday debate

kwame, Detroit, MI — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:14:48 GMT

From janaya - "How much energy will be created when two particles (even though at a very small scale) collide when each is moving at nearly the speed of light? I am not sure I would like to find out."

Energy = mass * acceleration.

E=MC^2 or E=(mass of hydrogen)(speed of light)(speed of light) or
E= 1.00794 * (299,792,458 m/s) * (299,792,458 m/s)

E= 90,589,129,485,598,797 joules

c^2=89,875,517,873,681,764 is a scalar or multiplier.
Anything multiplied by C^2 will be big.

If we can only reach 1/4 of C we can write the expression. E=M(.25C)^2 which is still a big number.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Eric, Wilmington, Delaware — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:19:25 GMT

Sure the thought of a Blackhole devouring the planet is a scary one... but come on, what a way to go. assuming there was any credence to the claims of these plaintiffs.

If anything, I'd seriously be more worried about them getting closer to being able to store and mass produce anti matter with the big particle decelerator at CERN

Twists in the doomsday debate

Evan Martin, OK — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:35:24 GMT

I'm not going to be misleading and say that I don't have concerns regarding the LHC, but I feel the most serious issue tied to all of this is the lack of public awareness. Why is this getting such limited coverage in mainstream media? This really should be out there with full disclosure so that the reaction of the people can dictate our course. I think most people understand that the foundation of human discovery is pressing into the unknown with the testing of hypotheses and postulates. However, scientific boldness should never take precedence over the will of the masses.

Twists in the doomsday debate

John, Bethlehem, PA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:36:56 GMT

If you're going to have faith in something, have faith in the ability of humanity to make use of its intelligence. If some divine being did in fact create us and give us the ability to understand the Universe, then why should it put arbitrary limits on what we can accomplish with that understanding? If God wanted us to scratch in the mud and compose hymns to His glory in the few short years before we die to disease, then there's really no purpose in intelligence or free will to begin with. Nor would He booby-trap the laws of the universe so that we could "accidentally" annihilate ourselves with a beam of protons.

From a scientific point of view, human knowledge always progresses forward. There is no credible (meaning peer-reviewed) research to support the notion that we can use the LHC to create quantum-level events that would destroy the planet. Can these fears be completely disregarded? Of course not, but similar doomsday fears in atomic research were never realized, and it's clear to me that there will always be someone with a plausible sounding excuse to fear anything new.

Now, the delicious irony of this situation is that CERN is playing the jurisdictional game to avoid appearing as a party to a lawsuit whose issues affect the entire planet. If the worst comes to pass, let it not be said that bureaucracy killed the human race.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Paul, Nottingham, England — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:41:19 GMT

i say give it a whirl, what's the worst that can happen...

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dan, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:43:21 GMT

Wow, the lack of open-mindedness and reason in the american (and world) public always astounds me. Nearly all beneficial technological advances in this world have come from the few intelligent people willing to go the extra mile. I say congrats to the scientists who are trying to figure life out in more detail and may in the process provide tools and answers to the more pressing issues on hand. The american public is too willing to settle for mediocrity.

Twists in the doomsday debate

David, Boston, MA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:11:29 GMT

I'd love to read more but I suspect the wireless connection from the fallout shelter is really bad-- and I'm leaving now. Good luck.

Twists in the doomsday debate

SLJ — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:12:49 GMT

Minor correction to Marc who said "the energy of the universe which seems unlimited." Though it may seem to be unlimited, it is a physical and philosophical impossibility for anything to be unlimited (infinite).

Twists in the doomsday debate

Eroc — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:32 GMT

If we let fear of the unknown stifle innovation then we're doomed.

This planet's resources and the sun aren't going to last forever so we'd better learn how everything works so we can leave here when we need to.

Twists in the doomsday debate

James W, Erie Pennsylvania — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:21:21 GMT

Let's be honest here. Okay, maybe the LHC can give us a deeper understanding of particle physics, the big bang, etc... but the cost of this machine is astounding. The cost to operate it once could feed thousands of hungry people all around the world. Or help fund cancer research. But no, millions upon millions of dollars are going to be dumped into the LHC and for what? To say "oh, look at that... it's exactly what we already thought would happen. COOL!"
Deeper understanding of our world you say? I say a childish waste of money. You engineers who are already in the field are wasting your time and knowledge on pointless issues. I can only pray that my generation of engineers and I will focus on actual issues facing humanity. Alternative energy? Does thatdo anything for you? Ugh.... It just disgusts me to think about it...

Twists in the doomsday debate

brian, Maryland — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:26:47 GMT

What if this opens a portal to another dimension and horrible monsters come out and attack Europe?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Scooby — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:30:35 GMT

This could be the last RISK we take :)

Twists in the doomsday debate

NoOneYouKnow — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:32:12 GMT

@janaya
"How much energy will be created when two particles (even though at a very small scale) collide when each is moving at nearly the speed of light?"

E=mc^2. Which turns out to be *much* less than what is put into the system to accelerate the particles in the first place. Otherwise we could use the process to generate power.

Twists in the doomsday debate

S V, Washington — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:34:21 GMT

I think it's interesting that people are referring to this as a waste of money and question how many people could be fed with this money. This extremely hypocritical from a country of people that spends 2 billion dollars to elect a public official(President). I ask where's your outrage and human interest when it comes to assessing your own priorities of financial responsibility. So please enjoy driving your gas guzzling SUV's as you bluster on about the irresponsible spending in a quest for knowledge and understanding of the universe.

Twists in the doomsday debate

James Tankersley Jr, Middleton WI — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:38:42 GMT

Collissions scheduled to begin October 21 at slowly increasing energies, but some estimates are that collisions may be delayed until 2009.

Dr. Rossler addresses criticisms of his paper at achtphasen.net: www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/08/gerhard_w_bruhn_darmstadt_university_of__2008

"the diverging conclusion"... "is therefore not disconfirmed. On the contrary. Which of the two interpretations of the same finding is correct remains open." (Prof. Otto E. Rössler an Gerhard W. Bruhn)

I find Dr. Rossler's re-interpretation of Relativity equations to be brilliant and obvious. Theories such as Bohmian Quantum Mechanics that demystify physics and easily win the Occam's razor test are overdue for main stream focus.

I enjoyed MM's wise quote at www.nowpublic.com/technology/potential-danger-particle-collider-experiments

MM writes:

Here we go again! Deja vu: This is just modern replay of something that has already happened in the history of mankind. The incident is recalled in Book of Genesis chapter 11 - The Tower of Babel. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Arrogance (those running the show) vs. Ignorance (those who don't even know the show is running).

Twists in the doomsday debate

Sam Patriot, Omaha, NE — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:43:26 GMT

I can see them breaking their expensive toy with a rogue beam of energy but I don't forsee any earth ending black holes. At most I could agree with a tiny black hole burping out a minute amount of radiation but nothing threatening. But hey, I could be wrong. I'd rather die trying though. Without the neverending quest for knowledge what would humankind be left with? A pointless cycle of reproduction that eventually overwhelms the planet? Our thirst for knowledge gives us purpose and if that means stepping on a few toes so be it. Besides, we'll blow ourselves up one way or another anyway. May as well go out trying to learn for the sake of humankind rather than in some war of nukes.

Twists in the doomsday debate

James Tankersley Jr, Middleton WI — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:50:21 GMT

Hello Kyle,

You write that you are an undergraduate in astrophysics, that is wonderful!

I challenge you to study the arguments of the safety opposition, not just the arguments from LHC supporters that some of us consider to be public relations propaganda first and based on fundamentally flawed science.

You write "The solar wind and cosmic rays slam into the moon all the time with much more power then the LHC could ever produce. The moon has been sitting there in space for over 4 billion years and hasn't been swallowed by a black hole or turned into a some kind of subatomic goop."

This argument has a fundamental flaw. If micro black holes are created by cosmic ray impacts, they will simply pass through the planet at more than 99% the speed of light. Some percentage of micro black holes created by head-on particle collisions would have velocities too low to escape Earth's gravity, less than 11 km/sec.

Dr. Rossler refutes follow on arguments involving cosmic rays and Neutron stars “protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so miniblack holes can pass without friction”.

JT

Twists in the doomsday debate

V. L. Dallas, Tx. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:01:49 GMT

lion, tigers, and bears, Oh My!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Huzefa Chithiwala, Moorpark, California — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:03:37 GMT

This is a great technological achievement for mankind and a new frontier with many possibilities. I am all for it and Good Luck to us. I only read about the LHC on the internet and only when I go looking for it because my inherent interest in science. This topic has totally escaped the main stream media. When I talk to my friends and random people to my surprise no one has heard about it. If by slim chance that this could be a doomsday event, I always wonder do a select few have the right to represent all the animals on this planet or a tribesman in the deep jungles of Africa or Amazon knowing that if something goes wrong it would be the end of all on this planet? Those who will never know that an Extinction Level Event was mankind’s doing. I do not have an answer but this is something that keeps me up at night; not the event that is about to happen but the people’s voices that never had a chance to be heard.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Sean — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:15:48 GMT

I think this a secret experiment in "torsion physics", attempting to open some kind of portal to a place of infinite energy.

Twists in the doomsday debate

uwe fruendt san felipe baja mex. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:40 GMT

if it goes wrong, it would solve the credit and housing crises and the econemy. good luck.

Twists in the doomsday debate

John — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:50 GMT

You can't go through the Straits of Gibraltar, the world is flat and you'll fall off...We will never know what we don't know unless we attempt the unthinkable.

Twists in the doomsday debate

J. S. Kansas City, MO — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:24:59 GMT

What's killing me is that the folks responding here aren't realising that, to most people, tiny particles moving at the speed of light and then crashing in to each other is just as out-there and loony as two guys in Georgia digging up bigfoot remains. The LHC isn't a blender or a dishwasher or some other mundane piece of equipment. This is fringe stuff; stuff that most Americans aren't educated enough to really get a good mental grip on. That can be scary sometimes. Heck, most people don't even really understand how their CD player works.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bonnie Crawford — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:36:41 GMT

We are so busy thinking about what scientific breakthroughs we could make, we are not thinking about whether or not we should. If the risk is too great, don't do it. They really don't know if it will create black holes or not. That's why they are doing the test. Once the it's done, they may not be able to undo it.

Twists in the doomsday debate

michael, dallas, tx — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:52:21 GMT

i have to disagree with Erwin and Francisco. the A bomb was an unfortunate mistake in human history, but what we've learned from nuclear energy has lead to some great discoveries. for one, maybe we wouldn't be leaching on foreign oil so much if it wasn't for Hiroshima. Einstein didn't know his work would lead to where it went. had he been the one continuing it, maybe it wouldn't have, but it's the fear in people like in this situation that is making it unpopular to become a scientist. leaving it other countries to discover great things and basically solving our nations problems. the creation of this machine could lead to immense possibilities for mankind. and i for one, living in the ONLY country that has put someone on the moon, i'm a little disappointed.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dan Indianapolis, Indiana — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:58:11 GMT

The nay sayers of this project are probably the direct descendants of the people who told Columbus that he couldn't said too far west, or he'd fall off the edge.

Twists in the doomsday debate

ASB, Denver, CO — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:41:31 GMT

"Knowledge is power and power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts...what price will be paid for this knowledge...will we find what we were looking for....yes we will and what price will that knowledge cost."

...The flaw in this thinking is that "knowledge is power". Knowledge may be able to provide a path to power, but knowledge alone without action, is only a filter to see the universe around us.

Action, with no knowledge to guide it towards a goal, is far easier to deliberately or inadvertently corrupt.
Action, guided by knowledge alone, can realize any goal, but with no guarantee of benevolence.
Action, guided not only by knowledge, but also by compassion and caution, can realize many goals that contribute to the common good. Even if that good is just more knowledge to share.

I believe it more accurate to say that "Ignorance corrupts, and absolute ignorance must be bliss".

Twists in the doomsday debate

Daniel,Fort Lauderdale, FL — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:07:56 GMT

The idea of all of these is to get answers of how, why we are here, learning more about it will probably gives us more knowledge on future survival, but if for some people that is so hard to comprehend and still believing in "Intelligent Design" then we have a problem.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Guy S. Newell — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:54:01 GMT

So, we should all stop training physicists and put them all to work in soup kitchens instead? I'm not getting your point, here.

Twists in the doomsday debate

JZ, Tampa — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:14:14 GMT

All will be fine. I am loooking forward to getting this started so we increase our knowledge. It may reveal clues on how we can tap the energy of dark matter, and then our enegy problem are over. [...]

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bod but you can call me God — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:20:38 GMT

I a european say 'America go to hell', and if Europeans had done some kind of leagal poursuit just before the first atomic bomb was activated, like saying it would destroy the universe, LOL you're all so dumb!

Twists in the doomsday debate

E. P. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:52:16 GMT

Microscopic black holes are only one of the possible bad things that can happen. From what I read, particles called "strangelets" can form. Once formed they can cause a change the particles around them into "strange matter" in a chain reaction that could encompass the whole earth. This is not a trivial matter.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Janden, Alameda, CA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:37:41 GMT

No one said anything about the infinite amount of times that we have already been swallowed up by black holes

Twists in the doomsday debate

Kyle — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:40:06 GMT

In response to James Tankersly,

Even if these collisions do create tiny black holes that are moving slower then the escape velocity of the Earth they would evaporate due to Hawking radiation. The same theories that predict the creation of black holes also predict the Hawking radiation. So you can't have one without the other. Either way we are not doomed.

-Kyle

Twists in the doomsday debate

Steve, Longmont, CO — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:09:53 GMT

I'm embarrassed that these plaintiffs are from the US. Anybody who buys into these concerns is a fool unworthy of membership in the human race.

---------------------------------------------------

Max, you completely underestimate the human capacity to be foolish.

Twists in the doomsday debate

S. Christianson, Silver City, NM — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:06:24 GMT

I've read the comments as a "general public" type person. I believe the general public should be more aware. The risk is "general misunderstanding". I'm sure this has been tested mathematically. probably someone even double checked the computation. "tongue in check there" If these were scientists from the pharmaceutical companies I'd run screaming in the street. The project probably does need the added scrutiny, safety feature, But they need to proceed. This is from a person who has only been aware of HAARP for the last year.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Crickett, GA — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:19:48 GMT

WENDY!! What exactly are YOU doing about poverty, misery and vice?
Y'all really scare me. If we listened to such naysayers we would never have left the trees or caves, too dangerous out there.
Relax y'all. It's gonna be O.K. There are tiny black holes everywhere. They could take us out anytime, they haven't, 'cause?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Brenden, NW Connecticut — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:54:05 GMT

The LHC is massive and just looking at the pictures of it is very frightning! If the scientists secretly knew it was going to blow up and do something unusual wouldn't they be starting it up from far away??? Besides if the LHC was so bad, our government would have spoke up about it already. If president George W. Bush is looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, here it is!!!!

Twists in the doomsday debate

DB, Mpls, MN — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:15:50 GMT

Please perspective will help. Yes, there are those that grandstand - on both sides. BUT - If we are to advance our knowledge and our race, let if be with eyes wide open, evaluating risk AND opportunity. There should always be those that question our actions. It is they that prevent disaster. There should always be those that push the envelope of what we know and can do. It is they that move us forward. Life is a balance of these conflicting forces...Let them fight it out... to our long lasting benefit.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ryan, Rochester NY — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:20:25 GMT

The issue that should be addressed is how in the world Mr. Wagner and his counter-parts had their claims entertained in the U.S government's court system. Did they even try to talk directly to CERN and affiliated officials first? Probably not because CERN already had some of the smartest people on this planet on the case of this black hole mumbojumbo. Risks need to be taken to advance in this world, better yet the universe, and this generation needs to be the one to take them. For this planet's sake and our species.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ryan, Rochester NY — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:29:16 GMT

One quick note to RJG's comment about the "temeperature of the center of the sun". I know we all see the sun as a really, really hot object. However, the center of the sun is quite cool compared to the surface of the sun, and even more the corona around it. So you see, the further from the center, the hotter it is.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Nicholas C, Silverdale, Wash. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:39:13 GMT

Most of the American public has any understanding of the items in use around their home today, such as the computer, cell phone, CD player, microwave, car, tv, battery, watch, and so on. So it is understandable that something like this hasn't made mainstream news. People freak out all the time when they hear that radiation has leaked from a reactor, like the US submarine did in Japanese ports. But the thing is people, the uneducated or fearful, have associated ANYTHING dealing with Nuclear power with bad. I operate a reactor for the Navy. I understand what I work with, and the amount of contamination released was about that is in a sack of fertilizer. Your TV is giving off radiation (Old CRTs used to have an FDA warning on them about that).

In other words, those people are trying to do what the Catholic church did several hundred years ago to Galileo. He was suspected of heresy and sentenced to house arrest until his death. Just for saying that the earth went around the sun.

Now about feeding the poor..It's their project, let them do what they wish, for I trust that they know what will not happen. It is being done for a noble cause, which is more than I can say for giving money to some beggar.

Think of the long run, and I mean the really looong run. Long after we are dead, the feeding of the poor will not be remembered, but advancing the knowledge of the human mind will.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bradley Clopton — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:45:55 GMT

If we destroy ourselves it will be caused by the idiots driving huge gas guzzlers, the idiots who consume conspicuously, and the Faithful who think Jesus will come and save us from ourselves. It will be caused by beholden politicians who think taking money for one bad vote on energy policy won't really hurt anything. We will destroy ourselves with corporations, laziness, and eating beef raised on land that was cleared out of rain forests.
Stopping the scientist trying to understand the nature of matter, energy and the universe is little more than escapism. These idiots can't be bothered to spend any of their time on actually making a difference.

Twists in the doomsday debate

J Clark Morganton, NC — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:40:11 GMT

What will be the explanation, if on some future date, during one of these tests, that only some of the Earth's citizens no longer exist, yet others remain?

Will the scientists be able to explain the results of their tests? Will it be the missing were swallowed up by black holes, or that something happened that they cannot explain by using present day physics?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ron, NY NY — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:04:56 GMT

As professionals in the Risk Mgmt arena will tell you, the most difficult risk to manage is one in which there is very low probability of occurrence, but very high hurt if it happens.
The energies being toyed with here are outside the predictive fact base of anything unleashed before on the Earth. So the only indisputable fact is that no one knows precisely what will happen (if we did, we wouldn't need to run the experiment). Yet CERN is willing to bet all our lives that the unknown unknowns won't prove catastrophically destructive. Nice.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:34:36 GMT

Joaquin Solorzano,
Who do you say is responsible for your wife’s paranoia and howso? I was stopped at a red light with a friend of mine, 3rd car back. The light turned green and the car in front of us started moving, but failed to pull 2 Gs pulling away from the light. My friend got all upset telling me that it’s people like that who cause accidents. All this time I thought it was people who drove into the rear end of the car in front of them that caused accidents. I don’t think it’s the people at CERN causing your wife undo worry, to me it looks like the blame falls on the fear mongers. And your wife for listening to them.

Wendy, Seattle wrote, “Of all the things for our countries to pool their resources together to pay for, this multi-billion dollar project took priority over all the rest.” Care to qualify your statement with the amounts spent on the things you listed? Or is it just empty whining?

Chris Tate,
Black holes are a pretty well accepted, totally unproven theory. They would happen any time you get significant enough gravity. One way to do this is to assemble a huge amount of mass into a small enough volume, another possible way is to get a small amount of mass into a tiny, tiny space. The second is the concern here. We can’t possibly do it with matter as we know it. In the large scale black holes we talk about taking out the empty space in an atom. If the sun were an atomic nucleus and the rest of the system were the electrons then this solar atom has a radius that includes the Oort Cloud and we would take all that orbiting mass, which isn’t really that much, and compress it from approximately 50,000 AU to approximately 1 AU. Think of the difference in density if you pile up a bunch of systems Oort Cloud to Oort Cloud or star to star. When you take all that emptiness out of the atoms the density goes way up and gravity concentration gets to black hole level. To get the gravity of two protons, or two lead ions, to that concentration you’d have to collapse the “empty” space inside the protons, or inside the protons and neutrons. That assumes there’s empty space. So now we’re talking about a proton being like a mylar balloon. Protons are made up of, we think, three quarks. Evidently when three quarks get together they take up the space of a proton as they orbit each other. To get them into a small enough space we’d have to stop them from orbiting each other and still have them stay together. It doesn’t seem feasible. The worry arises because the particles involved in the collisions will be going very, very fast. At these speeds they will experience an artificial increase in momentum. This is interpreted by us as an increase in mass. More mass means more gravity. More gravity means the space it needs to compress to is larger. Then it may be possible to get a MBH. SERIOUS PROBLEMS with this theory: Does an increase in momentum mean an increase in gravitational mass? I don’t know of any research that indicates this. IF yes then will the LHC bring the protons to a fast enough speed to get enough mass to make a MBH in the volume of 2 protons? Not even close (energy wise) according to my calculations. Let’s assume I’m wrong – this does happen. Will all of the energy of the collision be converted into a single result or will some be lost as wave emissions? I think there will be losses to wave emissions, but let’s assume that enough energy is left to convert to a MBH. What will the gravity be? In a collision where all the energy is converted the result is the mass of two protons at rest. Even if they had great mass at near c they only have their normal mass after the collision. Even if the collision has the energy to make a MBH, immediately after the collision there’s nothing there. IF, once made into a MBH there is are 6 quarks lying dormant next to each other taking up so little space that their own gravity sustains the MBH, which is ludicrous by any and every standard I’m aware of, then the mass of the MBH is still only that of 2 protons. The gravity of which is neglibable. The event horizon would be far less than one quadrillionth the diameter of an electron. Take the volume of an electron and divide it into a million equal parts. Take one of those and divide it into a million equal parts. Take one of those and divide it into a million parts. Make that round. That’s huge compared to what we’re talking about. But let’s assume that there’s our black hole. Now it happens across some bit of matter, let’s say another proton. We can’t even think of the proton getting caught. Let’s say one quark of the proton crosses the event horizon and is unable to escape. Either the other two quarks are released or they start to orbit the black hole. If they orbit then they probably? act as a shield, preventing anything else from getting to the MBH, which then has a terminal mass of 7 quarks, less than that of 3 protons. Without shielding a 7 quark black hole goes on to try to find it’s next meal. It could conceivably go for thousands of years before it happens to run into another quark. We’re not just talking about the emptiness of atoms that it passes through, but the emptiness of protons (mylar balloon). It would pass through the emptiness of many, many atoms never encountering another particle, and then, when it does encounter a particle it would, conceivably, pass through many, many electrons, protons and neutrons without any effect before capturing another quark, to increase in mass to less than that of 3 protons. Then thousands of years again before getting another quark and finally achieving the mass of 3 protons. This would not be the matter-sucker you think of when talking about high mass black holes. That’s the danger all those people are upset about. And then only if there is sufficient energy to create a MBH and it doesn’t pop back into normal matter as soon as the relativistic mass goes away.

Rlator,
Your “common sense” remark makes the point of the opposition. There is no “other side” here. This can be stopped without the worry that our enemies will develop it to use against us.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Marek — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:35:30 GMT

Alex, Boston, MA: "Perfect Hollywood material -- would make a great blockbuster movie!!! Can't wait for the opening day!"

Sorry Alex, it's been already done. I guess that's the only knowledge the plaintifs ever acquited.
Their TV privileges now should be recalled; someone please put them in a room with new linoleum...

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bob — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:47:20 GMT

The truth is the only thing that will be destroyed by this "debate" is your brain cells.
Q.E.D.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Josh Mulford — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:42:22 GMT

The Bible doesn't say the world will end from a Black Hole, and since we all know that God doesn't lie, then we can safely say, that, we are safe! Unless secretley, inside black holes are full of fire...Oh Jesus take the wheel!!!!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:56:59 GMT

Particles with far more energy than this collider can produce, collide with atoms in the upper atmosphere non-stop, day-in, day-out. But I don't think you get proton - proton collsions. The chances of high energy, interstellar particles encountering earthly protons is very small. I supppose however these collisions do happen with solar produced alpha particles and have been since our sun began burning hot.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Nolan Dodson, Oroville, CA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:19:03 GMT

A recent article in Discover Magazine put the risk into numbers with help from physicists at CERN. The risk of a black hole swallowing earth is over a billion to 1. But that decreases exponentially with each use. The fact remains that even scientists at CERN say theres a chance. extremely microscopically thin chance. Sounds like Russian Roulette to me. On the other hand this could lead to discoveries that end our dependence on oil and nuclear power.

[ALAN ADDS: I'd like to see a citation for that risk assessment. Here's the latest I could find from Discover magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/24-the-extremely-long-odds-against-the-destruction-of-earth ... The figures I've seen are that 10^31 LHC-scale experiments have occurred in the universe so far, with another 10^13 collisions occurring every second.}

Twists in the doomsday debate

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:48:05 GMT

I had thought from a previous article that this case was thrown out.

We humans can not destroy the Earth. Only the sun going Nova will eat up the solar system and destroy the Earth or perhaps a large comet crashing into us causing the earth to break apart or go molten. I think it is highly unlikely that hitting two atoms together that occurs naturally in space all the time will cause the Earth to be gobbled up by a black hole.

This law suit should be thrown out for just that reason. It is not possible. What Wagner and other environmentalists are concerned about is that maybe life on Earth (their life) will end.

He and they need to understand that we are only here for a small while anyway. If we are not on the Earth, it doesn't mean the Earth is gone. It only means we are gone.

The scenario of humanity gone could take place from a multitude of reasons, Yellowstone (which we visited this past week) erupting, a 25 mile across comet or space rock hitting us and turning the planet into a molten rock. Perhaps an E-Coli or Bird Flu pandemic that kills off all humans. Even a Nuclear war would not kill off all life.

He should have a law suit against Killer Volcanoes and Killer Space Rocks.

Let's get on with finding a good energy source from these experiments at CERN so the environmentalists like Wagner can go home and dream up other shenanigans to put us through.

Which is, I think, what they live for. It seems very doubtful that they even care about the outcome, as long as there is a lawsuit with their name on it ... they are heroes in their own minds.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:49:29 GMT

Newton's words: "natura valde simplex est et sibi consona" (nature is exceedingly simple and conformable to herself)

Twists in the doomsday debate

E Baranosky, Toronto, ON — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:55:32 GMT

reminds me of Chernoble, but how do you clean up if
it gets out of control? We would have maybe a half hour

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ben Parks — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:05:48 GMT

Who on earth besides nerdy scientists would even care about this thing unless it could potentially destroy human kind? Its like when that kid supposedly killed Hogzilla a week before the movie came out. Its great marketing! Chill out and have a ball with it!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Gorth — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:30:52 GMT

"For get about it"...who needs to know the secrets of the Universe anyway...like our primitive minds could absorb that knowledge or have the wisdom to use it wisely...I don't think so and our arrogance will doom this planet.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Ryan McAllister Portland Oregon — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:10:13 GMT

Microscopic black holes are Just science fiction? Isnt that what Black holes were several years ago before they were discovered to actually exist?? This is troublesome... This should not be allowed to happen... The cons outweight the pros tremendously..

Twists in the doomsday debate

R.M. Kretschmyer, Calgary,Alberta. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:24:12 GMT

The apologists for this experiment cite similar expressions of energetic force in a natural context in the atmosphere. There is a very wide and probably incalculable magnitude of difference between those random and transient interactions in a vast and natural arena and the highly focused and compressed situation exhibited in this experiment.

Twists in the doomsday debate

NSA — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:56:07 GMT

Why do you think the SSC was buried and forgotten in Texas...does anyone of you have any idea...I mean the true reason it was left unfinished.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:16:49 GMT

Ryan McAllister wrote, "Microscopic black holes are Just science fiction? Isnt that what Black holes were several years ago before they were discovered to actually exist??" When did this happen? As far as I know they're still just theoretical, and the effects we can see to "prove" them are otherwise explainable.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Raymond Griffith, Wadesboro, NC — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:42:57 GMT

"I wonder how many people on this planet could have been fed, clothed, and given medical care with the money that will be spent to make and run this machine...." [Cay, Milford, CT (Sent Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:32 PM)]

Hmmm. Well, tens of thousands have already been fed, clothed, and given medical care because of it. Yup, salaries paid to builders, planners, administrators, scientists, etc. Lots of money ultimately supporting families. And it will continue to support many more.

As for what the money could have done if not spent for this project? Well, it would have been spent on something else. None of it would have directly gone to helping the needy.

And as other people have noted, the results of such help would have been temporary at best. Putting people to work on a project that will help us gain knowledge of our universe is infinitely more worthwhile than charity, don't you think?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Corey G, Houma LA — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:38:46 GMT

I already built a Medium Hadron Collider in my back yard a while back. Yeah. Lots of magnets and other neat stuff. It created a black hole that was big enough to walk through it. No big deal. Alternate dimensions are really overrated. It was kind of like Super Mario. No need to be afraid. Go back to sleep.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dustin, Omaha, NE — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:48:37 GMT

Why are they even making this thing? How much more do we need to advance? The turmoil the world is in, we need to worry about more fundamental things instead of machines that collide particles.

Twists in the doomsday debate

james l'allier tulsa ok — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:29:59 GMT

Nothing is going to happen. There will be a split and a picture will be made and the long-hairs will have something else to ponder. It's science, get a grip, it's just physics. We have made the bomb, now it is time to do some real research and leave behind the paranoia of one uping the next guy with weapons research. How many times can you kill everything on the planet? In the past sixty or so years, it has been research for death, now let's try something different and see if we can do something for humanity and the future. It's our chance folks. It doesn't come around very often. Let's take the step forward an make the best of it. Fear is the mind-killer and we have lived with fear way too long. It's time to leave the ideology and dogma behind. Maybe Heisenberg was right after all. There will be bigger and better things in the future unless we falter, and then we will be stuck with the continuing fear of some idiot wanting to use the bomb. Quit worrying about science fiction and go for science fact. Get a life and live it. Quit living in the box. This is a new century.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tom, Boston Massachusettds — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:24:48 GMT

I have a few things to say on this topic. first off I can't wait for Dan Brown to write angels and demons part 2, and center the story around this current situation(bestseller material). Second call me cynical but I wouldn't mind if the world is destroyed by this machine, frankly I doubt any of the other few billion people on Earth will mind either, considering death is the cure for minding. Third if this is really going to happen I hope to god or allah or whoever people pray to these days that it will at least have a decent soundtrack(I'm thinking anything Pink Floyd). Finally if anyone knows of a good end of the world party on the 9th please let me know.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Mike, Charlottesville, VA. — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:41:43 GMT

The notion of an ever-expanding micro black hole is absolutely absurd. It's sad that ignorance is preventing the progression of science.

Twists in the doomsday debate

RPenner — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:24:50 GMT

Good job reporting, but you left out that Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho were supposed to file a response to the DOE's request that the case be dismissed. The missed deadline of August 15th could have Wagner and Sancho naked for the September 2 trial.

In addition, pro se plaintiff Sancho has not been signing all of Wagner's documents. On August 22, the DOE filed papers which should have been a response to the papers which Wagner and Sancho never filed.

Federal civil courts move at a pace described by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as modified by locally adopted rules) and these deadlines (and the reasons for them) are not hard to figure out, even for a non-lawyer. Motions are followed by replies, after which the moving party gets a chance to explain why the reply is not strong enough to counter the reasons given for the motion, finally there is a trial where noone feels ambushed.

In addition, the document specifically outlining CERN's diplomatic immunity from the Swiss legal system dates from 1955 and is available on the web, and the Swiss Ambassador (technically the Cd'A) helpfully explains the correct procedure to serve papers on CERN.

Twists in the doomsday debate

David, Toronto, Ontario — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:13 GMT

To all the people who are concerned about how much money it costs for an international research project like this, involving close to 10,000 scientists, something like 50 countries, the total is somewhere in the ballpark of $5 billion over about 20 years. Imagine what other good deeds could be done with that money?

On the other hand, the US government spends about $5 billion in two weeks in Iraq. Imagine what good deeds could be done with that money?

A few billion dollars spent over several decades is actually not a large investment. There is plenty of financial room in the world for basic research and humanitarian charity, if people choose to make it a priority.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Stephen — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:33:28 GMT

[...] As far as the particle accelerator goes, I find it entertaining that so many people really think it will end the world. And if it does, oh well! Maybe we could finally really see what's on the other side of a black hole...

Twists in the doomsday debate

Bryan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:09:15 GMT

Cosmic rays impact our atmosphere constantly with more energy than the LHC will produce in it's collisions. It is postulated that these collisions produce micro-black holes (of the kind this idiot thinks will destroy the earth). The size of such a black hole prohibits it from swallowing even a single hydrogen atom, so they dissipate almost in the same instant they are formed.

If the LHC can destroy the earth, then the earth should have died trillions of times every day for the last 4billion years.

Twists in the doomsday debate

JD, Indiana — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:13:20 GMT

Humanity and the world has more to fear from moron's like Wagner and those that believe these doomsday theories than the LHC, atom bombs, and extremists combined. That’s because morons have a way of coming together to champion their own unfounded lies and pawn them off on everyone else as truths. There is no reasoning with their kind. If you do not understand the science behind it, don’t form an opinion about it because you will only be wrong. We would all be better off if people only worried themselves with things they understand. And for the idiot that made a pathetic attempt at quoting John Dalberg-Acton, the correct saying is “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For all you religious folk out there this quote was in response to Pope Pius IX’s promulgation of Papal Infallibility. Basically the pope was trying to say he could do and say no wrong, sounds like every other dictator to me.

Twists in the doomsday debate

jdtseattlewa — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:11:12 GMT

Peskin's article should be read by all. There are objects in the universe whose ages have been established by sound scientific methods that should not be available for our inspection, if the micro-black hole creation line of arguement is credible. These objects, white dwarves and newtron stars are, due to their high energy interior environments, and extreme density and simply immense volume, much more likely to generate micro black holes than the LHC. At the same time, these bodies are far more vunerable to being gobbled up, due to their massive nature. Neutron stars are already trembling at the verge of becoming a sigularity in any case. If the concern is real, neither neutron stars or white dwarves should be readily observed.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Sam, Denver CO — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:16:43 GMT

All of the same people that are bemoaning the cost of this project and claiming that the money be better spent on welfare are precisely the same idiots that truly believe that we can feed our planet with "organic" foods. They fear the possibility that genetically enhanced food crops will cause them harm (and no amount of scientific research will convince them otherwise) but, as always, they offer no workable alternatives. They would prefer that the world starved than have the government invest a single dime in genetic research that would solve the real problem the world faces: With current technologies we cannot produce the amount of food needed to feed everyone. Starving people cannot eat money, but don't try and convince one of these vegan hippies of that.

The religious doomsday wackos are on the flip side of this coin. Both groups fear different aspects of what science has brought us and what science will continue to bring us for as long as we ignore them.

Twists in the doomsday debate

jdtseattlewa — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:23:50 GMT

Wendy
That ain't the scientest's fault. You gotta talk to the Politicians about that one.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Gphillip, Houston, TX — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:17:56 GMT

Thanks for the fish!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Rory Alexander Green, Birmingham, UK — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:49:46 GMT

When we see all those black holes in the universe we should be pointing and laughing and saying, they're one of those idiots who built an LHC and allowed it to go ahead.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Gerald Deloach , Clarksdale, MS — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:41:18 GMT

"As an undergraduate in astrophysics, this case just shows how little the plaintiffs actually know. The solar wind and cosmic rays slam into the moon all the time with much more power then the LHC could ever produce. The moon has been sitting there in space for over 4 billion years and hasn't been swallowed by a black hole or turned into a some kind of subatomic goop."~ a quote from a [...] poster above.

The difference "friends", is that the collider has
the potential of creating a mini-black hole that
is AT REST. While the Cosmic particles which bombard the moon go right through it, a black hole created
without much velocity, would first excellerate toward
the center of the earth, possibly sucking in a bit
of mass along the way. It would then fall into an
orbit around the core of the earth in an eliptical
orbit, where it may pick up a bit of mass with each
pass. With time the amount of mass that it would
attain would begin to increase exponentially. After
some time, the black hole's existence would be noticed, because of its effect of causing earth tremors and earthquakes, but by that time it would
only be a matter of a few days or hours before
it totally consumed the earth.

While Stephen Hawkins postulates that a miniblack
hole would evaporate quickly through Hawkin's radiation, Hawkins Radiation is still just a theory
that has no proof.
Since even the CERN scientists admit that there
is the possibility of creating a mini-black hole,
I think that their enthusiasm for discovery is
blinding them to the totally extreme risk of destroying all of life as we know it.
Until the theory of Hawkins Radiation has been proven, (if it is possible), the risk does not
balance out, no matter how much has been invested.

You all should do a little soul searching and
study before you critize the law-suit, which btw,
was filed by an acclaimed scientist who has the
intelligence express the risk with the math.

[ALAN ADDS: You do have to remember that protons are moving at relativistic speeds through the collider, so one could hardly say that any black holes would be created "at rest" ... The recent safety report also addressed the idea that a highly energetic collision could occur at the surface of a celestial body. More about this idea of whether the collisions occur at rest can be found in this Backreaction blog posting:]

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/black-holes-at-lhc-what-can-happen.html

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:09:46 GMT

Alan added, “protons are moving at relativistic speeds through the collider, so one could hardly say that any black holes would be created ‘at rest’” to Gerald Deloach’s comment, “the collider has the potential of creating a mini-black hole that is AT REST.”
One could hardly say that if MBHs are created that no black holes would be created at rest. Consider car collisions. If two like cars are racing at breakneck speed toward each other and hit driver’s headlight to driver’s headlight they’ll go spinning and tumbling away from the site of the collision. It those same cars hit driver’s headlight to passenger’s headlight, square head on, the front end crumples, the car tries to fold in half, maybe the trunks hit, but the great mass of the accident stays right there. In the collider if two protons meet with a glancing blow I doubt that a MBH could be created. If they meet square head on I still doubt that a MBH could be created, but I’m willing to put my opinion aside and call this a worst case scenario. If they fully vector out to zero, relative, the result doesn’t go shooting off to the heavens. That has been the gist of the argument for the past six months at least – cosmic radiation hitting a stray particle and resulting in a black hole would impart a hefty bit of speed to it so it would only pass a body by. This worst case scenario is what people fear. Nobody’s getting panicky over the potential best case scenario, MBH goes away without destroying the planet, theory. This assumes that they are being fired toward each other. Maybe the layout is other than what I think. Obviously, they’re not firing the beams nearly parallel so that the protons bump and “trade paint.” Are they to meet collinearly or is there a design offset? If there is an offset, let’s say 1 degree, then what is the possible error if something goes wrong? Could a stray shot be off the mark by 3 degrees? 10 degrees? Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the error, if it occurred at the same time in both beams, would allow for a square head on collision. This would allow, in an extremely unlikely way, for that feared worst case scenario. Of course, my thinking is that it’s designed for collinear aim, so that they’re trying to get that square head on collision.

Twists in the doomsday debate

gerald deloach — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:52:09 GMT

"Of course, my thinking is that it’s designed for collinear aim, so that they’re trying to get that square head on collision."-tim rommes

That would be the intent of pure science.. If it
has off center hit would only produce extremely complex results. Scientific perfection would be the
direct hit, but of course it is unlikely to be accomplished in a single attempt. It is also unlikely that any MBH's would be detected...
until it is too late.

Twists in the doomsday debate

gerald deloach Alligator, Mississippi — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:24:58 GMT

My understanding is that a black hole, no matter its mass, is a configuration that has a concentrated focus of gravity that only allows energy to be consumed, only allowing x-ray emission from the axis of it's rotation. If the black hole is moving, then its momentum is related adversely to its ability to attract, hence, if the
MBH is relatively stationary, as is the possibility
that may occur with the CERN experiment, may be
attracted toward the nearest mass, and thus absorb the mass. Because it will be attracted toward gravitational force and the attraction of mass
will go toward the center of the earth, gaining
mass and more gravitational attraction. There is the possibility that it will assume an orbit around the
center of the earth, and continue to develop mass over time. As it increases mass, its orbit will bring
it closer to being within an orbit that totally within
the earth, where, as it reaches the core, begin
to upset the balance of the Earths mass, and quickly destroy it.

quote from Alan,s link:
"In short: If tiny black holes were produced because large extra dimensions did exist in the necessary number with the necessary radius, and if they did not evaporate within 10-26 seconds as expected (Hawking evaporation is considered a very robust prediction, so this scenario is not confirmed by well founded theories), most of them would have such a high velocity that they escaped the gravitational field of the Earth for good. Even if they travelled straight through the centre of the Earth, the few nucleons they can hit wouldn't change their momentum in an appreciable way." (a quote from Alan's link above)

We should not be playing poker here. The risks are too high.
With all respect to the attitude of exploration; it is a risk of total destruction.
It is not something to be toyed with.
Who will step forward and declare that they are
100% sure of the "the theory", and be able to prove it?
There is a doubt, and in this case the risk is not worth the potential of discovery.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:59:45 GMT

Gerald,
Absorbing any mass is problematic. Usually when wh talk about a mass entering a black hole it's some futuristic space ship and we talk about how it stretches and tears apart after it crosses the threshold. Here, the radius is so small that no matter fits in it. An up quark has mass. You can approximate it's size, to an extent, by bounding it. 3 quarks to an electron, I think. So, roughly, 1/3 the size of an electron as an upper bound, and we could figure it's Schwarzchild radius as a lower bound and call it somewhere in between. At or below r(s) and it's a black hole as well. If it's a black hole then any arguments about making MBHs become irrationally stupid, because they’d already be everywhere anything is. I can’t even begin to guess how many would make up the earth already. If a quark is larger than the black hole then it’s arguable that it never can cross the horizon because it will always be outside it. Even if the leading edge goes into the MBH, the trailing edge is out, at least one side is always out, by the time the trailing edge goes in the leading edge is out. It’s a kind of Fosbury flop. If a MBH can exist, and it can eat, how long would it take to get to threat size? Would we still have a sun?

Twists in the doomsday debate

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:58:25 GMT

Sorry, that should be proton in my last post. And when we vice when wh. Proofreading is underrated.
As a note, I'm also considering matter to be the things with physical presence. Not photons or the stuff that makes up matter. I know that's circular. Atom parts, in short. I'm willing to accept other things as waves that might be captured, but not sure they'd contribute anything. Stop a photon and what's left for the MBH to eat? If it's able to swallow a quark is it a satisfying meal or does it turn into nothing or energy? Maybe it just makes the MBH hot without any increase in mass. Again, a possible route to pop it back to regular matter.
Again, as a caveat, this is all if MBHs can even exist, and I just can't see it.

Twists in the doomsday debate

None of your Business — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:40:35 GMT

Humans aren't built to last.

We are all going to die one day.

With the amount of stupid 'man-made' wars we have had.... who are any of us to point the finger.

Does it really matter if this test is done? Is it really going to achieve anything if this test is done or not?

It's just one possibility to progress or to fail and try again with another test.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Dominic — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:07:20 GMT

Since the beginning of time, understanding and reason we have strived to learn more and more about how and why we exist. Physicists and theoreticians alike have been both endorsed and Persecuted throughout history in the quest to investigate and understand the cosmos. It seems to me that the LHC may provide an opportunity to obtain clues from a source that has been technologically unavailable until now and that the Black Hole theory prophesized in the civil lawsuit threatening to delay the start up, is reminiscent of sailors thinking the world is flat. Who in their right mind could believe that the LHC has the capability of generating the mass required to create even a minute Black Hole.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Moe, Phoenix, Arizona — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:27:08 GMT

How many black holes are there in the universe?
How were they created?
How many advanced civilizations are there?
Many unanswered questions. I hope they weren't experimenting.

Twists in the doomsday debate

sanae, bklyn, nyc — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:15:57 GMT

it seems like the more people get educated the more dumb they become. dont mess with GOD's work!

Twists in the doomsday debate

Matthew Weir, Beverly, Mass — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:53:20 GMT

Some things are ment to be left alone...IT is FOOLISH for the scientific community to assume they can control the very nature of universe. If you ask me...These scientist are mad with the idea of being god. These energies there creating do not exist on earth and should not be replectated...Maybe the very nature of things should be based on a respect of the universes mysteries.

I dont care how much quantum physics youve studied...No amount of labeling and human identification could possibly grasp the power that they are toying with...this has zero benenficial contributions to humanity...its a science lab boner.

Twists in the doomsday debate

jane doe, planet earth — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:02:12 GMT

wow so sad it has gone from curosity to greed.
this is the time for religious faiths to unite. we may have asked for a physical king to see back in bible times...but i guess were happy chasing our tails endlessly.

Twists in the doomsday debate

Will Arlins NY — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:04:13 GMT

Steven Hawking said that the LHC will do no harm. but still, who knows.
the LHC has been turned on.
whatever happens, happens.