Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Pie eyed]

Their theory actually strengthens your argument.

What exactly is my argument?

I do not at present hold any fears of micro black holes or stangelets popping out of the LHC but if the info and evidence is out there I am more than interested to read it.

If there are more than three please link to their published papers. Articles written by them.

Not magazines and newspaper life-style pieces.

I get the distinct impression you feel I'm having a dig at you and your stance, when in fact, I am asking you to point me to the information which led you to form it.

I am fully aware of the discredited loons who are proponents of the LHC doomsday scenario but cannot find any legitimate physicists blog, articles or papers on either the nature of the fears or the principles they base them on.

 

[Malifice]

What exactly is my argument?

I do not at present hold any fears of micro black holes or stangelets popping out of the LHC but if the info and evidence is out there I am more than interested to read it.

They (black holes) are going to appear. Even the 'LHC is safe crew' acknowledge this. Hawking radiation should (should) make them disspear just a squick... before they annhilate the earth anyway.

Its the strangelets that worry me more than the black holes anyway.

If there are more than three please link to their published papers. Articles written by them.

Im a Lawyer not a Scientist! That said if you need Case law or Law Journals from Lexis let me know.

And for the record, there are more than three. A lot more than three. Sadly I dont have access to any Online Scientific Journals discussing them. That said I also dont have access to any Scientific Journals full stop.

So no articles in support of safety the LHC either. Do you have any in support that arent magazines and newspaper life-style pieces?

I get the distinct impression you feel I'm having a dig at you and your stance, when in fact, I am asking you to point me to the information which led you to form it.

Correct. I apoligise.

FWIW, its a little hard for me to explain my position on this clearly as I get the hunch we have very different views on a few things.

For mine:

• I believe (we) create the universe, not the other way round.
• Matter (and energy) is entirely dependent on observation and measurement to determine its state.
• In the absence of an observer there is no Universe.
• Atomic physics and sub atomic physics are not meant to be 'unified'. Atomic physics are just a comprehensable side effect of (us) shaping the sub atomic wave functions used to keep (us) sane and the rules absolute. Chaos is hostile to life after all.

I assume you adhere to the more 'classical' (and widley accepted) view that 'we' evolved inside the universe, and the universe exists regardless of observation?

 

[Wally Carter]

For starters im not Catholic (or even Christian for that matter).

Poor form to even bring that into the discussion by the way. Really poor form.

It was a joke. Calm down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3

Yes, I have seen this and I find it to be very humorous.

Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.

So do I.

“It is based on mathematics,

Yes, "theoretical" mathematics.

Theoretical mathematics could prove that Port Adelaide won the 2007 AFL Grand final.

 

[Malifice]

OFFICIAL CERN POSITION ON THE POTENTIAL DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING THE LHC:

CERN/DG/Research Board 2003-347
Minutes-162
7 February 2003

ORGANISATION EUROPÉENNE POUR LA RECHERCHE NUCLÉAIRE
CERN EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
____________________________________________________________

CERN RESEARCH BOARD
_______________________

MINUTES OF THE 162nd MEETING OF THE RESEARCH BOARD
HELD ON THURSDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2003

Present : J. Äystö, J.-J. Blaising, M. Calvetti, R. Cashmore, C. Détraz, L. Evans, R. Forty (Secretary), Luis Alvarez Gaumé (replacing G. Altarelli), M. Hauschild, H. Hoffmann, J. Iliopoulos*, J. Kirkby*, K. Königsmann, P. Lebrun, L. Maiani (Chairman), J. May, S. Myers, G. Roy, J.-A. Rubio, W.-D. Schlatter, A.A. Watson*, C. Wyss, W. von R*den, A. Zalewska
*part-time
Items

1. Procedure
2. Status Report on the Pierre Auger experiment (A.A. Watson)
3. Reports and matters arising from the INTC meeting of 25 November 2002
4. Study of possibly dangerous events during Heavy Ion collisions at LHC (J. Iliopoulos)
5. Reports and matters arising from the LHCC meetings of 27-28 November 2002 and 29-30 January 2003
6. Reports and matters arising from the SPSC meeting of 14 January 2003
7. Any other business

---
4. STUDY OF POSSIBLY DANGEROUS EVENTS DURING HEAVY ION COLLISIONS AT LHC
J. Iliopoulos reported on the study made by a committee that he chaired, concerning the possibility of producing dangerous events during Heavy Ion collisions at the LHC [8].

A previous study made for RHIC had concluded that the candidate mechanisms for catastrophe scenarios are firmly excluded by existing empirical evidence, compelling theoretical arguments, or both. Following their investigation, the committee concurred with this conclusion. They studied the possible production of black holes, magnetic monopoles and strangelets. They also reviewed the astrophysical limits, coming from interaction of cosmic rays with the moon (or with each other) which, under plausible assumptions, exclude the possibility of dangerous processes in Heavy Ion colliders.

Black holes produced in theories with extra, compact, dimensions, for which the fundamental scale could be as low as 1 TeV, might be copiously produced at the LHC. However, only extremely massive black holes, beyond the reach of any accelerator, would be stable. It has been speculated that magnetic monopoles might catalyze proton decay. At each catalysis event, energy is released by the decaying proton, causing the monopole to move. They estimated the number of nucleons that the monopole would destroy before escaping from the earth, and found it to be negligibly small.

Most of the committee’s study concerned strangelets, a hypothetical new form of matter containing roughly equal numbers of up, down and strange quarks. They may become dangerous if they can be produced at the LHC, are sufficiently long-lived, are negatively charged so that they can attract and absorb ordinary nuclei, and finally if they can grow indefinitely without becoming unstable. The committee found that, from general principles, if negatively-charged strangelets exist at all, they would not grow indefinitely: they soon become unstable.

Furthermore they concluded that any hadronic system with baryon number of order 10 or higher is out of reach of a Heavy Ion collider, and the LHC will be no more efficient at producing strangelets than RHIC. To be dangerous the strangelet would need to be stable from very low baryon number, where production is possible, all the way up towards infinite baryon number, a possibility that has been excluded by the stability studies.

L. Maiani thanked J. Iliopoulos and his committee for their work, and the Research Board took note of the report.

Youll note that the concensus is that black holes will form.

They just should (should) then dissapear based on the theory of black hole evaporation due to theoretical 'Hawking radiation'.

Of course there is a complete lack of any empirical evidence to support the existence of Hawking radiation.

And as brilliant as he is, Hawking has been wrong before.

Just... hopefully not this time.

 

[Wally Carter]

"you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."

Effectively: The universe "knows" we are ****ing with it and stops us from doing so.

Well, there goes biocentrism out the window.

It looks as though "God" is back on the drawing board.

 

[Wally Carter]

FWIW Pie Eyed (and anyone else intrested in my view on this topic) I actually think we should be safe... As the Universe (as created by and an extension of us) wont let us detroy it.

"Malifices conundrum" rears up again!!!!!

 

[Wally Carter]

Youll note that the concensus is that black holes will form.

Where do they state that?

 

[Malifice]

Yes, "theoretical" mathematics.

Theoretical mathematics could prove that Port Adelaide won the 2007 AFL Grand final.

Come on. This leads us back to 'the whole thing is just a theory' argument.

There are theories itll kill us and there are theories it wont.

Guess we'll all find out soon enough which one is right.

 

[Wally Carter]

"Theoretically" 50,000,00 to 1

You like maths? Think about that.

 

[Malifice]

"Theoretically" 50,000,00 to 1

You like maths? Think about that.

Havent we covered this already three pages ago?

Are you just arguing now for the sake of it?

 

[Wally Carter]

I am simply pointing out the severe contradictions in your argument.

Isn't that good debating practice?

Do scientists believe that the creation of a black hole is a 50,000,000 to 1 probability or do they believe "the concensus is that black holes will form".

You can't have it both ways mate.

 

[Malifice]

Well, there goes biocentrism out the window.

How? Havent we convered this already about 2 pages back?

It looks as though "God" is back on the drawing board.

And you bring up religion again.

Clearly you dont understand what you call Biocentrism.

"Malifices conundrum" rears up again!!!!!

What conundrum exactly?

Where do they state that?

They clearly state that black holes should form, and lots of them should form. However they should dissapate before they do any damage.

Clearly you just argue for the sake of it.

Ive just reread this whole thread and you have contributed nothing but automatically taking the counter position to anything anyone says, shit stirring and trolling.

Its getting quite annoying.

 

[Malifice]

I am simply pointing out the severe contradictions in your argument.

Without raising or contributing anything of substance in return.

Isn't that good debating practice?

Are we here to debate or share information and ideas?

Do scientists believe that the creation of a black hole is a 50,000,000 to 1 probability or do they believe "the concensus is that black holes will form".

You can't have it both ways mate.

Yes you can.

The consensus is that black holes will form. They may not of course.

But if they do form they should (based on current mathmatical models) dissapate and not anhilate the universe. They may not of course.

There is a distinction between odds of them forming and odds of them destroying the universe. One is a near certainty... the other is less so.

 

[Wally Carter]

How? Havent we convered this already about 2 pages back?

And you bring up religion again.

Clearly you dont understand what you call Biocentrism.

What conundrum exactly?

A holographic universe cannot have independent thought. It is always at the will of something else.

They clearly state that black holes should form, and lots of them should form. However they should dissapate before they do any damage.

You have used the words "will" and now "should" in relations to black holes springing from the LHC.

Please furnish me with proof of a scientist utilising those same words in relation to black holes and the LHC?

Clearly you just argue for the sake of it.

No, I constantly challenge you to put forward evidence that you have not supplied.

Ive just reread this whole thread and you have contributed nothing but automatically taking the counter position to anything anyone says, shit stirring and trolling.

Its getting quite annoying.

On the contrary, you have taken the highly theoretical work of physicists and attempted to pass it off as probable. Pie Eyed also caught you out distorting scientific opinion to suit your own prejudices. Your credibility is shrinking fast.

 

[Malifice]

A holographic universe cannot have independent thought. It is always at the will of something else.

Exactly. Us. Weve covered this. In detail.

How does this form a conundrum? And what part of this dont you understand?

You have used the words "will" and now "should" in relations to black holes springing from the LHC.

Please furnish me with proof of a scientist utilising those same words in relation to black holes and the LHC?

Ahhh... wordsmithing hey.

The following is from the CERN report:

Black holes produced in theories with extra, compact, dimensions, for which the fundamental scale could be as low as 1 TeV, might be copiously produced at the LHC.

In other words they expect black holes to form.

I get the feeling you'll be focussing on the word 'might' so i thought i would provide a definition of the word copious - also found in the above quote, and included in the official report on the subject:

co·pi·ous (k

p

-

s)
adj. 1. Yielding or containing plenty; affording ample supply: a copious harvest. See Synonyms at plentiful.
2. Large in quantity; abundant: copious rainfall.
3. Abounding in matter, thoughts, or words; wordy: "I found our speech copious without order, and energetic without rules" (Samuel Johnson).

Looks like we 'might' be getting a lot of black holes.

Youll note if you continue to read, the theory is that these black holes should not annhilate anything due to Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation only existing in theory of course and with no empirical evidence to support its existence.

No, I constantly challenge you to put forward evidence that you have not supplied.

And what evidence have you put forward to disprove the above theories?

Zero.

On the contrary, you have taken the highly theoretical work of physicists and attempted to pass it off as probable.

I cant believe in a certain theory over others?

Why not?

 

[Wally Carter]

Exactly. Us. Weve covered this. In detail.

How does this form a conundrum? And what part of this dont you understand?

Us designs a multi billion dollar experiment to search for the origins of the universe then Us sabotages it to fail?

It that what you're getting at?

Ahhh... wordsmithing hey.

The following is from the CERN report:

In other words they expect black holes to form.

I get the feeling you'll be focussing on the word 'might' so i thought i would provide a definition of the word copious - also found in the above quote, and included in the official report on the subject:

Looks like we 'might' be getting a lot of black holes.

Youll note if you continue to read, the theory is that these black holes should not annhilate anything due to Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation only existing in theory of course and with no empirical evidence to support its existence.

Links please.

And what evidence have you put forward to disprove the above theories?

Zero.

I'm not the one distorting the theoretical works of two physicists.

I cant believe in a certain theory over others?

Why not?

You can believe in whatever you want, but if you are going to post it on a public forum and open it for discussion then you can't expect blind allegiance.

 

[Malifice]

Us designs a multi billion dollar experiment to search for the origins of the universe then Us sabotages it to fail?

It that what you're getting at?

More or less yes.

The Universe is an extension of - and formed by - (us). Whether 'Us' is humanity, all sentient life, all life, all things capable of observation and interaction with it, or just Me is debateable.

I say just me as the only thing i know to be true beyond any doubt is that I exist. Its a valid model for the universe from my persepctive... actually from my perspective its the best model.

I am prepared to have enough faith that you (and everyone else) exists however.

Links please.

I took that as an excerpt from my quote above.

In addition, Ill go stright to wiki. You can do the rest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety...rge_Hadron_Collider#CERN-commissioned_reports

Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate on the order of one per second.[55][56][57][58] According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Hawking radiation.[57][58]

I'm not the one distorting the theoretical works of two physicists.

Neither am I.

You can believe in whatever you want, but if you are going to post it on a public forum and open it for discussion then you can't expect blind allegiance.

I dont expect anyting of the sort.

But if you are going to take a counter position, it would help if you provided a less antagonistic and more productive stance.

 

[Wally Carter]

More or less yes.

Then why would there be a scenario where the experiment sabotages itself? Isn't it far more logical that the experiment achieves the outcomes of what it was built to achieve?

I took that as an excerpt from my quote above.

In addition, Ill go stright to wiki. You can do the rest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety...rge_Hadron_Collider#CERN-commissioned_reports

Not a single mention of the words "should" or "will".

No mention of "majority" either.

But if you are going to take a counter position, it would help if you provided a less antagonistic and more productive stance.

I am being productive.

My productivity lies in showing some of your theories to be baseless.

 

[Malifice]

Then why would there be a scenario where the experiment sabotages itself? Isn't it far more logical that the experiment achieves the outcomes of what it was built to achieve?

I know you're smarter than that.

Biocentrism does not imply (and nor have I) that we have an active control over the our manipulations of wave functions and wave function collapse.

The Universe acts as both a byproduct of our existence and as a framework to support the act of existing itself.

You start down the 'we can actively control what the universe does just by thinking about it' path and you've entered 'The Secret' territory.

Can you please explain how quantum suicide machines work (or more accurately dont work)?

Not a single mention of the words "should" or "will".

No mention of "majority" either.

**** you. I tire of this. Just read the ****ing theories. If you believe in String theory and the many worlds theory then Mico Black holes should be created (according to the current state of the theories).

If after reading the quantum theories you cant find it, come let me know.

I am being productive.

My productivity lies in showing some of your theories to be baseless.

Well if that's the only reason you are here, you are failing. What theory exactly have you proved wrong?

Cite evidence of both:

a) my theory (or theories), and
b) how exactly it (or they) are falsified.

and then:

c) your theory.

Until then stop wasting my time.

 

[Pie eyed]

They (black holes) are going to appear. Even the 'LHC is safe crew' acknowledge this. Hawking radiation should (should) make them disspear just a squick... before they annhilate the earth anyway.
The possibility of the appearance of micro black holes is highly contentious and there is still enormous debate whether in fact they even exist. That said there is a growing body of work which strongly suggests that even "accepted" black holes in fact do not exist. Another topic perhaps?
Its the strangelets that worry me more than the black holes anyway.



Im a Lawyer not a Scientist! That said if you need Case law or Law Journals from Lexis let me know.

And for the record, there are more than three. A lot more than three. Sadly I dont have access to any Online Scientific Journals discussing them. That said I also dont have access to any Scientific Journals full stop.

I do have access to several physics forums, which I do not frequent as often as I probably could, and they too are for the large part populated by "lay" physicists such as us, having similar discussions as we are now. The LHC/mBH/Strangelets topics are all, for all intents and purposes, old news and have been thoroughly discussed and I might add the fears more or less totally debunked. This is not to say some other evidence or issue may not raise it's head or for that matter that the risks are not real. There is however very little published scientific support for the need to fear anything which may emerge from the LHC on any of these site or the internet in general, which does not emanate from the same, mostly discredited sources. I am basing this statement on the fact that the vast majority (of physicists and scientists) do not consider 1 in 50,000,000, itself a highly conservative maximum, to be anything but a statistical risk and even then only if you accept the many theoretical "probabilities" which would have to "be" in order for mBh to appear. If one is wrong then the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. The risk is assessed as if these other factors do exist and as we theorise them to.

So no articles in support of safety the LHC either. Do you have any in support that arent magazines and newspaper life-style pieces?

None of these are "articles". Each are reports by physicists, highly regarded in their fields. I would emphasise that even though I am not claiming the CERN lsag reports are independent, they "are" for all intents and purposes. I have not included any of the 100's of articles by eminent physicists from Scientific Journals who come down on the "NO RISK" side of the discussion and go into great detail why.

CERN lsag report 2003
http://cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf
Independent Paper by Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano June 2008
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

On 20 June 2008, Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano issued a research paper titled the "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes", where they develop arguments to exclude any risk of dangerous black hole production at the LHC.[51] On 18 August 2008, this safety review was published in the

Physical Review D,[52] and a commentary article which appeared the same day in the journal Physics endorsed Giddings' and Mangano's conclusions.[53] The LSAG report draws heavily on this research

CERN lsag report
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1113558


Correct. I apoligise.

Accepted.

FWIW, its a little hard for me to explain my position on this clearly as I get the hunch we have very different views on a few things.

For mine:

• I believe (we) create the universe, not the other way round.
• Matter (and energy) is entirely dependent on observation and measurement to determine its state.
• In the absence of an observer there is no Universe.
• Atomic physics and sub atomic physics are not meant to be 'unified'. Atomic physics are just a comprehensable side effect of (us) shaping the sub atomic wave functions used to keep (us) sane and the rules absolute. Chaos is hostile to life after all.

I assume you adhere to the more 'classical' (and widley accepted) view that 'we' evolved inside the universe, and the universe exists regardless of observation?

You may be surprised that your ideas are not that far removed from my own. I do however tend to limit my replies to the "current generally accepted" view on most matters I would post on. To stay within "discussable" boundaries. If I were on a physics forum I may very well venture into some more adventurous hypothesising.
The idea that the universe does not exist unless there is an observer is completely plausible from the viewpoint of a mortal observer, as all observation ceases with the end of the observer, but only in relation to he or she. Taking that thought to it's extreme you, and I for that matter, are constructing this entire discussion in the absence of another observer or point of view and may both well be non-existent.
That though is getting further into the realms of philosophy, which I do not have a great affinity for.

FOUR CHARACTERS....lol

 

[Malifice]

FOUR CHARACTERS.

I thank you for a better discussion than im getting from Wally (and at least being prepared to discuss divergent views rather than just ridicule and not contribute anything).

And sorry again for being snappy earlier. I was on edge from WC's incessant trolling.

My bad for letting it get to me.

 

[Wally Carter]

I know you're smarter than that.

Actually, I'm not. Here is some calming music, listen to it and refocus:

[youtube]44Ycjy8DdVU[/youtube]

Biocentrism does not imply (and nor have I) that we have an active control over the our manipulations of wave functions and wave function collapse.

Actually, it does:

Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism#cite_note-9

1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism

Man, of course, has the ability to wilfully alter his/her consciousness.

The Universe acts as both a byproduct of our existence and as a framework to support the act of existing itself.

I draw your attention to principle 7 above: ....."there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life".

You start down the 'we can actively control what the universe does just by thinking about it' path and you've entered 'The Secret' territory.

"The secret" does touch on Biocentric principles.

Can you please explain how quantum suicide machines work (or more accurately dont work)?

In relation to what?

Are you asking me how superposition theory sits with biocentric principles?

Well if that's the only reason you are here, you are failing. What theory exactly have you proved wrong?

Your claims that a significant amount of physicists believe that black holes "should" or "will" be formed from the LHC.

 

[Malifice]

Actually, it does:

No it doesnt. Our will has nothing to do with it. Our existence does.

Where in the Biocentric model does it claim we have any level of wilful control?

None of us would ever die due to accidents if that were the case.

Man, of course, has the ability to wilfully alter his/her consciousness.

What via LSD? Why does this matter?

Is an uncounsious man outside of the universe?

I draw your attention to principle 7 above: ....."there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life".

Did i claim it was an absolute self existing matrix independent of physical life?

Nope. Read what I wrote again. Youre conveniently ignoring the bit where I say the unviverse is both a byproduct of life and supports it.

As a shoddy physical analogy, consider the exoskeleton of an ant.

"The secret" does touch on Biocentric principles.

It does. From a pseudo scientific (at best) and almost quasi religious standpoint.

For example it goes on to claim an individual has tha ability to directly and wilfully alter reality simply by using positive thought.

Please. If only it were that easy.

In relation to what?

Are you asking me how superposition theory sits with biocentric principles?

As a starting point yes.

Your claims that a significant amount of physicists believe that black holes "should" or "will" be formed from the LHC.

If you are a physicist and you adhere to string theory then you also beleive we will get micro black holes.

If there are only 4 dimensions (and Newton was right), we should be safe.

 

[Pie eyed]

I'm going to jump with the "WHITE FLAG" as this point and ask you two chaps to agree to disagree on interpretations of Biocentrism.
I am willing to accept that Malifice has a legitimate concern that Mbh's and strangelets may be created at CERN no matter the statistical chances, whether or not the universe would allow us to destroy ourselves or not.
I'm hoping that Wally can also agree to disagree on these topics.
Possibly a new thread if you feel you both need to go on with it.

I'm not against the discussion, but I think it's getting very narrow.
I was enjoying both your discussions and the discussion in general much more before you both got embroiled in when they were broader and more informative.
I reckon I'm not alone.

 

[Malifice]

I'm going to jump with the "WHITE FLAG" as this point and ask you two chaps to agree to disagree on interpretations of Biocentrism.

Done. Probably getting a little off track anyway!