Even if it were proven to me that the LHC is perfectly safe beyond the shadow of a doubt, the scientists’ behavior has impressed me so much I would still want CERN to be shut down for six months so that most of them could go work at a soup kitchen. (At least whoever is in charge.) Their response to public concern about the project has not been to shut down long enough to be more certain or to shut down long enough to make some reasonable attempt to explain to people what’s going on or how they’re so sure.

They seemed to figure out early on that the name-calling wasn’t getting them anywhere, but they still declare “I have more credentials than thou” and “I must be right because I have the biggest sneer” and basically “If you don’t take everything I say as gospel truth, you are a complete idiot.” They actually put up the fact that they have families as an argument on their website for the safety of the project, but I’m sure they think its safe. However, they’re in charge and their egos seem to be completely out of control.

They obviously don’t even see why they should even have to answer to anyone without a doctorate in physics. One article actually had that they were advising their scientists to tell the public there was “no chance” on the assumption that the mere little sheep couldn’t possibly understand, upon explanation, that there is technically not “no chance” that the entire Earth could spontaneously turn into Cheeze Whiz when you play jump rope. It’s a question of extremely low odds.

In short, I would not, based on their behavior on this point, willingly trust the people running CERN with the contents of my cutlery drawer. I know they’re very book-smart and everything, but their humility levels and their attitude toward the rest of humanity are just awful.

On January 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, corkie said:

I know this isn’t germane to your discussion, but isn’t it more accurate to merely state that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact momentum of an object at the same time? – Which makes it more practical to model such issues in terms of probabilities?

You are correct. The more we know about one quantity, the less we know about the other. I see you know the subject matter pretty well. Of course, the wave nature of particles shows up very well in the double slit experiment. And it is that quality which makes Hawking Radiation possible, if my layman’s understanding of this stuff is correct.

Something about the “Let’s plug this thing in and see what happens” mentality makes me a little uneasy. Start-up of this project has already been delayed because of malfunctions.

Best case disaster scenario: The thing blows up and “only” destroys everything from France to Iran.

On January 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am, backwoods conservative said:

Quantum physics has taught us that on the subatomic scale, particles do not have a clearly defined location but are rather defined by a wave of probability of location.

I know this isn’t germane to your discussion, but isn’t it more accurate to merely state that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact momentum of an object at the same time? – Which makes it more practical to model such issues in terms of probabilities?

If fact, the uncertainty principle is described as ΔxΔp ≥ h. Notice that the uncertainty of position (represented by x) multiplied by the uncertainty of momentum (represented by p) may be equal to a constant. Therefore, the uncertainty of position may zero (Δx = 0 as long as Δp = ∞). In other words the location of the particle may be definitively determined as long as the uncertainty of momentum remains completely unknown.

Although, this is just a simple engineering interpretation of the theory. Maybe the math and physics guys find this reprehensible.

Admittedly, that is all mathematical conjecture at this point, but considering the track record theoretical physicists have with predictions based on mathematics, including the existence of black holes, I’m inclined to believe they know what they’re talking about.

Concur with this 100%.

I’m always amazed that the math and physics guys were able to successfully complete such a large amount of the development of “the bomb.” Most feats require much more engineering.

Speaking of which, didn’t similar concerns exist about a “run away” reaction prior to the first test of the bomb?

For the person falling into the black hole, yes, time would flow normally and they would indeed get there.

Well, then I guess I don’t need to plan on doing anything special when the scientists go to work.

On January 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, Southpaw said:

My question now is, if something accelerates toward the speed of light as it approaches the black hole, does it ever get there? Time slows down as you accelerate towards the speed of light. If we’re sucked into a black hole, will things start moving in slow motion and eventually we’ll be frozen in time for eternity?

That provides an example of what Einstein meant about time passing at different rates for different observers. For the person falling into the black hole, yes, time would flow normally and they would indeed get there. For an outside observer, the person falling into the black hole would appear to freeze in time at the event horizon.

Mathematical calculations led him to the conclusion that the smaller the black hole, the faster such “Hawking Radiation” would take place.

For a long time a doubted the existence of black holes, mainly because I had a hard time accepting the concept of an object of infinite density where nothing could escape. Hawkings theories changed my thinking on that.

My question now is, if something accelerates toward the speed of light as it approaches the black hole, does it ever get there? Time slows down as you accelerate towards the speed of light. If we’re sucked into a black hole, will things start moving in slow motion and eventually we’ll be frozen in time for eternity? If so, I hope I’m doing something worthwhile, like posting on Michelle Malkin.

CO2 Producer said: with pieces like Al Gore in his underwear

AHHHHH!H!H!H!H!HHHAHAHHHahahhahhh! My eyes! AHHAHSHHSHSHHHHAHHAHAHHH

…how do they know these things decay?

The answer to that is a bit complicated. It is true that the decay has not been observed, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Quantum physics has taught us that on the subatomic scale, particles do not have a clearly defined location but are rather defined by a wave of probability of location. Quantum physics also has established that a vacuum is never flat and smooth from an energy level standpoint, but fluctuates. Virtual particles of matter and antimatter are created and annhilate each other.

What would happen if a pair of these virtual particles formed at the event horizon of a black hole? That is the question Stephen Hawking asked himself. The conclusion he reached is that in some cases, the uncertainty in the location of the particles would cause the probability wave of one particle to cross over the boundary of the black hole’s event horizon. That particle could then escape, while its counterpart fell into the hole. This would result in a slight loss of mass for the black hole. Mathematical calculations led him to the conclusion that the smaller the black hole, the faster such “Hawking Radiation” would take place. Microscopic black holes would evaporate very quickly.

Admittedly, that is all mathematical conjecture at this point, but considering the track record theoretical physicists have with predictions based on mathematics, including the existence of black holes, I’m inclined to believe they know what they’re talking about.

backwoods conservative said: The conclusion of the research these guys did is that decay would win.

Here is where I’m from Missouri; how do they know these things decay? Have they ever seen one decay? If it’s truly a black hole then I am having trouble with the idea that something can decay even though nothing can get out? So maybe this ‘decay’ is really this thing having unsuffcient mass to maintain it’s compactness so once it expands a little the show is over and it’s just another neutrino?

On January 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

My bad, I didn’t know it would be moving fast after it was created. I assumed that two masses were accelerated in opposite directions then collided head on thus negating their momentum and leaving a near stationary black hole dangling there.

That would be akin to aiming two rifles at each other and having the bullets meet so precisely that their opposing momentums cancel out. What is more likely is one or more fragments flying off in odd directions.

I just spent some time examining the PDF file of the actual paper (I’ll admit the mathematics is over my head, so I examined their conclusions), and they did consider the possibility of the black hole not achieving escape velocity. It seems there are two competing forces at work. One is the black hole’s ability to become more massive by accreting matter onto itself. The other is decay. In order for a black hole to become massive enough to destroy the Earth, it would have to accrete enough matter onto itself to overcome the decay rate. They found that a lower velocity made it less likely that the black hole would encounter enough matter to accrete onto itself before decay caused it to evaporate.

One thing to remember is that while the gravitational effects of a black hole are tremendous on anything that gets too close to it, the force of gravity falls off considerably with distance. Objects that were not perilously close to the black hole would not be pulled into it any faster than a normal (and necessarily larger) object of the same mass. If the sun were to suddenly collapse into a black hole, the sun would occupy a smaller area of space, but the orbits of the planets would not be affected at all. The “cosmic vacuum cleaner” effect is one of the biggest myths about black holes.

The result is that the mini black holes would have so little gravity (because of their tiny mass) that they would have to actually contact something to pull anything into itself. The conclusion of the research these guys did is that decay would win.

Former Vice President Al Gore told lawmakers Wednesday morning that the earth is in “grave danger” and that the nation must break its dependence on oil.

They were saying this in the 70’s when Kerry was killing commies in Cambodia.