![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In dicussions of risk it is important to separate risk from danger, this doesn't seem to be being done here. E.g. walking a wire inches above some mud is high risk and low danger. Walking a wide plank across an abyss is low risk and high danger.-- 86.142.37.107 ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Are CERN’s calculations of no risk from MBH (Micro Black Holes) supportable and accurate? Has CERN published any scientifically supportable risk analysis other than the article titled: Microscopic black holes will not eat you… published at
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html?
I think that a protest and action section is needed and justified, if it's only a few people how do you explain the myspace group STOP CERN having over 1,200 friends, and the myriad of websites discussing this issue, I think the safety concerns section is not enough, people need to know there are people doing what they can to stop this.
A copy of submitted complaint and affidavits, in Word for Windows format, was emailed to me personally by Walter L. Wagner, co-petitioner on 2008/03/22. I uploaded a copy to: http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29 . LUIS SANCHO, et al., Plaintiffs
The main article will need links to official copies of the complaint when available (citation assistance needed). Allegations alleged in the complaint and affidavits include the following main facts in quotes, many of which may be out of context and/or text replaced with an ellipsis […] for brevity sake:
"injunction [...] from operating the LHC until [...] proven to be reasonably safe" "No absolute refutation of the adverse scenarios that have been described has yet been articulated” “suggested by defendants that the ‘risk’ of the adverse scenarios is small.” “fundamental flaws were existent in those “safety reviews” and pointed out to defendants by plaintiffs.” “current safety review is known as the LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] Safety Review.” “initially scheduled for completion by January 1, 2008 […] not yet been released […] as promised” “CERN's Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was recently quoted in The New Yorker as instructing CERN scientists not to say that the risk from colliders is low, but to say that the risk is zero” “the real risk of these proposed experiments can be as high as 75%” ” Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of ‘minimal risk’. ” “2 out of 3 absurd articles received by this magazine [for publication] try to prove Einstein wrong, […] they actually only prove their ignorance of Classic Relativity.” “LHC […] producing miniature black holes at the rate of 1 per second” “Director of CERN said that “the LHC will be the closest we will ever be to God”” “experiments that would take place at the LHC could be carried out by advanced Telescopes” “potentially deadly particles might be produced […] Dr. Frank Wilczek […] Nobel Prize in physics“ “letter to Dr. Wagner jointly signed by CERN’s Director General [Dr. Aymar] and Chief Scientific Officer [Dr. Engelen], CERN “mandated a group of experts, not themselves members of the LHC experimental collaborations, to assess safety aspects of LHC operation. This group is mandated to provide by the end of this year [2007] a written report, which will be made available to the scientific community and to the general public through the CERN web pages." It is to be noted that it is this LSAG Report which is currently overdue.“ ” believe that CERN is planning to commence operation of the LHC in April or May, 2008 “ ““go for launch” decision of spaceship Challenger involved placing the lives of only 7 people at risk, whereas the “go for launch” decision for the LHC located on spaceship Earth involves placing the lives of some 7 Billion people at risk, as well as all of our future descendants not yet born.” “reliance on a “cosmic ray argument” that CERN LHC collisions should be safe. […]They reasoned that if any disastrous particle could be created, it would already have been created eons ago by nature […] overlooked during their previous safety assessment […] novel particle such as a micro black hole […] simply pass harmlessly through our planet […] Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC […] would then be captured by earth’s gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] […] we have ZERO information on what such cross-section for capture actually is.” “Alternative scientific methods that pose no risk exist for obtaining some of the information being sought by the LHC” “upwards of 90% of our galaxy. All available information, however, shows that Dark Matter indeed feeds upon “ordinary” matter […] Creation of such Dark Matter on Earth would then be seen to be foolhardy, at best.” “Hawking Radiation is not only un-proven, it is directly contrary to established theory of Einstein’s Relativity by which black holes never evaporate, and are forever black”
Removed it back here until we can get 3rd party source, but who ever is in the know on this side of the argument, please don't hang around as it is certainly notable in this whole debate and should be included once verified.
Khu
kri
08:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Confirmation of legal action: http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-hawaii/court-hidce/ and http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hidce/case_no-1:2008cv00136/case_id-78717/ -- Jtankers ( talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
CERN is short for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, it's in french, the abbreviation is kept with it's actual leters, but to the rest of the english speaking world is goes by the former title more frequently, either or both are proper.
Oh by the way another article from MSNBC posted this here [2], this should be a pretty decent 3rd party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebenonce ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe it would be worth mentionning that the court does not have jurisdiction over CERN... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.9.16 ( talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's innacurate, and would be why it doesn't say that in the article, many of the parts (Magnets, ATLAS, Etc) are provided by Fermilab, which is US based, the lawsuit took that into consideration with their filing, the US also funds approximately 10 percent and has the largest delegation of scientists assigned, it's almost continent that it was filed in Hawaii.
This gives ample jurisdiction to an injunction.
Anyone know what the status is with this action, I take it's been thrown out haven't heard a thing for over a month now? Khu kri 12:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Trial in US Federal Court is scheduled to begin June 16, 2009. [3] (details in section: "Court Case?" below) -- Jtankers ( talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to the confusion, I have (1) added a citation template to the sentence in the "Safety concerns" section, about LHC collision products being produced at low-speed and so being likely to be captured, whereas CR products would escape harmlessly; and then (2) added a sentence, "Yet again, countering this fear, is the argument that if such micro-black holes or stranglets were in fact dangerous, and were created by cosmic-ray interactions with the Earth, then they should also have been created in huge numbers in the Sun, stars, planets, and ISM, so that the Universe would be filled with them (many cosmologically red-shifted), and traveling at all speeds — in which case stars and planets (including the Earth) ought to be constantly capturing them and thus being devoured, with spectacular results — which are not observed", which also needs a reference, of course. Neither of these arguments should endure without a reliable external source, which I hope (in view of the attention this is receiving lately) someone more expert may be able to provide.
Further questions for experts are, (1) is it correct that collisions at 7 TeV would all be essentially simple, pure quark-quark affairs, due to the extreme Lorentz contraction of the interacting hadrons, (2) should not such collisions produce black holes with a mass (and size) much much less than the Planck mass & correspondingly small gravitational capture cross-section, and (3), at electron Gamma-factors of 100,000 at 50 GeV in the lab (at SLAC), far exceeding those at LHC of ~7,000 (but in the CM at LHC), would not lepton-quark interactions already explored constrain these questions? Are references available about these issues that someone not expert in relativistic quantum field theory could understand? Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems again to have re-erased some additions made to the safety concerns section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.64.26 ( talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My friend Oldnoah has misunderstood my statement above. I do not claim that cosmic rays originate outside our galaxy (though the ultra-high energy variety clearly do, as they cannot be confined by galactic magnetic fields). My claim is that if UHE CRs (which clearly do exist) do make long-lived microscopic BHs when they hit the Earth, then they will be hitting everything everywhere in our galaxy, the Sun, planets, etc, and have been been doing so since time immemorial. Thus, on the argument (also unsourced) I was seeking to balance, the Galaxy should be full of such micro BHs flying around. Assuming this process has gone on for a long time, they would have accumulated, and some would be moving slowly enough to have been captured by the Earth, the Sun, or other stars. The results should be quite obvious if this happens often, as there are lots of stars around. I do not really object in principle to my statement being removed, as it certainly needs sourcing, but if so I would like to see the argument before it likewise sourced or removed. I put the "fact" tag on both, by the way. I really hope the folks in the community who have studied the LHC safety issue can comment and provide such source material, if we give them a chance (a week?) before deleting. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Bill:
Sorry, I did not know that was your post. However, it is still not correct, and I will delete it again for that reason primarily [as I always leave unsourced material alone if I recognize it to be correct]. If high-E cosmic rays produce micro black holes, they are travelling at 0.999999+ c relative to our galaxy, and create micro black holes that are also travelling at 0.999+c relative to our galaxy [I'll let you put in the correct number of 9s for each]. At that speed, they are believed to be essentially invisible to all matter [very neutrino like], and hence would never slow down. Only if they are created at slow speed and captured by a star or planetary body would they begin the slow process of accretion, which might take centuries to millenia to complete, as the accretion rate likely increases with increasing mass. Of course, all of this presupposes that Hawking Radiation is not real. In any event, the argument that there should be slow micro black holes created in nature does not appear to be valid. Even those moving well below c [if such could exist from doppler shifted from receding galaxies, etc.] would likely, if they struck earth [after having been pulled in by Earth's gravity] simply pass right on through.
I had taken your "doppler shift" comment to mean micro black holes created in the vicinity of the CMB emission source, which recession doppler-shifts photons from 2,700 K blackbody spectrum to about 2.7 K blackbody spectrum.
Regards, Oldnoah ( talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah
The counter argument that cosmic ray impacts with Earth are not captured is missing, proposed similar to June 13 text:
In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
Wow, micro blackholes end of earth...sounds like a scary machine. Just out of a james bond movie...... Landlord77 ( talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know why they're all so concerned about the extermination of all intelligent life. If a black hole did happen to hoover-up this whole sorry mess than maybe some intelligent life might have a chance to evolve. It would be a shame for the poor little koala bears though... Far Canal ( talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's suppose that the risk is indeed 1 in 50.000.000. This risk, as far as I know is comparable with the risk of dying in a plane crash. And this happens. Since this risk is "shared in full" by each person in the world, is it fair that some scientists impose practically this risk on a person, however small the risk might be, without the person's consent? Let's say that the experiment would have carried such a risk that 1 in 50.000.000 people will die. If the world population is 6 billion, than that means around 120 people. From which, 60 will be women, 60 men, including all ages accordingly from 0 to 100 years. That means also new borns. Will this be acceptable? If not, why would be the risk of killing all humanity be acceptable?
And about "winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession". Well, give me 50 million weeks, and the money to play, and I'll show you. In LHC terms, two colliding particles represent one week.
Why are fools and fanatics always so certain of themselves, whereas wiser people are full of doubts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LF1975 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that people won't just randomly die. It's not like random black holes will start appearing and somehow kill 120 people, and not anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.211.32 ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
i remember that one of popsci issues had article about the LHC, and it gave the odds of what will happen. i remember that theres a chance for the world to end. wanna know when exactly, cuz i forgot what issue it was ( i m a subscriber and i got it somewhere in my room ). i think it said april 13. if you can, email me at royachiron [at] the mail service of google (starts with a g, ends with l,) dot com.
it's very important. to me at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.158.93 ( talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
edit: please, answer, it is very important. i dont wanna die sober! just exact date of that experiment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.158.93 ( talk) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add info to the article about where on Earth the matter that will be accelerated is taken from? What are the material sources of the protons and lead ions?
The following statement could use some more explanation: "Loss of only 10−7 of the beam is sufficient to quench a superconducting magnet". Does this mean that the magnets are powered by the beam? What would happen if a magnet became "quenched"?
Thanks, Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Being an archaeologist, I have an interest in the geographical origins of raw materials. If anyone knows, it would be interesting to learn where the water for the hydrogen is taken, and where the lead for the ions is mined. The material is after all being put through some pretty extreme treatment. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I'm not suggesting that there's anything unusual about the particles they'll shoot into the LHC. But I find their geographical origin interesting in the same way that it would be cool to live right next to the quarries where material was taken for the Notre Dame, Stonehenge or White House. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
True. The same probably goes for the lead. You'd probably just end up with the name of some chemical supplies firm, which may in turn buy metals from wherever it happens to be cheapest at the time. Too bad: every big-name physicist should have hydrogen and lead extracted from a tissue sample and shot into the LHC. I gotta blog this! Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "...three fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force." Where's gravity? It's one of the fundamental forces, too. Zrs 12 ( talk) 01:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'toilet particle' (Weinberg, nobel prize) is a joke. It was reinvented by lederman as 'god's particle' to sell the super-collider to dumb reagan who bite the hook but clinton who is kinda more clever saw the hoax. It is in fact a top-antitop quark but the quark was discovered and nobody would waste money on that. The top-antitop form a deconfined state field equal to the higgs. Just check the mass, etc. So not only the lhc risk us but is the biggest swindled performed by scientists since the piltdown man... Nambu is the author of the top deconfined theory, goldstone expanded it, smolin and zee proved the higgs is the same maths that the brans theory. How those people dare to swindle10 billion $ and put at risk mankind. What they think they are? to jail with them (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.127 ( talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In the picture of a simulated event, where is the Higgs-Boson? Is it the two lines up stemming from an h -> jet jet process or is it the two lines right-down stemming from h -> lepton antilepton or am I completely off-track? That information should probably be added to the picture information for the picture being pretty non-saying otherwise (other than "there is a lot of stuff arriving at the detector" which would be an alternative title for the picture). Bonus question: What's the production channel for the Higgs in this event and how is the activity along the beam-line to be interpreted (e.g. underlying event or tag-jets of vbf)? -- 78.49.41.193 ( talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That all black holes are in fact artificial. Developed by other civiliziations that at one stage or another developed a LHC and subsequently destroyed themselves.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.174 ( talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.212 ( talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What has come of the suit filled by those "concerned", given that the court has no juristiction over CERN's activities being that they are international... which this article implies it does. Stabby Joe ( talk) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
<a href=" http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=50">First hearing</a> in US Federal Court in Hawaii, Monday June 16th. Legal papers served to CERN, requiring appearance before <a href=" http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=9"></a>.
In a hearing June 16, 2008 before US Federal Judge Helen Gillmor,
trial was scheduled to begin June 16, 2009. US Federal attorneys representing the defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss by June 24, 2008. The plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint to seek a jury trial, and to include a challenge to research that may involve the
creation of microscopic black holes from ultra-cold atoms of rubidium.
Added line:
Have they set a date for running the first test yet? I couldn't find any information in the article.. (Don't worry, I'm just curious, not worried) FredTheDeadHead ( talk) 12:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/popup?name=CERNBulletin&type=breaking_news&record=1106550&ln=en activation should be around 17 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.225.237 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to change
"Thus, the above mentioned opponents to LHC consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay and, if unable to rapidly evaporate, they could start interacting, grow larger and potentially be disastrous to Earth itself. [6]"
to
"Thus, the above mentioned opponents to LHC consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay."
As i couldnt find anywhere in the reference a mention of any concern to earth, mainly because a blackhole would simply fall to the center of the earth and depending on size either sit there (most likely) or at worst slowly consum the earth one atom at a time with no notable effect until the blackhole started sonsuming the crust, but i cant be arsed to do the maths to see if that would be, a a few billion years, after the sun would go supernova, after heat death of the universe.I feal a note should be made to explain the lack of danger around blackholes, but ill remove the existing bias 1st and discuss improvements before editing it further.-- 82.35.192.193 ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Some smart-alecs seem to find it funny to constantly rename the LHC to 'hardon' collider.
I've changed it about 3 times now...mods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzt495 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Amazing though, that this wasn't considered when the name was assigned. Those particle physicists really should get out more often. Far Canal ( talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This [black holes are not stable] is not what physicists believe in general. Those few who pointed out issues with Hawking's radiation were simply trying to get a more rigorous proof of it. But no-one ever claimed that his proof of the decay is wrong, and that therefore they should be stable.
So the statement that "Hawking's radiation is still debated" needs to be changed or contextualized. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 03:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The safety argument was modified to add misleading statements suggesting that no physicists reject Hawking radiation.
I changed the following statement from
to
-- Jtankers ( talk) 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've re-semi protected the article due to the prolific IP vandalism again. I've gone for 2 months this time, though I have a feeling the closer it gets to physics be carried out the more vandalism we'll see. Khu kri 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone create a 'Purpose' section or some other section so that it's clear what this piece of machinery does and why it is unique from other particle accelerators. Thanks. WinterSpw ( talk) 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently heard that the LHC will activate on june 6th, 2008. Great five days before my 15th birthday. If the world will be destroyed before june 11 i'm going to be really peeved hahaha. 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what a magnetic monopole is can someone put it in easy to understand terms please? if the LHC creates them what happens to the earth? 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
About the micro black hole section in the LHC article, what does it mean by "earths accretion less than 50 months? Sorry if im asking too many questions i just need to understand the dangerous "slightly possible" outcomes of this thing. 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh that's just the amount of time that Otto Roessler estimated it would take for a stable MBH to accrette the planet into a total compressed size of about 30 Cm. nothing to worry about, unless you think it's plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.64.26 ( talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no know mechanism which allows this catastrophic scenario, therefore it is not possible to determine how likely it is that this will occur. It is, however, possible to calculate "upper limits" of probability based on observations of past occurrences. -- XUniverse ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of sites and papers discussing the LHC claim that 1TeV equals the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito.
Few others claim this is the case for 7TeV, which is the energy of a single accelerated proton at LHC.
Even several Wikipedia pages make a similar claim. (ref. 1 & 2)
I couldn't find any page which shows calculations to prove this.
According to my own calculations however, the claim is way off.
Only the planned collision energy of Pb cores (1048 TeV) will come close to the kinetic energy of a small mosquito.
I am not a scientist, so I'd like someone to check my calculations before I start editing
pages. After all, there are 4500+ pages claiming something different...
(ref. 3)
The formula for kinetic energy is , Where energy(E) is measured in Joule, mass(m) in
kg and velocity(v) in m/s. (ref. 5)
A mosquito's mass is up to 2.5 mg and it's speed is 1-2 km/h (ref. 4).
Let's use 1.8km/h for the speed, which is exactly 0.5 m/s to ease calculations.
Mosquito mass in kg:
Kinetic energy of the mosquito =
Difference in energy at 1 TeV: versus
Difference in energy at 7 TeV: versus
Difference in energy at 1048 TeV: versus
Conclusion:
Only the collision energy of the lead cores approaches the kinetic energy of a lazy mosquito.
References:
1)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_January_2008
3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeV
4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
p.s.
If the calculation is wrong, I'd really like to know what I've missed.
an-nau (
talk)
16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Mosquito mass in kg is 10-6 not 10-3 (milligrams not grams). So 1 TeV is the appropriate energy for its flying not too fast.
Ilya O. Orlov (
talk)
09:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I've looked at it a million times, so I don't understand why I keep overlooking such an obvious mistake...
an-nau (
talk)
11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This passage
The risk of a doomsday scenario was indicated by Sir Martin Rees, with respect to the RHIC, as being at least a 1 in 50,000,000 chance, and by Professor Frank Close, with regards to (dangerous) strangelets, that "the chance of this happening is like you winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession; the problem is that people believe it is possible to win the lottery 3 weeks in succession." Accurate assessments of these risks are impossible due to the present incomplete, or even hypothetically flawed, standard model of particle physics (see also a list of unsolved problems in physics).
is self contradictory and absurd (I would like to check the math used by these two gentlemen in calculating their results), and in my oppinion should be romoved from the article. -- LF1975 ( talk) 09:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Risk Calculations and Assumptions reasonable quality, short discussion of risks and calculations at Martin Meenagh blog and some related calculations at James Blodgett on Risks Including this assessment:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You state that you have some questions about or dispute points A, B and C. The following citations and relevant quotes support the assertions above, plus a brief summary of Dr. Otto E. Rossler's theory of fast accretion that was posted to LHCFacts.org
-- Jtankers ( talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
RHIC risk estimates are quoted in the article as 1 in 50,000,000 based on the RHIC Safety Report assumption that the risk of micro black hole creation was 0%, which is not applicable to LHC assumptions and estimates. It is misleading to imply that LHC risk estimates might be similar. This reference should be clarified or removed.
Micro black hole creation by LHC is predicted as possible at the rate of one per second, and stable micro black hole creation is assumed for purposes of the new LHC Safety Assessment Group study. A new safety report has not been released, therefore the most strongly supported risk estimate at this time is the risk estimate contained in the lawsuit, computed by a statistician and submitted to US Federal Court estimating that the probability of catastrophic consequences to Earth as 75% with a very high degree of uncertainty. This percentage needs to be included in the article, or a clear clarification needs to be made that a 1 in 50,000,000 risk is not currently supportable with respect to operation of the LHC due to changed assumptions, higher energies and a lack of completed supporting safety studies related to the same. With clarification as to what risk probabilities are supportable with respect to LHC operation (removal of 1 in 50,000,000 references or addition of the lawsuit estimate of 75% with a very high degree of uncertainty), the safety content would otherwise be reasonably balanced in my opinion. -- Jtankers ( talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is paying for the project? -- Beland ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
JTankers & All:
I am getting a little concerned that the safety issue is hopelessly off the subject of improvements to the article. It may well deserve an article of its own, but I am very uncomfortable with the topic taking over this one. Yet we keep going around in circles about it.
A paragraph giving a brief outline of the main points should be all that we need here; if you like with a link to a separate article about the controversy, where the technical and other issues can be discussed in detail.
I cannot claim to be neutral on the subject myself, but after looking at the references on JT's last post above, I think we have a POV problem. Personally I don't imagine anyone cannot have some feelings about the safety of the Earth, but this cannot be a soapbox, even for a cause as cosmic as this. Moving the discussion off to another article will not solve the problem, we will still have to fight it out (decently, I trust) there, but at least we can wall off the debate from this article, where it does not belong.
Writing a balanced, well sourced article on the subject will not be easy, and I cannot undertake it myself. Though I would hope to learn something watching it develop, and participate as much as I am able.
Cheers,
Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspect people might be putting undue weight on the court proceedings. To describe it as the most important topic regarding LHC at the moment is POV. AFAICT, the court does not even have jurisdiction, so any ruling will be symbolic, but unenforceable. The most important current topic is surely the cooling of the tunnel, right? The safety concerns are fringe stuff, similar in scale to claiming that nuclear weapons might be able to ignite the Earth's atmosphere (while scientists considered the possibility, they were able to rule it out). The thousands of high-energy particle physicists working on the project are the experts here, not some crank who makes good reading in the Sunday paper. -- Mark Chovain 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the compromise suggested by Mr Wheaton is a good one. You want the section expanded, while others want it removed. Mr Wheaton has suggested a compromise where the safety concerns have an opportunity to be expanded without getting too much in the way of an article on a scientific topic. Will you not even consider discussing any option that is not your preferred outcome? We need to reach a consensus here, and it's not going to happen if everyone sticks to their guns. -- Mark Chovain 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The safety article has been relatively stable for months, it is relevant, reasonable, balanced and the section is near the bottom of the article. The only section with a lower profile is construction accidents paragraph. I propose that the safety section be locked during the legal proceedings, as currently written due to the clear conflicts of interest involved with those who wish to alter the content, size, scope and/or tone of the safety section, then address the safety content after conclusion of the legal proceedings. -- Jtankers ( talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's just agree not to touch it until we get more clarity. I won't, without giving due notice here. Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If "the safety issue is a primary issue related to the Large Hadron Collider, and not just a marginally important side issue", then it surely merits its own article. Far Canal ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In this video- http://youtube.com/watch?v=9GIlM2mWBUc - the LOST producers talk about the LHc and that it's centred to the plot, timetravel wise. I couldn't find anything about it on the main page. Were they just misinformed when they talked about LHC and wormholes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.108.5 ( talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"However" is a word that should be avoided per wikipedia:words to avoid - The structure "AntiLHC-ProLHC-AntiLHC" is POV when both AntiLHC are redundant/similar - Using the title "Dr" is discouraged on wikipedia. This my rationale for modifying the safety issues section. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we return to the text at 00:00 UTC 5 June 2008, as it was before I proposed to suspend editing pending further discussion in section "Scope of article: a proposal" above? I know James had a problem with the 1:50,000,000 Rees probability claim for RHIC being in this article, and I think his 50% fear is unwarranted and unacceptable in the article, though I have some empathy for his anxiety, which I have no doubt is genuine. But I think we should step back from edit warring and cool off while we still can (I hope). Since the argument is before the court already, repeating it (or not) here should not affect the outcome. I continue to think that an article devoted to the LHC safety issue would be a better place to treat this subject, where both sides could be fully developed without making the main LHC article unbalanced. Wwheaton ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Suspending editing of parts of the encyclopaedia is counter-productive. We prevent edit warring by discussing changes, and not reverting blindly. -- Mark Chovain 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this revision being reverted? WP:WTA says to avoid the X; Y; However, X' construction.
This revision is better structured, and includes the same information. Why on Earth is it being reverted? -- Mark Chovain 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect to the following text from the Saftey Concerns section:
“ | However risks with respect to LHC are based on new risk assumptions that opponents allege have not been adequately addressed.
"Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy et al HI GILLMOR". |
” |
The only bit from that ref I can see that relates to the Rees and Close estimates is:
“ | I would say that the risk is somewhat higher than these authors consider, since they did not take into consideration some of the safety factors that subsequently evaporated. | ” |
I have a number of concerns here:
-- Mark Chovain 07:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Good points related to expanding the safety arguments that have evaporated. In detail, these are the issues referred to in the statement: Safety/Risk Assumptions have changed significantly since RHIC risk probabilities were calculated:
I would not be opposed to updating and expanding on the allegations and references, except for the two week non-edit agreement while legal proceedings commence in US Federal Court (June 16), which seems reasonable in my opinion. Both sides are stating opposing safety and legal positions, and counter concerns also exist with respect to safety statements making implications of unconfirmed, unsupported and refuted assertions:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Mark Chovain 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going to pretend we're having a coherent two way exchange of information for a moment. As you quite rightly point out, the first concern is easily addressed by just removing "However". I'll drop the ref soon if no-one is able to explain, in terms of WP:RS, how an affidavit constitutes a reliable source. -- Mark Chovain 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Jtankers ( talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to learn about the mediation process, see WP:DR. I strongly advise you learn some more about wikipedia policies before taking that route though. -- Mark Chovain 23:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The change related to the position of James Blodgett, coordinator of Global Risk Reduction special interest group of American Mensa, needs clarification that he does not consider RHIC risks valid predictors of LHC risks.
Firstly to clarify, this is the section where the discussion took place: My initial post stated, "The reference makes no claims about what "opponents allege". He does not talk about new risk assumptions. He claims that safety factors have evaporated, without elaborating." None of my three concerns, of which this was one, was addressed in the ensuing posts, every one of which went off on a tangent. I tried a number of times to pull the discussion back to the original post, but was unsuccessful every time. On a personal note, discussions are much more constructive if posts are concise, and address the concerns raised my the section creator. If another editor wants to raise extra new concerns, they should be raised in a separate section, so that separate concerns may be addressed and discussed separately.
The reasons I went with the lifeboat role, rather than the Mensa role, is that we don't need the inline external link, which are strongly discouraged. Another reason is similar to my objection to the use of titles or positions on Rees and Close. His claims are made in a personal capacity, not as part of his position within a Mensa: their his views, not those of Mensa. Identifying him as a Mensa member, smacks of "appeal to authority". As his views are not being expressed in neither an academic nor committee context, I'd be tempted to simply refer to him as a "critic of LHC". -- Mark Chovain 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James Blodgett's primary role is as the coordinator of the Global Risk Reduction special interest group of American Mensa. It seems to me that the potential for "appeal to authority" is far stronger on the CERN side, where public relations web sites and draft of a safety report not even intended for publication carry such authority that these are even used as credible references for Wikipedia articles. -- Jtankers ( talk) 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't turn a blind eye to policies and guidelines on a quid pro quo basis. If you have a concern with a reference, then voice that concern (explictly and concisely) in a new section, and we can discuss that separately. As an aside DO NOT edit your comments after someone else has responded. You have had this explained to you before. -- Mark Chovain 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I used the common literary editing technique of [Edit: modification] to make clear a correction was made, however I will try to avoid. The two references that I feel are dubious as credible are CERN Ask an Expert service, LHC and black holes? which is a public relations web site and LHC: what if ... ? which is a draft outline of a possible safety report that was not intended for publication. These references seem dubious to me, do these references really meet Wikipedia policy? -- Jtankers ( talk) 04:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was addressing your concerns, but I will try to more directly address your questions point by point below, and good point, line through is a better technique for edits.
-- Jtankers ( talk) 05:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, 1. We're agreed, and there's no dispute there. 2. "James Blodgett's statement of expert opinion is sworn, published and reviewed". Can you point me to the review procedure for sworn affidavits? WP:RS requires some kind of review or editorial process. I'm happy with the ref if you can demonstrate that it has been through such a process. 3.1 The ref makes no statements about the opinions of others. He states his own opinions, with some references to explain why they are his opinions. He does not claim that his opinions are shared by the authors that he cites, and you'll find that most of the papers he cites come to very different conclusions to him. If you're happy with the text stating their his opinions, rather than the opinions of some non-specific group of people, then I think we're good here. 3.2 He says that assumptions were made in those estimates that no longer hold true. I'm happy with the new version of the text, but older versions claimed that the risk estimates are "based on new risk assumptions", which is not the same thing; in fact the old text didn't even make sense to me. I suspect we have no qualms here, if you're happy with the current wording. 4. I would like to add a new concern with the current text though: The use of the word, "far". I don't believe the affidavit expresses any opinion on the extent to which the risk is understated. I'd like to see that word go. -- Mark Chovain 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James Blodgett argues in his affidavit "and that the risk is considerably higher than was thought until recently." I believe James Blodgett calculates the risk lower than co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner who calculates the risks closer to 50% with a high degree of uncertainty. Would the term "considerably" that James Blodgett uses be more reasonable? -- Jtankers ( talk) 06:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
New risks estimates consider theories that predict possible micro black holes creation at LHC energy levels, 1999 RHIC safety report does not. RHIC only ruled out any possibility of micro black hole creation at conceivable energy levels, but did not address risks associated with micro black holes once created (capture by Earth's gravity or not, decay or not and growth rates slow or not) now that this prediction has changed 180 degrees from not conceivably possible to conceivably possible. If micro black hole creation is addressed in the paragraph, it should be after the RHIC risk estimate, otherwise the reader may be inclinded to assume that RHIC may have already addressed the safety of actually creating micro black holes. Proposed fix is to move concerns related to safety of creating micro black holes to after RHIC risk assessment which did not address the question: Are micro black holes safe to create? -- Jtankers ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should drop the academic titles on people's names. From WP:MOSBIO#Academic titles:
“ | Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used [in any] uses of the person's name. | ” |
Including such titles tends to attach a certain POV, and has a slight " appeal to authority" smell to it. Readers can make up their own minds as to the authority of the reference without us pushing qualifications down their throats.
The use of honorific titles ("Sir") is considered more controversial. For Martin Rees, I suggest we follow the convention of his article, and drop the honorific. -- Mark Chovain 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm good with that, then. I have made the changes I suggested in the previous section, too, and found it really hard to write without using a similar construction for Blodgett. I'll make the change. -- Mark Chovain 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that persons with sufficient notability to have Wikipedia articles linked to their names are in a different category than others. Martin Rees is Astronomer Royal, after all, but we do not have to call him that--anyone can click on his name to see it. Similarly for Frank Close. I think persons with sufficient notability to have their own article need less in the way of titles etc. Thus we can bend over backwards against undue deference to perceived authority without ignoring it altogether. Wwheaton ( talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I continue to oppose extensive discussion of these issues in the article, or on this talk page, as off-topic, and renew my call for a separate article on the matter. Wwheaton ( talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been ::::published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
What would happen if a black hole created at the LHC turns out to be stable?
Most of the times it would simply pass through the Earth and disappear in the cosmos. This is because black holes from the LHC collisions typically travel very fast, and because early on they interact very weakly with matter. They behave like neutrinos, which can travel through several billion kilometres of iron before they hit something. A few will be slower, and will be trapped by the Earth's gravitational field. In this case, they will start accreting matter, but at a very slow rate.
I thought that bosons are massless particles by definition. In the research section, it is mentioned that they want to find the number of Higgs Bosons, and their masses. How can the masses be described if they are massless? I also thought that the Higgs Boson is thought to be responsible (by association with the Higgs Field) for other particles acquiring mass. Does this section need removing? Or am I wrong? - 86.137.119.75 ( talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)James, Student
Thank you for clearing that up for me! 86.137.119.75 ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)James, Student
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but if you calculate the speed that a proton is supposedly traveling in the collider using the circumference given (27 km) and the time it supposedly takes to travel around the collider (less than 90 seconds) you get that it must be traveling at least 300,000,000 m/s, which is just over the speed of light. Anyways, I imagine this is somewhat less than correct, though perhaps the 27 km figure just does not have enough sig figs, since the protons are supposed to traveling just under the speed of light. DavidR163 ( talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)DavidR163 DavidR163 ( talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I really think if they continue push the activation date back, the Scientists working on the Collider, gain the common sense that the destruction of earth is on their heads and even the slightest possibility of a black hole or strangelet threatens the survival of the human race and every organism on it, decide "not" to turn it on and 6 billion dollars wasted that could have put towards creating a cure for cancer or HIV, AIDS, world hunger, global warming, space exploration, time travel and many other things that are helpful in other fields of science.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In dicussions of risk it is important to separate risk from danger, this doesn't seem to be being done here. E.g. walking a wire inches above some mud is high risk and low danger. Walking a wide plank across an abyss is low risk and high danger.-- 86.142.37.107 ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Are CERN’s calculations of no risk from MBH (Micro Black Holes) supportable and accurate? Has CERN published any scientifically supportable risk analysis other than the article titled: Microscopic black holes will not eat you… published at
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html?
I think that a protest and action section is needed and justified, if it's only a few people how do you explain the myspace group STOP CERN having over 1,200 friends, and the myriad of websites discussing this issue, I think the safety concerns section is not enough, people need to know there are people doing what they can to stop this.
A copy of submitted complaint and affidavits, in Word for Windows format, was emailed to me personally by Walter L. Wagner, co-petitioner on 2008/03/22. I uploaded a copy to: http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29 . LUIS SANCHO, et al., Plaintiffs
The main article will need links to official copies of the complaint when available (citation assistance needed). Allegations alleged in the complaint and affidavits include the following main facts in quotes, many of which may be out of context and/or text replaced with an ellipsis […] for brevity sake:
"injunction [...] from operating the LHC until [...] proven to be reasonably safe" "No absolute refutation of the adverse scenarios that have been described has yet been articulated” “suggested by defendants that the ‘risk’ of the adverse scenarios is small.” “fundamental flaws were existent in those “safety reviews” and pointed out to defendants by plaintiffs.” “current safety review is known as the LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] Safety Review.” “initially scheduled for completion by January 1, 2008 […] not yet been released […] as promised” “CERN's Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was recently quoted in The New Yorker as instructing CERN scientists not to say that the risk from colliders is low, but to say that the risk is zero” “the real risk of these proposed experiments can be as high as 75%” ” Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of ‘minimal risk’. ” “2 out of 3 absurd articles received by this magazine [for publication] try to prove Einstein wrong, […] they actually only prove their ignorance of Classic Relativity.” “LHC […] producing miniature black holes at the rate of 1 per second” “Director of CERN said that “the LHC will be the closest we will ever be to God”” “experiments that would take place at the LHC could be carried out by advanced Telescopes” “potentially deadly particles might be produced […] Dr. Frank Wilczek […] Nobel Prize in physics“ “letter to Dr. Wagner jointly signed by CERN’s Director General [Dr. Aymar] and Chief Scientific Officer [Dr. Engelen], CERN “mandated a group of experts, not themselves members of the LHC experimental collaborations, to assess safety aspects of LHC operation. This group is mandated to provide by the end of this year [2007] a written report, which will be made available to the scientific community and to the general public through the CERN web pages." It is to be noted that it is this LSAG Report which is currently overdue.“ ” believe that CERN is planning to commence operation of the LHC in April or May, 2008 “ ““go for launch” decision of spaceship Challenger involved placing the lives of only 7 people at risk, whereas the “go for launch” decision for the LHC located on spaceship Earth involves placing the lives of some 7 Billion people at risk, as well as all of our future descendants not yet born.” “reliance on a “cosmic ray argument” that CERN LHC collisions should be safe. […]They reasoned that if any disastrous particle could be created, it would already have been created eons ago by nature […] overlooked during their previous safety assessment […] novel particle such as a micro black hole […] simply pass harmlessly through our planet […] Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC […] would then be captured by earth’s gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] […] we have ZERO information on what such cross-section for capture actually is.” “Alternative scientific methods that pose no risk exist for obtaining some of the information being sought by the LHC” “upwards of 90% of our galaxy. All available information, however, shows that Dark Matter indeed feeds upon “ordinary” matter […] Creation of such Dark Matter on Earth would then be seen to be foolhardy, at best.” “Hawking Radiation is not only un-proven, it is directly contrary to established theory of Einstein’s Relativity by which black holes never evaporate, and are forever black”
Removed it back here until we can get 3rd party source, but who ever is in the know on this side of the argument, please don't hang around as it is certainly notable in this whole debate and should be included once verified.
Khu
kri
08:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Confirmation of legal action: http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-hawaii/court-hidce/ and http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hidce/case_no-1:2008cv00136/case_id-78717/ -- Jtankers ( talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
CERN is short for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, it's in french, the abbreviation is kept with it's actual leters, but to the rest of the english speaking world is goes by the former title more frequently, either or both are proper.
Oh by the way another article from MSNBC posted this here [2], this should be a pretty decent 3rd party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebenonce ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe it would be worth mentionning that the court does not have jurisdiction over CERN... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.9.16 ( talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's innacurate, and would be why it doesn't say that in the article, many of the parts (Magnets, ATLAS, Etc) are provided by Fermilab, which is US based, the lawsuit took that into consideration with their filing, the US also funds approximately 10 percent and has the largest delegation of scientists assigned, it's almost continent that it was filed in Hawaii.
This gives ample jurisdiction to an injunction.
Anyone know what the status is with this action, I take it's been thrown out haven't heard a thing for over a month now? Khu kri 12:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Trial in US Federal Court is scheduled to begin June 16, 2009. [3] (details in section: "Court Case?" below) -- Jtankers ( talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to the confusion, I have (1) added a citation template to the sentence in the "Safety concerns" section, about LHC collision products being produced at low-speed and so being likely to be captured, whereas CR products would escape harmlessly; and then (2) added a sentence, "Yet again, countering this fear, is the argument that if such micro-black holes or stranglets were in fact dangerous, and were created by cosmic-ray interactions with the Earth, then they should also have been created in huge numbers in the Sun, stars, planets, and ISM, so that the Universe would be filled with them (many cosmologically red-shifted), and traveling at all speeds — in which case stars and planets (including the Earth) ought to be constantly capturing them and thus being devoured, with spectacular results — which are not observed", which also needs a reference, of course. Neither of these arguments should endure without a reliable external source, which I hope (in view of the attention this is receiving lately) someone more expert may be able to provide.
Further questions for experts are, (1) is it correct that collisions at 7 TeV would all be essentially simple, pure quark-quark affairs, due to the extreme Lorentz contraction of the interacting hadrons, (2) should not such collisions produce black holes with a mass (and size) much much less than the Planck mass & correspondingly small gravitational capture cross-section, and (3), at electron Gamma-factors of 100,000 at 50 GeV in the lab (at SLAC), far exceeding those at LHC of ~7,000 (but in the CM at LHC), would not lepton-quark interactions already explored constrain these questions? Are references available about these issues that someone not expert in relativistic quantum field theory could understand? Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems again to have re-erased some additions made to the safety concerns section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.64.26 ( talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My friend Oldnoah has misunderstood my statement above. I do not claim that cosmic rays originate outside our galaxy (though the ultra-high energy variety clearly do, as they cannot be confined by galactic magnetic fields). My claim is that if UHE CRs (which clearly do exist) do make long-lived microscopic BHs when they hit the Earth, then they will be hitting everything everywhere in our galaxy, the Sun, planets, etc, and have been been doing so since time immemorial. Thus, on the argument (also unsourced) I was seeking to balance, the Galaxy should be full of such micro BHs flying around. Assuming this process has gone on for a long time, they would have accumulated, and some would be moving slowly enough to have been captured by the Earth, the Sun, or other stars. The results should be quite obvious if this happens often, as there are lots of stars around. I do not really object in principle to my statement being removed, as it certainly needs sourcing, but if so I would like to see the argument before it likewise sourced or removed. I put the "fact" tag on both, by the way. I really hope the folks in the community who have studied the LHC safety issue can comment and provide such source material, if we give them a chance (a week?) before deleting. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Bill:
Sorry, I did not know that was your post. However, it is still not correct, and I will delete it again for that reason primarily [as I always leave unsourced material alone if I recognize it to be correct]. If high-E cosmic rays produce micro black holes, they are travelling at 0.999999+ c relative to our galaxy, and create micro black holes that are also travelling at 0.999+c relative to our galaxy [I'll let you put in the correct number of 9s for each]. At that speed, they are believed to be essentially invisible to all matter [very neutrino like], and hence would never slow down. Only if they are created at slow speed and captured by a star or planetary body would they begin the slow process of accretion, which might take centuries to millenia to complete, as the accretion rate likely increases with increasing mass. Of course, all of this presupposes that Hawking Radiation is not real. In any event, the argument that there should be slow micro black holes created in nature does not appear to be valid. Even those moving well below c [if such could exist from doppler shifted from receding galaxies, etc.] would likely, if they struck earth [after having been pulled in by Earth's gravity] simply pass right on through.
I had taken your "doppler shift" comment to mean micro black holes created in the vicinity of the CMB emission source, which recession doppler-shifts photons from 2,700 K blackbody spectrum to about 2.7 K blackbody spectrum.
Regards, Oldnoah ( talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah
The counter argument that cosmic ray impacts with Earth are not captured is missing, proposed similar to June 13 text:
In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
Wow, micro blackholes end of earth...sounds like a scary machine. Just out of a james bond movie...... Landlord77 ( talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know why they're all so concerned about the extermination of all intelligent life. If a black hole did happen to hoover-up this whole sorry mess than maybe some intelligent life might have a chance to evolve. It would be a shame for the poor little koala bears though... Far Canal ( talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's suppose that the risk is indeed 1 in 50.000.000. This risk, as far as I know is comparable with the risk of dying in a plane crash. And this happens. Since this risk is "shared in full" by each person in the world, is it fair that some scientists impose practically this risk on a person, however small the risk might be, without the person's consent? Let's say that the experiment would have carried such a risk that 1 in 50.000.000 people will die. If the world population is 6 billion, than that means around 120 people. From which, 60 will be women, 60 men, including all ages accordingly from 0 to 100 years. That means also new borns. Will this be acceptable? If not, why would be the risk of killing all humanity be acceptable?
And about "winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession". Well, give me 50 million weeks, and the money to play, and I'll show you. In LHC terms, two colliding particles represent one week.
Why are fools and fanatics always so certain of themselves, whereas wiser people are full of doubts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LF1975 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that people won't just randomly die. It's not like random black holes will start appearing and somehow kill 120 people, and not anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.211.32 ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
i remember that one of popsci issues had article about the LHC, and it gave the odds of what will happen. i remember that theres a chance for the world to end. wanna know when exactly, cuz i forgot what issue it was ( i m a subscriber and i got it somewhere in my room ). i think it said april 13. if you can, email me at royachiron [at] the mail service of google (starts with a g, ends with l,) dot com.
it's very important. to me at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.158.93 ( talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
edit: please, answer, it is very important. i dont wanna die sober! just exact date of that experiment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.158.93 ( talk) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add info to the article about where on Earth the matter that will be accelerated is taken from? What are the material sources of the protons and lead ions?
The following statement could use some more explanation: "Loss of only 10−7 of the beam is sufficient to quench a superconducting magnet". Does this mean that the magnets are powered by the beam? What would happen if a magnet became "quenched"?
Thanks, Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Being an archaeologist, I have an interest in the geographical origins of raw materials. If anyone knows, it would be interesting to learn where the water for the hydrogen is taken, and where the lead for the ions is mined. The material is after all being put through some pretty extreme treatment. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I'm not suggesting that there's anything unusual about the particles they'll shoot into the LHC. But I find their geographical origin interesting in the same way that it would be cool to live right next to the quarries where material was taken for the Notre Dame, Stonehenge or White House. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
True. The same probably goes for the lead. You'd probably just end up with the name of some chemical supplies firm, which may in turn buy metals from wherever it happens to be cheapest at the time. Too bad: every big-name physicist should have hydrogen and lead extracted from a tissue sample and shot into the LHC. I gotta blog this! Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "...three fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force." Where's gravity? It's one of the fundamental forces, too. Zrs 12 ( talk) 01:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'toilet particle' (Weinberg, nobel prize) is a joke. It was reinvented by lederman as 'god's particle' to sell the super-collider to dumb reagan who bite the hook but clinton who is kinda more clever saw the hoax. It is in fact a top-antitop quark but the quark was discovered and nobody would waste money on that. The top-antitop form a deconfined state field equal to the higgs. Just check the mass, etc. So not only the lhc risk us but is the biggest swindled performed by scientists since the piltdown man... Nambu is the author of the top deconfined theory, goldstone expanded it, smolin and zee proved the higgs is the same maths that the brans theory. How those people dare to swindle10 billion $ and put at risk mankind. What they think they are? to jail with them (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.127 ( talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In the picture of a simulated event, where is the Higgs-Boson? Is it the two lines up stemming from an h -> jet jet process or is it the two lines right-down stemming from h -> lepton antilepton or am I completely off-track? That information should probably be added to the picture information for the picture being pretty non-saying otherwise (other than "there is a lot of stuff arriving at the detector" which would be an alternative title for the picture). Bonus question: What's the production channel for the Higgs in this event and how is the activity along the beam-line to be interpreted (e.g. underlying event or tag-jets of vbf)? -- 78.49.41.193 ( talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That all black holes are in fact artificial. Developed by other civiliziations that at one stage or another developed a LHC and subsequently destroyed themselves.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.174 ( talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.212 ( talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What has come of the suit filled by those "concerned", given that the court has no juristiction over CERN's activities being that they are international... which this article implies it does. Stabby Joe ( talk) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
<a href=" http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=50">First hearing</a> in US Federal Court in Hawaii, Monday June 16th. Legal papers served to CERN, requiring appearance before <a href=" http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=9"></a>.
In a hearing June 16, 2008 before US Federal Judge Helen Gillmor,
trial was scheduled to begin June 16, 2009. US Federal attorneys representing the defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss by June 24, 2008. The plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint to seek a jury trial, and to include a challenge to research that may involve the
creation of microscopic black holes from ultra-cold atoms of rubidium.
Added line:
Have they set a date for running the first test yet? I couldn't find any information in the article.. (Don't worry, I'm just curious, not worried) FredTheDeadHead ( talk) 12:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/popup?name=CERNBulletin&type=breaking_news&record=1106550&ln=en activation should be around 17 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.225.237 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to change
"Thus, the above mentioned opponents to LHC consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay and, if unable to rapidly evaporate, they could start interacting, grow larger and potentially be disastrous to Earth itself. [6]"
to
"Thus, the above mentioned opponents to LHC consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay."
As i couldnt find anywhere in the reference a mention of any concern to earth, mainly because a blackhole would simply fall to the center of the earth and depending on size either sit there (most likely) or at worst slowly consum the earth one atom at a time with no notable effect until the blackhole started sonsuming the crust, but i cant be arsed to do the maths to see if that would be, a a few billion years, after the sun would go supernova, after heat death of the universe.I feal a note should be made to explain the lack of danger around blackholes, but ill remove the existing bias 1st and discuss improvements before editing it further.-- 82.35.192.193 ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Some smart-alecs seem to find it funny to constantly rename the LHC to 'hardon' collider.
I've changed it about 3 times now...mods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzt495 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Amazing though, that this wasn't considered when the name was assigned. Those particle physicists really should get out more often. Far Canal ( talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This [black holes are not stable] is not what physicists believe in general. Those few who pointed out issues with Hawking's radiation were simply trying to get a more rigorous proof of it. But no-one ever claimed that his proof of the decay is wrong, and that therefore they should be stable.
So the statement that "Hawking's radiation is still debated" needs to be changed or contextualized. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 03:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The safety argument was modified to add misleading statements suggesting that no physicists reject Hawking radiation.
I changed the following statement from
to
-- Jtankers ( talk) 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've re-semi protected the article due to the prolific IP vandalism again. I've gone for 2 months this time, though I have a feeling the closer it gets to physics be carried out the more vandalism we'll see. Khu kri 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone create a 'Purpose' section or some other section so that it's clear what this piece of machinery does and why it is unique from other particle accelerators. Thanks. WinterSpw ( talk) 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently heard that the LHC will activate on june 6th, 2008. Great five days before my 15th birthday. If the world will be destroyed before june 11 i'm going to be really peeved hahaha. 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what a magnetic monopole is can someone put it in easy to understand terms please? if the LHC creates them what happens to the earth? 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
About the micro black hole section in the LHC article, what does it mean by "earths accretion less than 50 months? Sorry if im asking too many questions i just need to understand the dangerous "slightly possible" outcomes of this thing. 72.192.48.119 ( talk) 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh that's just the amount of time that Otto Roessler estimated it would take for a stable MBH to accrette the planet into a total compressed size of about 30 Cm. nothing to worry about, unless you think it's plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.64.26 ( talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no know mechanism which allows this catastrophic scenario, therefore it is not possible to determine how likely it is that this will occur. It is, however, possible to calculate "upper limits" of probability based on observations of past occurrences. -- XUniverse ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of sites and papers discussing the LHC claim that 1TeV equals the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito.
Few others claim this is the case for 7TeV, which is the energy of a single accelerated proton at LHC.
Even several Wikipedia pages make a similar claim. (ref. 1 & 2)
I couldn't find any page which shows calculations to prove this.
According to my own calculations however, the claim is way off.
Only the planned collision energy of Pb cores (1048 TeV) will come close to the kinetic energy of a small mosquito.
I am not a scientist, so I'd like someone to check my calculations before I start editing
pages. After all, there are 4500+ pages claiming something different...
(ref. 3)
The formula for kinetic energy is , Where energy(E) is measured in Joule, mass(m) in
kg and velocity(v) in m/s. (ref. 5)
A mosquito's mass is up to 2.5 mg and it's speed is 1-2 km/h (ref. 4).
Let's use 1.8km/h for the speed, which is exactly 0.5 m/s to ease calculations.
Mosquito mass in kg:
Kinetic energy of the mosquito =
Difference in energy at 1 TeV: versus
Difference in energy at 7 TeV: versus
Difference in energy at 1048 TeV: versus
Conclusion:
Only the collision energy of the lead cores approaches the kinetic energy of a lazy mosquito.
References:
1)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_January_2008
3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeV
4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
p.s.
If the calculation is wrong, I'd really like to know what I've missed.
an-nau (
talk)
16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Mosquito mass in kg is 10-6 not 10-3 (milligrams not grams). So 1 TeV is the appropriate energy for its flying not too fast.
Ilya O. Orlov (
talk)
09:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I've looked at it a million times, so I don't understand why I keep overlooking such an obvious mistake...
an-nau (
talk)
11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This passage
The risk of a doomsday scenario was indicated by Sir Martin Rees, with respect to the RHIC, as being at least a 1 in 50,000,000 chance, and by Professor Frank Close, with regards to (dangerous) strangelets, that "the chance of this happening is like you winning the major prize on the lottery 3 weeks in succession; the problem is that people believe it is possible to win the lottery 3 weeks in succession." Accurate assessments of these risks are impossible due to the present incomplete, or even hypothetically flawed, standard model of particle physics (see also a list of unsolved problems in physics).
is self contradictory and absurd (I would like to check the math used by these two gentlemen in calculating their results), and in my oppinion should be romoved from the article. -- LF1975 ( talk) 09:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Risk Calculations and Assumptions reasonable quality, short discussion of risks and calculations at Martin Meenagh blog and some related calculations at James Blodgett on Risks Including this assessment:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You state that you have some questions about or dispute points A, B and C. The following citations and relevant quotes support the assertions above, plus a brief summary of Dr. Otto E. Rossler's theory of fast accretion that was posted to LHCFacts.org
-- Jtankers ( talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
RHIC risk estimates are quoted in the article as 1 in 50,000,000 based on the RHIC Safety Report assumption that the risk of micro black hole creation was 0%, which is not applicable to LHC assumptions and estimates. It is misleading to imply that LHC risk estimates might be similar. This reference should be clarified or removed.
Micro black hole creation by LHC is predicted as possible at the rate of one per second, and stable micro black hole creation is assumed for purposes of the new LHC Safety Assessment Group study. A new safety report has not been released, therefore the most strongly supported risk estimate at this time is the risk estimate contained in the lawsuit, computed by a statistician and submitted to US Federal Court estimating that the probability of catastrophic consequences to Earth as 75% with a very high degree of uncertainty. This percentage needs to be included in the article, or a clear clarification needs to be made that a 1 in 50,000,000 risk is not currently supportable with respect to operation of the LHC due to changed assumptions, higher energies and a lack of completed supporting safety studies related to the same. With clarification as to what risk probabilities are supportable with respect to LHC operation (removal of 1 in 50,000,000 references or addition of the lawsuit estimate of 75% with a very high degree of uncertainty), the safety content would otherwise be reasonably balanced in my opinion. -- Jtankers ( talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is paying for the project? -- Beland ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
JTankers & All:
I am getting a little concerned that the safety issue is hopelessly off the subject of improvements to the article. It may well deserve an article of its own, but I am very uncomfortable with the topic taking over this one. Yet we keep going around in circles about it.
A paragraph giving a brief outline of the main points should be all that we need here; if you like with a link to a separate article about the controversy, where the technical and other issues can be discussed in detail.
I cannot claim to be neutral on the subject myself, but after looking at the references on JT's last post above, I think we have a POV problem. Personally I don't imagine anyone cannot have some feelings about the safety of the Earth, but this cannot be a soapbox, even for a cause as cosmic as this. Moving the discussion off to another article will not solve the problem, we will still have to fight it out (decently, I trust) there, but at least we can wall off the debate from this article, where it does not belong.
Writing a balanced, well sourced article on the subject will not be easy, and I cannot undertake it myself. Though I would hope to learn something watching it develop, and participate as much as I am able.
Cheers,
Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspect people might be putting undue weight on the court proceedings. To describe it as the most important topic regarding LHC at the moment is POV. AFAICT, the court does not even have jurisdiction, so any ruling will be symbolic, but unenforceable. The most important current topic is surely the cooling of the tunnel, right? The safety concerns are fringe stuff, similar in scale to claiming that nuclear weapons might be able to ignite the Earth's atmosphere (while scientists considered the possibility, they were able to rule it out). The thousands of high-energy particle physicists working on the project are the experts here, not some crank who makes good reading in the Sunday paper. -- Mark Chovain 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the compromise suggested by Mr Wheaton is a good one. You want the section expanded, while others want it removed. Mr Wheaton has suggested a compromise where the safety concerns have an opportunity to be expanded without getting too much in the way of an article on a scientific topic. Will you not even consider discussing any option that is not your preferred outcome? We need to reach a consensus here, and it's not going to happen if everyone sticks to their guns. -- Mark Chovain 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The safety article has been relatively stable for months, it is relevant, reasonable, balanced and the section is near the bottom of the article. The only section with a lower profile is construction accidents paragraph. I propose that the safety section be locked during the legal proceedings, as currently written due to the clear conflicts of interest involved with those who wish to alter the content, size, scope and/or tone of the safety section, then address the safety content after conclusion of the legal proceedings. -- Jtankers ( talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's just agree not to touch it until we get more clarity. I won't, without giving due notice here. Bill Wwheaton ( talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If "the safety issue is a primary issue related to the Large Hadron Collider, and not just a marginally important side issue", then it surely merits its own article. Far Canal ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In this video- http://youtube.com/watch?v=9GIlM2mWBUc - the LOST producers talk about the LHc and that it's centred to the plot, timetravel wise. I couldn't find anything about it on the main page. Were they just misinformed when they talked about LHC and wormholes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.108.5 ( talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"However" is a word that should be avoided per wikipedia:words to avoid - The structure "AntiLHC-ProLHC-AntiLHC" is POV when both AntiLHC are redundant/similar - Using the title "Dr" is discouraged on wikipedia. This my rationale for modifying the safety issues section. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we return to the text at 00:00 UTC 5 June 2008, as it was before I proposed to suspend editing pending further discussion in section "Scope of article: a proposal" above? I know James had a problem with the 1:50,000,000 Rees probability claim for RHIC being in this article, and I think his 50% fear is unwarranted and unacceptable in the article, though I have some empathy for his anxiety, which I have no doubt is genuine. But I think we should step back from edit warring and cool off while we still can (I hope). Since the argument is before the court already, repeating it (or not) here should not affect the outcome. I continue to think that an article devoted to the LHC safety issue would be a better place to treat this subject, where both sides could be fully developed without making the main LHC article unbalanced. Wwheaton ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Suspending editing of parts of the encyclopaedia is counter-productive. We prevent edit warring by discussing changes, and not reverting blindly. -- Mark Chovain 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this revision being reverted? WP:WTA says to avoid the X; Y; However, X' construction.
This revision is better structured, and includes the same information. Why on Earth is it being reverted? -- Mark Chovain 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect to the following text from the Saftey Concerns section:
“ | However risks with respect to LHC are based on new risk assumptions that opponents allege have not been adequately addressed.
"Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy et al HI GILLMOR". |
” |
The only bit from that ref I can see that relates to the Rees and Close estimates is:
“ | I would say that the risk is somewhat higher than these authors consider, since they did not take into consideration some of the safety factors that subsequently evaporated. | ” |
I have a number of concerns here:
-- Mark Chovain 07:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Good points related to expanding the safety arguments that have evaporated. In detail, these are the issues referred to in the statement: Safety/Risk Assumptions have changed significantly since RHIC risk probabilities were calculated:
I would not be opposed to updating and expanding on the allegations and references, except for the two week non-edit agreement while legal proceedings commence in US Federal Court (June 16), which seems reasonable in my opinion. Both sides are stating opposing safety and legal positions, and counter concerns also exist with respect to safety statements making implications of unconfirmed, unsupported and refuted assertions:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Mark Chovain 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going to pretend we're having a coherent two way exchange of information for a moment. As you quite rightly point out, the first concern is easily addressed by just removing "However". I'll drop the ref soon if no-one is able to explain, in terms of WP:RS, how an affidavit constitutes a reliable source. -- Mark Chovain 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Jtankers ( talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to learn about the mediation process, see WP:DR. I strongly advise you learn some more about wikipedia policies before taking that route though. -- Mark Chovain 23:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The change related to the position of James Blodgett, coordinator of Global Risk Reduction special interest group of American Mensa, needs clarification that he does not consider RHIC risks valid predictors of LHC risks.
Firstly to clarify, this is the section where the discussion took place: My initial post stated, "The reference makes no claims about what "opponents allege". He does not talk about new risk assumptions. He claims that safety factors have evaporated, without elaborating." None of my three concerns, of which this was one, was addressed in the ensuing posts, every one of which went off on a tangent. I tried a number of times to pull the discussion back to the original post, but was unsuccessful every time. On a personal note, discussions are much more constructive if posts are concise, and address the concerns raised my the section creator. If another editor wants to raise extra new concerns, they should be raised in a separate section, so that separate concerns may be addressed and discussed separately.
The reasons I went with the lifeboat role, rather than the Mensa role, is that we don't need the inline external link, which are strongly discouraged. Another reason is similar to my objection to the use of titles or positions on Rees and Close. His claims are made in a personal capacity, not as part of his position within a Mensa: their his views, not those of Mensa. Identifying him as a Mensa member, smacks of "appeal to authority". As his views are not being expressed in neither an academic nor committee context, I'd be tempted to simply refer to him as a "critic of LHC". -- Mark Chovain 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James Blodgett's primary role is as the coordinator of the Global Risk Reduction special interest group of American Mensa. It seems to me that the potential for "appeal to authority" is far stronger on the CERN side, where public relations web sites and draft of a safety report not even intended for publication carry such authority that these are even used as credible references for Wikipedia articles. -- Jtankers ( talk) 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't turn a blind eye to policies and guidelines on a quid pro quo basis. If you have a concern with a reference, then voice that concern (explictly and concisely) in a new section, and we can discuss that separately. As an aside DO NOT edit your comments after someone else has responded. You have had this explained to you before. -- Mark Chovain 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I used the common literary editing technique of [Edit: modification] to make clear a correction was made, however I will try to avoid. The two references that I feel are dubious as credible are CERN Ask an Expert service, LHC and black holes? which is a public relations web site and LHC: what if ... ? which is a draft outline of a possible safety report that was not intended for publication. These references seem dubious to me, do these references really meet Wikipedia policy? -- Jtankers ( talk) 04:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was addressing your concerns, but I will try to more directly address your questions point by point below, and good point, line through is a better technique for edits.
-- Jtankers ( talk) 05:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, 1. We're agreed, and there's no dispute there. 2. "James Blodgett's statement of expert opinion is sworn, published and reviewed". Can you point me to the review procedure for sworn affidavits? WP:RS requires some kind of review or editorial process. I'm happy with the ref if you can demonstrate that it has been through such a process. 3.1 The ref makes no statements about the opinions of others. He states his own opinions, with some references to explain why they are his opinions. He does not claim that his opinions are shared by the authors that he cites, and you'll find that most of the papers he cites come to very different conclusions to him. If you're happy with the text stating their his opinions, rather than the opinions of some non-specific group of people, then I think we're good here. 3.2 He says that assumptions were made in those estimates that no longer hold true. I'm happy with the new version of the text, but older versions claimed that the risk estimates are "based on new risk assumptions", which is not the same thing; in fact the old text didn't even make sense to me. I suspect we have no qualms here, if you're happy with the current wording. 4. I would like to add a new concern with the current text though: The use of the word, "far". I don't believe the affidavit expresses any opinion on the extent to which the risk is understated. I'd like to see that word go. -- Mark Chovain 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James Blodgett argues in his affidavit "and that the risk is considerably higher than was thought until recently." I believe James Blodgett calculates the risk lower than co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner who calculates the risks closer to 50% with a high degree of uncertainty. Would the term "considerably" that James Blodgett uses be more reasonable? -- Jtankers ( talk) 06:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
New risks estimates consider theories that predict possible micro black holes creation at LHC energy levels, 1999 RHIC safety report does not. RHIC only ruled out any possibility of micro black hole creation at conceivable energy levels, but did not address risks associated with micro black holes once created (capture by Earth's gravity or not, decay or not and growth rates slow or not) now that this prediction has changed 180 degrees from not conceivably possible to conceivably possible. If micro black hole creation is addressed in the paragraph, it should be after the RHIC risk estimate, otherwise the reader may be inclinded to assume that RHIC may have already addressed the safety of actually creating micro black holes. Proposed fix is to move concerns related to safety of creating micro black holes to after RHIC risk assessment which did not address the question: Are micro black holes safe to create? -- Jtankers ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should drop the academic titles on people's names. From WP:MOSBIO#Academic titles:
“ | Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used [in any] uses of the person's name. | ” |
Including such titles tends to attach a certain POV, and has a slight " appeal to authority" smell to it. Readers can make up their own minds as to the authority of the reference without us pushing qualifications down their throats.
The use of honorific titles ("Sir") is considered more controversial. For Martin Rees, I suggest we follow the convention of his article, and drop the honorific. -- Mark Chovain 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm good with that, then. I have made the changes I suggested in the previous section, too, and found it really hard to write without using a similar construction for Blodgett. I'll make the change. -- Mark Chovain 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that persons with sufficient notability to have Wikipedia articles linked to their names are in a different category than others. Martin Rees is Astronomer Royal, after all, but we do not have to call him that--anyone can click on his name to see it. Similarly for Frank Close. I think persons with sufficient notability to have their own article need less in the way of titles etc. Thus we can bend over backwards against undue deference to perceived authority without ignoring it altogether. Wwheaton ( talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I continue to oppose extensive discussion of these issues in the article, or on this talk page, as off-topic, and renew my call for a separate article on the matter. Wwheaton ( talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been ::::published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
What would happen if a black hole created at the LHC turns out to be stable?
Most of the times it would simply pass through the Earth and disappear in the cosmos. This is because black holes from the LHC collisions typically travel very fast, and because early on they interact very weakly with matter. They behave like neutrinos, which can travel through several billion kilometres of iron before they hit something. A few will be slower, and will be trapped by the Earth's gravitational field. In this case, they will start accreting matter, but at a very slow rate.
I thought that bosons are massless particles by definition. In the research section, it is mentioned that they want to find the number of Higgs Bosons, and their masses. How can the masses be described if they are massless? I also thought that the Higgs Boson is thought to be responsible (by association with the Higgs Field) for other particles acquiring mass. Does this section need removing? Or am I wrong? - 86.137.119.75 ( talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)James, Student
Thank you for clearing that up for me! 86.137.119.75 ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)James, Student
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but if you calculate the speed that a proton is supposedly traveling in the collider using the circumference given (27 km) and the time it supposedly takes to travel around the collider (less than 90 seconds) you get that it must be traveling at least 300,000,000 m/s, which is just over the speed of light. Anyways, I imagine this is somewhat less than correct, though perhaps the 27 km figure just does not have enough sig figs, since the protons are supposed to traveling just under the speed of light. DavidR163 ( talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)DavidR163 DavidR163 ( talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I really think if they continue push the activation date back, the Scientists working on the Collider, gain the common sense that the destruction of earth is on their heads and even the slightest possibility of a black hole or strangelet threatens the survival of the human race and every organism on it, decide "not" to turn it on and 6 billion dollars wasted that could have put towards creating a cure for cancer or HIV, AIDS, world hunger, global warming, space exploration, time travel and many other things that are helpful in other fields of science.