This week is Big Bang Week at the BBC, with various programmes devoted to the switch-on of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on Wednesday morning. Many of these programmes are covered in this week’s issue of the
I must admit, I had trouble filling in the word t**t. It wasn't the first word I thought of. It wasn't even among the first ten words I thought of. I honestly had trouble filling it in. To me, twat has a very specific (if very obscene) definition. But really, who throws around a word like that so callously? I guess those of us on "this side of the Atlantic" are just that much more evolved than the Englishmen.
But seriously, in my estimation, the chances of the LHC creating a black hole that swallows us all are about 100 orders magnitude HIGHER than the chances that all of the particles in my body will self-annihilate within 10 seconds of my writing this.
If I ever post again, I guess I will prove my point.
Professor Cox's statement was not a rational communication, but an emotional one.
I cannot understand the standard model, or string theory. I saw Professor Cox present a documentary about the LHC last week on TV. His enthusiasm is infectious: the LHC is the place in the World where he most wants to be. He is an attractive man in his thirties, appearing more youthful.
I picked up from that documentary that current theories postulate sixteen subatomic particles, and that string theory explains what we know but cannot make predictions which can be tested by observation.
Even if I took an undergraduate degree in the relevant discipline, I still might not understand all the issues around whether the LHC might destroy the World. The energy I have to expend to come to my own informed decision is far too great. So I listen to experts, and take them on trust.
In this context, Professor Cox's emotional communication communicated to me. I would not insult anyone who tells me that the LHC might destroy the world, but neither would they influence my actions.
There's a slight difference between the hubris of a shipping company and 6000 scientists that want to live (well, lets say 99.99% want to live)
As well, the earth and every astronomical body in the solar system are already conducting their own informal LHC style experiments in form of cosmic rays.
Super high energy particles being slammed into the surface of the earth every day. Some are at millions of times greater energy than the collisions in the LHC ever will be.
On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle collidershttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415
This article suggests new view on the LHC risk. In some occasions, if some theories are true the Black hole could be created, and when start to shine by strong Hawking radiation. And in some condition the ammount of the matter it eat and amount of radiation could be equal.This radiation could be 12 megatonn per second, or 1/3 of sun energy which is coming on Earth. It will result on huge explosion on the LHC, but the Earth will not be destroid because soon (in seconds)this BH will receive high velosity and fly from the earth to space.
Gosh, it's just a big atom smasher, and the possibility of something dangerous to happen is too small for that something to happen ;) If it would have been real risk, scientists would inform us, or take measures against it, or, after all, never would have thought of taking this idea to reality. So stop worrying, listen to common sense and do not let this rumor by fools take over your mind.http://www.votetheday.com/p...
OK, so where I said "100%" make it "99.9999%", say. Here's a New Scientist article discussing universe creation in the lab that specifically mentions LHC; it definitely seems to say it's very implausible but I can't tell from the article whether it's impossible unless you actively try for it by doing stuff beyond what they're going to do at LHC, or just unlikely. I also can't tell whether this is something that would already happen naturally due to cosmic rays (which do reach the same energies, but other details may matter for all I know); even if not then the most obvious kinds of utilitarianism probably say it doesn't matter relative to the possibility of baby universes being produced in much greater numbers in the future; but still, what about e.g. variants that say to maximize the probability of infinite positive utility and/or minimize the probability of infinite negative utility?
Peter is certainly right about t**t — the confusion here suggests to me that, whilst it’s a common British word, it’s unfamiliar to Americans. It’s not as rude as c**t, despite having the same meaning. Level of rudeness probably falls somewhere between ‘bollocks’ and ‘f**k’. Enough about swear words! :-D
Fritz, your interpretation of Cox is perfectly plausible. It’s difficult to assess the precise intended meaning of such a flippant remark. However, exactly whom he *intended* to label t**ts is not important given the point I wished to make, which was that people seem to be influenced to adopt (or avoid adopting) a certain view at least partly because of the social connotations that go along with it. Whether comments like Cox’s have this influence depends more on its interpretation by his audience than on his own intended meaning. The capacity of people to be influenced by apparently irrelevant factors when thinking about issues like the LHC is, I think, at least as disturbing as the prospect of the LHC being switched on!
Steven: ‘Does anyone know whether the creation of baby universes at LHC can be ruled out 100%? If not then it seems like an additional important ethics issue that's been ignored.’ I’m not sure many would seriously subscribe to the view that any catastrophic event that can’t be ruled out 100% counts as an important ethical issue. Such events can quickly be multiplied beyond our capacity to give them ethical consideration.
I’d be interested to hear people’s views about what underlies concern about the LHC. Is it really down to cost benefit analysis, or to something else?
What a beautiful end, just like in a Vonnegut book - reaching the threshold of knowledge to achieve unlimited life extension, mankind blows it all up via its inborn ignorance of the significance of a small probability exponential process.
I think that this is a much more elegant End than a nuclear war, as it is very egalitarian and guarantees that there are no survivors to suffer.
When you think of a black hole, think of a bear trap, not a hole in a balloon.
Really? I prefer thinking of one of those curved vortex things you roll coins into. Has the nice added analogy that once the coins plop in the hole, you can't see what's inside....
I liked Seamus McCauley's theory: the LHC WILL destroy the universe, but it is actually an attempt to smoke out God / the aliens / the software admins who will surely have to step out from the shadows and put a stop to it. HT
I must admit, I had trouble filling in the word t**t. It wasn't the first word I thought of. It wasn't even among the first ten words I thought of. I honestly had trouble filling it in. To me, twat has a very specific (if very obscene) definition. But really, who throws around a word like that so callously? I guess those of us on "this side of the Atlantic" are just that much more evolved than the Englishmen.
But seriously, in my estimation, the chances of the LHC creating a black hole that swallows us all are about 100 orders magnitude HIGHER than the chances that all of the particles in my body will self-annihilate within 10 seconds of my writing this.
If I ever post again, I guess I will prove my point.
No. I had thought one was following me, but I turned to get on the freeway and it went straight.
I had to dodge around six micro black holes on my way to work today. Six! Anyone beat that?
Professor Cox's statement was not a rational communication, but an emotional one.
I cannot understand the standard model, or string theory. I saw Professor Cox present a documentary about the LHC last week on TV. His enthusiasm is infectious: the LHC is the place in the World where he most wants to be. He is an attractive man in his thirties, appearing more youthful.
I picked up from that documentary that current theories postulate sixteen subatomic particles, and that string theory explains what we know but cannot make predictions which can be tested by observation.
Even if I took an undergraduate degree in the relevant discipline, I still might not understand all the issues around whether the LHC might destroy the World. The energy I have to expend to come to my own informed decision is far too great. So I listen to experts, and take them on trust.
In this context, Professor Cox's emotional communication communicated to me. I would not insult anyone who tells me that the LHC might destroy the world, but neither would they influence my actions.
There's a slight difference between the hubris of a shipping company and 6000 scientists that want to live (well, lets say 99.99% want to live)
As well, the earth and every astronomical body in the solar system are already conducting their own informal LHC style experiments in form of cosmic rays.
Super high energy particles being slammed into the surface of the earth every day. Some are at millions of times greater energy than the collisions in the LHC ever will be.
no one thought the titanic would sink the first time either
:)
On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle collidershttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415
This article suggests new view on the LHC risk. In some occasions, if some theories are true the Black hole could be created, and when start to shine by strong Hawking radiation. And in some condition the ammount of the matter it eat and amount of radiation could be equal.This radiation could be 12 megatonn per second, or 1/3 of sun energy which is coming on Earth. It will result on huge explosion on the LHC, but the Earth will not be destroid because soon (in seconds)this BH will receive high velosity and fly from the earth to space.
So only France is doomed :(
Gosh, it's just a big atom smasher, and the possibility of something dangerous to happen is too small for that something to happen ;) If it would have been real risk, scientists would inform us, or take measures against it, or, after all, never would have thought of taking this idea to reality. So stop worrying, listen to common sense and do not let this rumor by fools take over your mind.http://www.votetheday.com/p...
Ha! I had the same issue Robin did. My guess had been "toot", which was not a very good guess.
Here is a useful site to determine whether the LHC has brought on doomsday.
OK, so where I said "100%" make it "99.9999%", say. Here's a New Scientist article discussing universe creation in the lab that specifically mentions LHC; it definitely seems to say it's very implausible but I can't tell from the article whether it's impossible unless you actively try for it by doing stuff beyond what they're going to do at LHC, or just unlikely. I also can't tell whether this is something that would already happen naturally due to cosmic rays (which do reach the same energies, but other details may matter for all I know); even if not then the most obvious kinds of utilitarianism probably say it doesn't matter relative to the possibility of baby universes being produced in much greater numbers in the future; but still, what about e.g. variants that say to maximize the probability of infinite positive utility and/or minimize the probability of infinite negative utility?
Peter is certainly right about t**t — the confusion here suggests to me that, whilst it’s a common British word, it’s unfamiliar to Americans. It’s not as rude as c**t, despite having the same meaning. Level of rudeness probably falls somewhere between ‘bollocks’ and ‘f**k’. Enough about swear words! :-D
Fritz, your interpretation of Cox is perfectly plausible. It’s difficult to assess the precise intended meaning of such a flippant remark. However, exactly whom he *intended* to label t**ts is not important given the point I wished to make, which was that people seem to be influenced to adopt (or avoid adopting) a certain view at least partly because of the social connotations that go along with it. Whether comments like Cox’s have this influence depends more on its interpretation by his audience than on his own intended meaning. The capacity of people to be influenced by apparently irrelevant factors when thinking about issues like the LHC is, I think, at least as disturbing as the prospect of the LHC being switched on!
Steven: ‘Does anyone know whether the creation of baby universes at LHC can be ruled out 100%? If not then it seems like an additional important ethics issue that's been ignored.’ I’m not sure many would seriously subscribe to the view that any catastrophic event that can’t be ruled out 100% counts as an important ethical issue. Such events can quickly be multiplied beyond our capacity to give them ethical consideration.
I’d be interested to hear people’s views about what underlies concern about the LHC. Is it really down to cost benefit analysis, or to something else?
What a beautiful end, just like in a Vonnegut book - reaching the threshold of knowledge to achieve unlimited life extension, mankind blows it all up via its inborn ignorance of the significance of a small probability exponential process.
I think that this is a much more elegant End than a nuclear war, as it is very egalitarian and guarantees that there are no survivors to suffer.
When you think of a black hole, think of a bear trap, not a hole in a balloon.
Really? I prefer thinking of one of those curved vortex things you roll coins into. Has the nice added analogy that once the coins plop in the hole, you can't see what's inside....
I liked Seamus McCauley's theory: the LHC WILL destroy the universe, but it is actually an attempt to smoke out God / the aliens / the software admins who will surely have to step out from the shadows and put a stop to it. HT
The variant I vaguely remember reading about involved magnetic monopoles, not black holes.