9 Sep 06:46:47 AM www.google.com.au -- black holes from lhc
9 Sep 06:43:17 AM search.yahoo.com -- recreating the big bang experiment
9 Sep 06:38:10 AM www.google.co.uk -- cern lhc recreate big bang black hole
9 Sep 06:36:56 AM www.google.co.uk -- micro black hole
9 Sep 06:34:57 AM search.yahoo.com -- recreating big bang
9 Sep 06:33:30 AM www.google.co.uk -- lhc black holes
9 Sep 06:32:51 AM www.google.co.uk -- cern lhc recreate big bang black hole
9 Sep 06:26:59 AM www.google.co.uk -- lhc black hole wednesday
9 Sep 06:23:30 AM www.google.com -- black hole lhc
9 Sep 06:22:59 AM www.google.fr -- hawaii lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:22:51 AM www.google.ro -- lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:23:30 AM www.google.com -- black hole lhc
9 Sep 06:22:59 AM www.google.fr -- hawaii lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:22:51 AM www.google.ro -- lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:21:24 AM www.google.co.uk -- lhc black holes
9 Sep 06:20:01 AM www.google.bg -- happened create black hole
9 Sep 06:18:11 AM www.google.co.in -- is cern experiment leads to tsunami
9 Sep 06:18:05 AM www.google.com -- lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:17:40 AM www.google.com -- safety problems of cern
9 Sep 06:16:06 AM www.google.com -- what will happen lhc
9 Sep 06:15:53 AM www.google.co.uk -- cern safety
9 Sep 06:15:16 AM www.google.co.uk -- lhc risks site:blogspot.com
9 Sep 06:12:39 AM www.google.fr -- lhc black holes
9 Sep 06:12:37 AM search.yahoo.com -- lhc black hole
9 Sep 06:12:31 AM www.google.co.in -- how can lhc create big bang conditions
9 Sep 06:11:23 AM www.google.com -- lhc black hole
And so on and so forth. I've all said it repeatedly, but here is a summary for those of you with the really short attention span:
- The LHC will not recreate the Big Bang. I repeat, the LHC will not recreate the Big Bang. No matter what you have read elsewhere. This statement is not only slightly inaccurate, it is simply plainly wrong by at least 19 orders of magnitude. For more details, please read Recreating the Big Bang?
- The world will not end tomorrow. To produce a black hole at the LHC the world would need to have additional compactified dimensions, a so far completely unconfirmed speculation. Even in the unlikely event this would be the case, these black holes would decay almost immediately, long before they even reached the detector. There is no controversy about this in the community, no matter what you have read elsewhere. We do not know of any consistent theory according to which these black holes, once produced, would pose a risk. For more information, please read our posts The CERN Safety report, Black Holes at the LHC - again, Black Holes at the LHC - what can happen? and Micro Black Holes.
Please do me the favour and do not ask questions without having read the above mentioned posts, because I am really tired of repeating the same points over and over again. It is really not that hard to understand, just give it a try.
It is quite ironic that I spoke about these two examples in my talk yesterday to explain how difficult communication between scientists and the public can be.
TAGS: LHC, BLACK HOLE, BIG BANG
NBC's morning "news" program unfortunately carried the LHC story again today, including a short clip of some scientist who is raising the danger questions.
ReplyDeleteIn case you'd like a reference on the two (thoroughly discredited) scientists that have raised (mutually exclusive) doomsday scenarios for LHC blackhole production, I can recommend my piece Large Hadron Collider: What’s the Risk?. I'm afraid things may get worse before the actual collisions start.
ReplyDeleteCome on Bee. Please allow us to escape from our every day routine a bit. Don't spoil the myth. Why do you think we are watching horror movies for? A gigantic machine that would destroy the world? I love it. This is what Hollywood is made of. So stop being so reassuring please.
ReplyDeleteBR
Hi Giotis,
ReplyDeleteI'm really sorry to have ruined your day because the world won't end tomorrow. It won't happen again. Best,
B.
Cool! So i don't have to cancel that big champagne order for tonight's end of the world party after all.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally in agreement with Giotis. I'm waiting for my coffee cup to start sliding across the desk tomorrow ...
ReplyDelete"It is quite ironic that I spoke about these two examples in my talk yesterday to explain how difficult communication between scientists and the public can be."
ReplyDeleteI have had direct experience with this issue, thru my Multimedia project to help Physics conferences (click on my signature for link). Basically, HEP (& Science in general) is a niche-market that is totally misunderstood by the SET (Science/Engineering/Technology) challenged public. The new Technology (blogs, Internet, mobile devices) now gives Scientists the tools to do some Science Outreach to the public. I've emphasized video-blogging (Bee is not high on this for her personal blogging), especially syndication over the iTunes video-podcast medium. The latter can reach the masses over mobile-media solutions like the iPod & iPhone (in addition to AppleTV..a living room set top box, & of course the online store called iTunes). Young kids (future scientists of tomorrow) are really into cellphones, so an iPhone delivery of a "infomercial" for HEP is potentially a game-breaker. They can use their social-networking tools (Myspace, Facebook, etc), to spread the word on LHC: "not the end of the world".
I will be writing a NSF proposal to get funding for doing the above. Up to now, it's been a volunteer effort (fiscally irresponsible). I will enlist the help/advice of leading physicists (brand name recognition), as well as young technology cognizant physicists (Bee, Kea, et al). I ran into some Disney researchers at the recent SIGGRAPH 2008 conference, & they are working with Brian Greene/Columbia on some multimedia for Science Outreach. He use the latter effectively for the NOVA "The Elegant Universe" 3-part episode. He is founder of World Science Festival, so he is back on the warpath for Science Outreach to the Public. Disney sent a couple of people there in support of this recent initiative. Technically challenging subjects (like String Theory, HEP, etc) need an "abstraction" like pictures/videos (& other multimedia) to "seduce" the Public. It is IMPOSSIBLE to explain Science at a technical level, even at a Scientific American layman level!! I defer to Carl Sagan's book "A Demon Haunted World: Why Science is like a Candle in the Dark". B. Green gets criticized by his scientific colleagues for his use of multimedia ("entertainment"), but in fact he is taking the appropriate approach.
That SIGGRAPH conference I referred to, has EXPLODED into the lucrative mass-market (1st TV/Film special-effects, now computer games!). It started out as a tool for Scientific Visualization (ARPA funding, for military back in 60's), & now has hit the Entertainment mass-market. Here is the key phrase for HEP:
"They used the Technical Elements [ physics ] to TELL A STORY."
-- Dmitriev/Kazakova, 1998 Olympics pairs gala
Figure Skating, pianists/violinists (niche-market of Classical Music..very much like Physics) have embraced the whole Entertainment approach for Public Outreach. The young guns in each field, have cool website, Youtube videos, iTunes podcasts. Like Lara St. John (female Canadian violinist), Hillary Hahn, Valentina Lisitsa (female pianist, with Sviatislav Richter power), Rachel Barton Pine (female violinist, very much into Public Outreach), Maksim (Serbian pianist), Lang Lang (Chinese phenome pianist, performed at Olympics opening ceremony). The latter is a really interesting case, he has NINE publicists to handle all the PR/Marketing. He has corporate sponsorship deals (ala bigtime sports athletes) with BMW, Rolex, athletic shoe mfr (!). If Lang Lang can pull it off (classical piano!?), then surely HEP physicists (young/attractive/intelligent females like Bee, Kea, Lisa Randall, Louise, et al) can do it too. Kea has probably the BEST package of them all, because of her outdoorsmanship (hiking, mountaineering, skiing). Her 4 day survival story is unmatched, & it's a simple matter to sell it to an Entertainment company (like Disney, see above). She would get a lump sum payment, residuals, possible book deal, etc. Her dreams of a Category Theory Inst is a foregone conclusion, it could be financed by her extra-curricular activity!! Talk about a "end around" (backdoor) solution. I also note that Bee has an artistic side (painting), Lisa Randall is also sporty (like Kea, into rock climbing, 2 serious accidents), so all this "bigger picture" plays right into the Multimedia "entertainment" approach to getting HEP to the masses.
Too bad, I wasn't able to talk at this conference! Thanks Bee for the heads up earlier this year (invite?), but I couldn't submit due to time/work constraints (I don't get paid to do this). But, next year (hopefully after an accepted NSF Education proposal) maybe I can. What blows-me-away is how "scattered" the effort by HEP is for Public Outreach. Even B. Green's WSF/World Science Festival had a lack luster multimedia approach..just a text blog (they were using mainly MSM/Mainstream Media via ABC News). Need to go crazy with the Alternative Model: mobile media-solutions like iPod, iPhone & AppleTV (watching videos in the comfort of your living room). In the Content/Distribution model, the latter..DISTRIBUTION..is a really key aspect. Content (infomercial for HEP) doesn't do anything, if people don't have access to it.
"is cern experiment leads to tsunami"
ReplyDelete*confused* I can see why some weirdos like to believe in the LHC black hole thing, but a tsunami? Anyway, regarding how often your post contained the words "black hole", I think the number of visitors will increase by at least another power of two.
I think it is very difficult to convince the LHC opponents, so I have settled to waiting for a few months from now, when most people should have noticed that they have not been absorbed by a black hole.
Hi Oddysseus,
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a particularly weird one. I guess somebody had a lot of fantasy. Looking at the keywords people search for is often very amusing. Best,
B.
What I tell them is that if the black hole was created we would accelerate as we were being sucked in and time, for us, would slow down. So we would never know.
ReplyDeleteI know it makes no sense but it's fun.
When I was a kid I used to baby sit a young boy who was scared of monsters. Instead of saying, as his parents did, 'there is no such thing as monsters' I walked in his room and said 'monsters, I sense them. Don't worry, I know what to do.' Then I took an unlit candle and made a mark on the window and said 'there, now we're safe'. And the kid slept happily and safely.
Regardless, I still plan to have a good steak, a good bourbon and a good cuddle. . . just in case! (wink)
ReplyDeleteYouth access to knowledge can sometimes have it's diverse effects?:) Only given in regard to a "better spirit" with which to imbue one's education.
ReplyDeleteOf course "research techniques" are always interesting.
“Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's snobbishness.”
"On Classic Literature" from Ideas and Opinions – Crown Publishing (1954)-Albert Einstein (page 64) originally published in the Jungkaufmann, a monthly publication of the “Schweizerischer Kaufmaennischer Verein, Jugendbund" (Feb, 29, 1952)
The Outer Limits
ReplyDelete"It Crawled Out of the Woodwork" (1963)
We can only hope.
cern experiment leads to tsunami
ReplyDeletehm... a while ago some heavy ion poeple started talking about "tsunamis" in the quark gluon plasma... maybe someone has misunderstood that?
I'm waiting for my coffee cup to start sliding across the desk tomorrow ...
And I'll be sitting at the dentist at that time... too bad.
Cheers, Stefan
"When the going gets weird the weird turn pro." ...Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
ReplyDelete"Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!!!
ReplyDeleteHi Bee,
ReplyDelete“I just noticed that yesterday we had twice as many visitors as usual and looked at the recent keyword activity that leads people to this blog.”
Since you posted this your readership has continue to rise sharply. As can be seen on Blogflux your average daily unique visitor count is around 900-1000 with today it hitting 3500, a 350% increase. If it kept up at this rate Sergey Brin and Larry Page would be on the phone trying to cut a deal for Backreaction. It appears “black holes LHC" is a red hot item at present. Now if you were to write a few posts about how sexy it would be if the LHC were to produce a black hole to devour the planet you would have the search engines melt down:-)
Best,
Phil
Bee - why are you so coy with these newbs? Everyone knows its not tomorrow that the world will end (by strangelet) but in two months when they start the 5 TeV runs! :)
ReplyDeleteBee said: “The LHC will not recreate the Big Bang. I repeat, the LHC will not recreate the Big Bang. No matter what you have read elsewhere.”
ReplyDeleteAh, now you sound much better than with those correct banalities about “better science management”, etc. You know, you really know that it will not recreate the Big Bang, whatever those corrupt top managers of science may say everywhere! Welcome to the right way of genuine, creative science: objectively substantiated personal conviction, rather than convenient conformity to “collective” opinion. Unfortunately now that the LHC has been launched the top scientists and managers from France, USA and elsewhere have again widely stressed on all TV channels the same promise about Big Bang in the lab and expected “great discoveries”. After that, do you still think that the main science problem is its “poor management” (as implied in your last conference report from the previous post)?! [It's fascinating how closely (up to a day) real life events follow and disprove one's “traditional” but (hopefully) changing ideas about science!]
I can add a few details to your doubts. First of all, Big Bang never happened and the scale of contradictions of the Big Bang doctrine, as well as the number of experienced science professionals rejecting it (based on clear evidence), exceeds by far the level of very serious problem (further details and references can be found at http://cosmology.info/). After which one has the right to ask what the multi-billion LHC investment and its super- technology miracles are actually used for if the widely announced main purpose, being senseless in any case (where could it really lead?!), is based on a provably wrong, artificially maintained doctrine...
It's not difficult to see that other announced “major” LHC purposes, such as the search for the Higgs boson(s) and possible dark matter candidates, are also based on equally wrong, totally abstract doctrines showing deep, persisting contradictions already in theory (including alleged origin of the property of inertial/gravitational mass from the artificially inserted, anti-Occam entity of Higgs field/particles). Much better, parsimonious, unifying and consistent approach(es) (experiments including) exist, but similar to the Big Bang case are not even taken into consideration, not even as minor competitors for the “officially best” but evidently inconsistent assumptions (while having a minimum choice of essentially different, competing possibilities seems a natural condition for efficient practical realisation of unique, super-expensive experimentation consuming now all humanity's resources for such projects).
What remains is the LHC “technological triumph” that can well be real, but if all that power is applied in (provably) wrong directions, it only amplifies the scale of official science problem today: instead of the needed and possible real advance, one obtains ever deepening impasse and lost huge efforts, which is too close to explicit sabotage of science development, by real, inevitable consequences.
As to notorious “black holes”, why not to simply acknowledge that today's science is in principle unable to provide any objective proof either for or against their reality and danger (real properties)? Everybody agrees that at least “officially supported” science (in Perimeter and elsewhere) does not provide any working theory of quantum gravity and related “unified” description of fundamental interactions and major particle species. And it's absolutely evident that such a (consistent) theory is absolutely necessary for any reliable conclusion about those possible “singularities” emerging in dense particle collisions (not to mention the fact that the very existence and properties of any black holes is subject to serious questioning by many serious scientists). Instead of shamelessly lying to the poor unaware public, why not to acknowledge the otherwise rather evident fact that fundamental science, dealing with the unknown, will inevitably contain some danger. It's another question that consistent and therefore reliable kind of knowledge should be able to objectively (rather than deceptively!) estimate the degree of real danger in its own research, but “consistent” sounds as bitter irony with respect to the now officially imposed “science” based on explicitly postulated super-natural “mysteries” and ever growing contradictions... To make it easier, take another example of yet much more dangerous official science experimentation with systems whose real dynamics it cannot even approximately understand: genetic modification of living organisms, including omnipresent and uncontrollably spreading microscopic species... Is all of it always due to problems of “poor management”?
After which some “relaxed” commentators here show their “advanced” attitude by saying something like “why not to amuse ourselves a little, after all, if we cannot actually change the events”. Yes, guys, why not, champagne and girls and all that, the invented “end of the world” is but another, unusual and therefore less boring pretext for a party, your never-ending party of amusing monkeys. But everybody is still able to understand, I hope, that the actual price being paid for this particular party is a multi-billion-worth, unique-technology enterprise comparable by its size to entire fundamental science, entire knowledge development of today's planetary civilisation. I am sure it can only increase the temperature of your never-ending celebration: have a nice party!
Finally, using this curious coincidence between your conference on “general” science problems and real-time development of very visible, ultimately-huge-scale problems of the dominating science practice, it would be interesting to see conference conclusions on the subject. Will it always be something like the need for “better science management” (yet better, always better!) or “more ethical” approach (because those evident Big Bang soap-opera blunders are ethical but not enough)?
“Scientific Utopia” you say. But you have it already there at Perimeter (and elsewhere), in your possibility of nice life and pleasant, comfortable “work” in exchange for arbitrary, self-estimating “science”, irrespective of its real efficiency and problem solutions. But what is the actual result of such real Western scientific Utopia, in the realistically estimated LHC case and beyond? Can there be such a debate at your conference as “scientist and conscience”, ordinary human conscience, you know, may there be any link between the two within the officially supported kind and system of science today?
Andrei,
ReplyDeleteI'm very much inclined to delete your silly propaganda, since we currently have neither time nor inclination to discuss your nonsensical claims. Post you stuff elsewhere, the web is wide enough...
Best, Stefan
Hi Snowboarder,
ReplyDeleteShhhh!! Because I was hoping we'd just survive this day and be done with the scary story instead of extending it over several months! Best,
B.
it happened again?
ReplyDeleteok Bee,
ReplyDeleteno questions.
lol Bee,
ReplyDeleteI just read Phil Warnells comment above (five up).
The media's fascination with the earth gobbling bh/strangelet schtick is bordering on the surreal.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this last week, those of us who have been interviewed about the LHC invariably have the same question asked over and over again.
It is long past the point of reason, and instead it becomes unbelievably tempting to just make something up as a response.
"Ah, now you sound much better than with those correct banalities about “better science management”, etc. You know, you really know that it will not recreate the Big Bang, whatever those corrupt top managers of science may say everywhere! Welcome to the right way of genuine, creative science: objectively substantiated personal conviction, rather than convenient conformity to “collective” opinion. Unfortunately now that the LHC has been launched the top scientists and managers from France, USA and elsewhere have again widely stressed on all TV channels the same promise about Big Bang in the lab and expected “great discoveries”. After that, do you still think that the main science problem is its “poor management” (as implied in your last conference report from the previous post)?! [It's fascinating how closely (up to a day) real life events follow and disprove one's “traditional” but (hopefully) changing ideas about science!]"
ReplyDeleteBee:
Your frustration about the disparity between PR/Marketing of Science VS Science Reality, is the classic case of the following:
Collision between Technical & non-Technical groups
Here is a good article ("Revenge of the science writer"), which describes some "collisions" between physicists & writers (non-technical people). Wow, frustrations with morons/idiots/fools who got the goad of physicists, resulting in some explosive displays of temper!!
"The scientist [ Brookhaven National Lab ] could barely disguise his impatience. ..
"That's it!" he fairly roared as he abruptly stood up, his chair shooting backwards. The background hubbub in the lunchroom suddenly plummeted and everyone turned to stare. He strode away, shouting, "This is a total waste of time! You're an imbecile!" "
"..produced a tape recorder and asked the first question - whereupon he [ Feynman ] became enraged because he had been asked precisely that question before in a published interview, screamed at her for her supposed ignorance, ended the interview before it began, and left her to fly back to New York empty-handed."
R. Feynman wrote a famous letter to S. Wolfram (while he was at UIUC, leading the Complex Systems Research Inst):
"You will not like being an administrator. You think of other people as "stupid fools", & you will not be doing research. They [ administrators, bureacrats, bean counters, etc ] will DRIVE YOU WILD, or YOU WILL DRIVE THEM WILD. My advice to you is to stick with technical people"
So, Bee, you are "being driven WILD" by the stupid fools! Same old, same old. "Been there, Done that". Everyone's gone through this Bullsh*t Nonsense. It's why I left the Establishment (Academia & Industry) 20 odd yrs ago, but I'm making a comeback (on my own terms).
Let's review some recent "collisions".
1) Melissa Franklin/Harvard VS NY Times
she gave a talk entitled "Why the NY Times doesn't get the right spin on our Data". She was pretty frustrated at a NY Times piece, denouncing the SSC's cancellation, something to the effect that the strange names of the particles weren't worth anything in the 1st place. (see 1 hr profile of her on Discovering Women).
You see, it goes back to the agenda of Journalists:
"Facts tell [ Science ], STORIES SELL [ fluff pieces ]"
-- Auto Racing marketing, selling pots & pans, etc
They are looking for something non-technical (weird sh*t) to wow a science-challenged Public, & of course they're gonna wander into stupid territory! Sensational & shock-value writing SELLS copy, & therefore increases Adverising Revenue. It's the Almighty Dollar incentive at work!
2) Joanne Hewett/SLAC VS PR Dept
she was asked to work with SLAC PR Dept for an article, & they distorted her careful technical description into some abomination: "SLAC Physicists Develop Test for String Theory". Her reaction was a frustrated post on Cosmicvariance, where she was reduced to a gutteral response "ARGHH!!". Yep, primal scream (ala Feynman).
So, even PR Depts at major science centers are guilty of this "distorting of the Truth".
Joanne relates an experience with journalists at 17 yrs old:
"Being my honest, naive, 17-yr-old self, I stated that I was rather unsure about the existence of God and that I thought churches were money making organizations. Naturally, I was quoted in print. In a smaller midwestern town. I received a barrage of truly hateful mail - some letters acusing me of devil worship, others wanting to save my soul. My senior science teacher summed it up best by saying `What you said was probably correct, but it’s not what you say to a newspaper reporter.’ That’s when I should have learned to be careful with reporters."
I was wincing, when I heard Tommaso Dorigo describe the "deluge of reporters" converging on CERN. Just imagine the above, multiplied by N. The technical challenges of LHC, are dwarfed by the mountainous obstacles of dealing with the MSM (mainstream media). I like S. Wolfram's comment after leaving UIUC: "It was a mind-numbing experience".
I guess Bee & Joanne would agree to the latter: totally mind-numbing. I have a 3-stage description:
mind numbing
mind boggling
mind blowing
In summary, it's called Mind FU*KAGE. You can literally "lose your mind" in this whole deal:
"trying to teach a pig [ journalist ] to sing [ write a science accurate article ]"
Here is probably the best synopsis of Technical vs non-Technical people:
reader from Cincinnati, OH November 1, 1999:
"Everyone who gave this book one star should realize that this book is Entertainment. Hancock [ crackpot journalist trying to do Science ] is not a scientist or an academic of any kind - he's a journalist! ... Of course Hancock tailors the facts to fit his theories - he is not constrained by truth, science, or even ethics. He is a journalist. ...This book, and all those like it that preach pseudo-science, appeal to the majority of people in this world who are scientifically challenged. Most
Americans don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand the technology [ TRUE!! ] they face everyday, much less untangle the fact and fantasy in this book. It is entertainment, but it's dangerous - science interpreted by a journalist!"
-- review of "Fingerprints of the Gods"
(crackpot conspiracy =e xtraterrestial civilization in Antarctica were our ancestors)
I hope the above was somewhat Therapeutic. You are NOT alone, Bee. Welcome to "Demon Haunted World: Why Science is like a Candle in the Dark"/Carl Sagan
Hi Bee,
ReplyDeleteAs a update to my last comment to this post you will be happy to learn that the exponential raise has started to tapper off although your unique visitor count for yesterday topped 5000. I checked Google and when you search “black holes LHC” this post comes up on the first page of a search as the 7th item. Don’t feel too badly since Peter’s “Not even Wrong” comes 2nd although not many pots in the comments section. It seems the world is moving on to worry about something else needlessly.
Best,
Phil
Hi Serrano,
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a remake of the story since the same claims have already made about RHIC in '99. Best,
B.
With the LHC experiment at least we had the chance to hear a number of physicists these days and except the usual questions about the end of the world they actually talked about physics.
ReplyDeleteDimopoulos gave an interview to the Greek television yesterday. He was very good actually. In order to demonstrate that gravity is so much weaker than electromagnetism he held up a cell phone and said "You see with my little finger and the help of the electrical force i overcome the Gravitational strength of the whole earth". I was impressed, i never thought of such a simple example. But when he was about to explain why only Gravity propagates in the extra dimensions (or at least i thought he would) he was interrupted by the reporter; probably he thought that the public don't care about that stuff. Well i care.
On local radio:
ReplyDelete"The LHC may reveal the particle which gives all other particles mass, named after Peter God, a Scottish physicist...."
Hello,
ReplyDeleteof course the LHC has produced black holes
and eaten up the earth already -
in some parallel universes. :=)
Regards
Georg
Hi Giotis,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to have a look at the recent images from the LHC webcam ;-). Best,
B.
Heh, well maybe "the" world didn't get destroyed because there are so many of them! I mean, what about the branching "multiple worlds" theory of quantum mechanics? Just suppose, that the chance of LHC experiments (say, even the first one done (?) today) destroying the Earth is about 99.99%, you would be ordinarily inclined to say, we probably wouldn't have made it. But suppose we are just in a multiverse branch that survived! The LHC may have already destroyed most Earths and “we” can’t tell the difference! (Look up “quantum suicide” on Wikipedia and Google …)
ReplyDeleteHi Bee,
ReplyDeleteThis is just a closing comment on the phenomena that is created within your readership numbers anytime you write something about “Black Holes and the LHC”. When I was looking at your Blogflux graph displaying the phenomena it appeared it was starting to form what could be considered the tell tale signs of a classic interfernce patteren (as in the two slit experiment). However, what followed the peak was not consistent with what proceeded so my hopes where dashed as I thought it might all be related to and accounted as some quantum effect:-)
Best,
Phil
Hi Bee,
ReplyDeleteBoth a thought and a related question has just come to mind related to recent events at the LHC. That being with the helium leak that has delayed the project for a while is to wonder how was it first detected? That is was it something that was indicated by their instruments or rather did the scientists involved observed that all of their voices were suddenly rising in pitch? I would ask then if you have any insight into this as curious minds would like to know :-)
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but I would guess pressure drop. Best,
B.