Ask Me Help Desk - More on creating black holes

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, it IS being OPENLY discussed in society...

No : the problem I mentioned was NEVER discussed openly. The decision takers were never informed, and nowhere this possible problem was ever openly discussed. Even the EU decision to fund the Cern development did NOT include discussions on that possible problem.
Politicians are not scientists. All they heard from the scientists was that the experiments were needed to further Physics research, to keep European research ahead, and that it was completely safe. For politicians with a 4 year only memory that was sufficient.
.
Your point of departure here is completely incorrect and unsupported. Where ever was the problem of black hole formation ever mentioned in any discussion ahead of the final decision to start updating the facilities at Cern?
.
;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjimeister

I think its the same as when they thought the atom bomb might ignite the atmosphere. In reality, they knew it wouldn't happen, but people get nervous about that stuff, and the media loves to fear-monger. Its not just like Hawking has given his predictions about micro black holes and everyone is like, "ok, cool". There have been many many studies done to rule out possible 'side effects' of the LHC.

The "Atom Bomb" never drew any such discussions, as the general public and actually the majority of Government was completely unaware of any development of that bomb, because it was a TOP SECRET DEVELOPMENT in view of it's strategic importance during WWII.
The development of the Hydrogen Bomb was in view of it's strategic importance during the cold war also a TOP SECRET DEVELOPMENT.
That caused of course a lot of fear based nonsensical discussions in the public domain, mainly due to lack of information.
.
As mentioned in my reply to OrdinaryGuy the ultimate and unsolvable problem of the possible creation of a black hole was never discussed in the discussions involving the Cern upgrading. Maybe in inter-scientist discussions, but NEVER was that a point of discussion in the final funding debates on Cern. It was kept away from all political and financial decision takers than, and still is being blown away as "nonsensical" from the side of the scientists now. There never was any real open communication about the possible consequences of colliders as Cern and future even more powerful ones.
And THAT is wrong. It is IMMORAL not to have that small possibility discussed openly, as all life we know to exist in the universe is involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

First of all who do you think is giving them the funding to do these experiment. Don't you think that the governments giving the funding know the risks involved here.

So you agree with me that there is a risk involved?
The point is : is the public involved in that decision. Was there ever any open debate about the extreme small but still possible creation of a black hole? I say no : the public is not aware of that. I say the politicians who took the final decisions were not aware of that neither. That aspect was kept away from them by the scientific community. As they knew that this would delay - if not block - any upgrading of the Cern facilities. Some scientists are prepared to do anything, to take any risk, to further their funding.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Second if there was any chance that they would destroy the world there would be an ethical problem ...

In your first statement you acknowledged that "governments giving the funding know the risks involved here". So there is an ethical problem...
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

...but since there is no chance at them destroying the world ...

You make a claim here. A claim you can not prove. A claim nobody can prove.
And I stated clearly several times before : maybe it won't happen at Cern. Maybe neither in the next future more powerful colliders after Cern. But how long can that go on? And who will decide if the chance that it will happen becomes too big? Scientists? The same people who want these colliders? How reliable will their forecasts be? And what about the rest of human society? Don't they have a right to discuss this? Why no open discussions about this all?
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

It's like saying that clapping your hand together could cause a hurricane; so we shouldn't clap just incase.

Incorrect : a hurricane will not destroy all known life in the universe. A black hole somewhere produced in a collider may just cause that. The difference between these two is so huge that I am astounded that you even dare to come up with this nonsense.
.
;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Incorrect : a hurricane will not destroy all known life in the universe. A black hole somewhere produced in a collider may just cause that. The difference between these two is so huge that I am astounded that you even dare to come up with this nonsense.
.
;)

No nonsense is you not understanding the energy required to create a black hole. Currently all of the power the human race has ever created is not enough power to create a stable blackhole. There are bigger things to worry about then something that isn't possible but what ever you have apparently made up your mind, without a bit of knowledge on the subject so I'm done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Your point of departure here is completely incorrect and unsupported. Where ever was the problem of black hole formation ever mentioned in any discussion ahead of the final decision to start updating the facilities at Cern?

I didn't say it WAS discussed earlier, I said it IS BEING discussed presently, apparently because some guy in Hawaii filed a lawsuit to try to stop the LHC. Maybe you should file an amicus brief in that case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

There are bigger things to worry about ...

That is what you BELIEVE to be true (this board seems to be filled to the brim with BELIEVERS of all kinds...
I have stated several times that I agree that the chance a black hole will develop is very small. However there is no guarantee that one can NOT occur.
.
I am not against physics research. Neither am I against colliders like Cern and in the future it's even more bigger and stronger brothers.
But I am against the construction of such facilities to be based on the egocentric ideas of scientists and politicians, while ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW TO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE RUNS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RISK OF TOTAL ANNIHILATION.
At least without a proper and open general international debate on the pro's and con's involved in such projects by all involved.
.
;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I didn't say it WAS discussed earlier, I said it IS BEING discussed presently ...

I stand corrected on that !
.
My point is that it should have been discussed PRIOR to the go-ahead for this project many years ago.
As stated to michealb I am not against elemental physics research, nor colliders like Cern and stronger future facilities.
All I suggest is that there should be some international body that - together with ALL PARTIES INVOLVED - decides on the need for such projects versus the possible dangers for all life on earth.
.
Any terrestrial research should be discussed openly, whenever it carries a seed of possible total annihilation risk for all life on earth.
They may build such facilities on the moon or elsewhere. That is another matter. I could do without moonshine (though all youngsters possibly disagree with me on that one! :D
;)