In topic ´black holes` I mentioned that at Cern they expect in the process to create (ultra small) black holes.
But as we should expect small black holes to grow into big black holes, all our hope should be on Stephen Hawkins who predicted that ultra small black holes will evaporate. Let's hope he is right on that !
.
But is science not taking an unacceptable risk by POSSIBLY creating black holes, while we have no idea if Stephen Hawkins is right on his conclusion that such ultra small black holes will evaporate?
What if Cern succeeds but Stephen Hawkins is wrong?
.
What are your thoughts on this?
.

First of all. His name is Stephen Hawking. Perhaps you are confusing him with Richard Dawkins, a biologist.

We're pretty damn confident that black holes do evaporate, as it fits in with other models to describe how black holes interact thermodynamically with the rest of the universe. It's not just "what if he is wrong?", but "what if the vast majority of the particle physics community is wrong?"

Also, the cosmic rays which hit our atmosphere routinely create collisions with many times more energy than the LHC will be able to produce, so if the LHC can create black holes, so can these cosmic rays in our atmosphere, and since we haven't been sucked into a black hole yet, we can assume that nothing catastrophic is going to happen at the LHC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

First of all. His name is Stephen Hawking. Perhaps you are confusing him with Richard Dawkins, a biologist.

---

No, not confusing. I know very well the difference between these two. Just a mix up.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

... We're pretty damn confident that black holes do evaporate ...

---

Sounds like I'm on the Christianity board. There they also are sure that what they BELIEVE is the one and only truth...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

It's not just "what if he is wrong?", but "what if the vast majority of the particle physics community is wrong?"

---

No, it's just "what if he is wrong?" Period.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Sounds like I'm on the Christianity board. There they also are sure that what they BELIEVE is the one and only truth ...

---

Except that it's based on observable evidence. We don't see black holes that destroy humanity come from similarly energetic reactions in the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No, it's just "what if he is wrong?" Period.

---

You really think that if something goes wrong at the LHC and a large proportion of humanity dies, all the blame will go on Hawking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

What if Cern succeeds but Stephen Hawkins is wrong?
.
What are your thoughts on this?

---

It's pretty far down on my list of things to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

... You really think that if something goes wrong at the LHC and a large proportion of humanity dies, all the blame will go on Hawking?

---

No. Just the thought that something CAN GO WRONG makes me question if the risk - however small it may be - is worth it.
.
Excellent if the data Cern will provide allows us to understand nature better. But do we really want to run such risks? What is the use of all that knowledge if it ends up in a black hole the size of a soccerstadium containing the entire planet earth?
.
Once Cern fails to provide all data required to understand nature, other more powerful accelerators will be build. How long does humanity intend to go on with that, with the risk that one day we will succeed in generating a black hole that starts growing?.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

It's pretty far down on my list of things to worry about.

---

It's also rather low on my list. But when I saw that other topic on black holes, my list was just temporally reshuffeled... :)
:rolleyes:

This might be of interest:

Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More - New York Times

As cap said there isn't risk. Much more energetic reactions take place every day in our upper atmosphere and not once in 4 billion years has it created a stable black hole, so I don't know what that puts the odds at(considering it might not even be a possible outcome) but I think we at safe enough that I'm willing to risk it, for the knowledge we might gain. Plus if it does happen we probably won't even know it happened we would be smeared and paused at the event horizon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

... Plus if it does happen we probably won't even know it happened we would be smeared and paused at the event horizon.

---

More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk. But belief never strengthen caution. So curious monkeys can end (one of) natures many experiments... I wonder how many monkey experiments ever existed that added to all that dark matter...
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk.

---

And apparently you BELIEVE that the risk is sufficiently large that the Large Hadron Collider should not be allowed to operate. Is that what you BELIEVE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

More correctly : you BELIEVE there is no risk. But belief never strengthen caution. So curious monkeys can end (one of) natures many experiments ... I wonder how many monkey experiments ever existed that added to all that dark matter ...
:rolleyes:

---

I don't believe. I think. There is a big difference. Believe comes without evidence. Thinking is what happens in the presence of evidence. So right now since more energetic reaction take place all the time in our atmosphere and haven't caused a black hole. It means one of two things.
1.) A stable black hole isn't possible with these types of reactions (This is true because a stable black hole requires energy or mass to make it stable and we aren't even close to giving it enough of either.)

2.) The chance of a black hole forming are so remote that it hasn't happened with millions of reactions per square inch taking place every day for the last 4 billion years. We can't even calculate what the odds are until it happens but if we assume a stable black hole forms in the atmosphere tomorrow the odds of it happening in any one time are 4.9 *10^39. Again I think we are pretty safe.

For ordinaryguy and michealb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

And apparently you BELIEVE that the risk is sufficiently large that the Large Hadron Collider should not be allowed to operate. Is that what you BELIEVE?

---

I NEVER stated that. Of course Cern has to go on.
My point was that there is a risk, however small that risk may be. And the risk of this research should openly be discussed. By science and by society at large.
If it does not happen at Cern, it may happen at the next more powerful collider, and if it does not happen there, it may happen in the next more powerful collider, etc. etc. etc...
All I say is that this is not something that should only be up to (the interests of) the scientific world. It is up to us all, as we are all involved. We can make such a mistake only once...
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

My point was that there is a risk, however small that risk may be.

---

Well, that is the question, isn't it? How does the size of this risk compare to the thousands of other risks that societies and individuals take every day? It appears to me, and apparently to many others who are more knowledgeable than me, that it is vanishingly small by comparison. The fact that the risk can't be known with certainty to be absolutely zero is not a sufficient reason to prohibit high-energy particle physics research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

And the risk of this research should openly be discussed.

---

I agree. Are we done yet?

Scientist have discussed it and there is no risk. As far as the society discussing it, most people aren't able to comprend most of the basic science behind the super collider so why would you discuss it with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, that is the question, isn't it? How does the size of this risk compare to the thousands of other risks that societies and individuals take every day?

---

What a ridiculous faulty comparison is that? None of these "thousands of other risks" can result into the total destruction of a planet the size of earth, with everything on and in it.
At the other side : the risk of creating a black hole on earth however does run that risk, small as it may be. The risk of total annihilation of all life we know to exist in the universe.
So be serious , PLEASE!
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

It appears to me, and apparently to many others who are more knowledgeable than me, that it is vanishingly small by comparison. The fact that the risk can't be known with certainty to be absolutely zero is not a sufficient reason to prohibit high-energy particle physics research. I agree. Are we done yet?

---

No we do not know that. We BELIEVE we know. That snotty reaction is precisely the reason why I posted this topic.
There is a risk. A slight risk, I agree. But as that risk involves all of us, it should be OPENLY discussed in society : with all the pro's and all the con's.
Scientists are not free to research beyond questioning, beyond responsibility to whom they could harm. That goes for every format of research, and the bigger the POSSIBLE risk, the more open the risks involved have to be discussed, and agreed upon by humanity at large.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Scientist have discussed it and there is no risk. As far as the society discussing it, most people aren't able to comprend most of the basic science behind the super collider so why would you discuss it with them?

---

The answer to that is so simple that your question shows your total lack of comprehension of the ethical problem involved here.

BECAUSE EVERY HUMAN BEING AND EVERY LIVING LIFE FORM IS INVOLVED HERE.

We are not talking about the moral point of part of humanity (or part of life on earth) running the risk of total extinction. We talk here about TOTAL EXTINCTION - even more precise : TOTAL DISAPPEARANCE of planet earth and every on and in it (at least in the format as it is, and that is supportive for the only life we know to exist in the universe.
Of course scientists should discuss the risk involved, but they should not be allowed to decide if that risk is acceptable for all those involved with their existence. They should advice to some organization that controls this type of research, and in this particular CERN case that should be the EU.
Actually taking into account the construction of other possible (future) even more powerful colliders elsewhere on earth, that demands an even higher control organization, like the UN.
All future new scientific developments involving experiments with such possible disastrous consequences should be decided by "the people" (in whatever proper format), not by the (often) blinkered specialist scientists involved.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

There is a risk. A slight risk, I agree. But as that risk involves all of us, it should be OPENLY discussed in society : with all the pro's and all the con's.

---

Well, it IS being OPENLY discussed in society. Is there something more you want?

I think it's 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.

Quote:

---

All future new scientific developments involving experiments with such possible disastrous consequences should be decided by "the people" (in whatever proper format), not by the (often) blinkered specialist scientists involved.
;)

---

Please enlighten me on how you expect "the people" to figure out the extremely complex physics involved in making this decision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

The answer to that is so simple that your question shows your total lack of comprehension of the ethical problem involved here.

BECAUSE EVERY HUMAN BEING AND EVERY LIVING LIFE FORM IS INVOLVED HERE.

---

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.

Second if there was any chance that they would destroy the world there would be an ethical problem but since there is no chance at them destroying the world there isn't an ethical problem. It's like saying that clapping your hand together could cause a hurricane; so we shouldn't clap just in case. The idea that cern is going to cause a black hole that will eat the planet and clapping will cause a hurricane both have about equal intellectual arguments.