Re: French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG

On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:19:03 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:41:29 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 9, 2:54 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 20:45:53 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On May 7, 11:41 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:27:08 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 6, 11:10 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 5, 2:27 am, "Doomsday Machine?" <seeli...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
French And CERN Build Massive 17 Mile Round Particle Accelerator
(Black Hole Generator)

(European Organization for Nuclear Research) Build Worlds
Largest Particle Accelerator

The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).

"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.

There's always some risk of the unexpected in any scientific endeavor.
Perhaps this investment in research needs this kind of controversy in
order that its work can be appreciated. It could be much worse:
throwing all that money [for]... poor experimental results. The only reason
this research is still funded is because there is always the potential
of a new kind of Atom bomb.

Idiot

You need to read the above paragraphs that I've highlighted. The very
small risk is worth the discovery of the Higgs' boson. And the
military would like it very much if a new kind of bomb could be
developed with the LHC. We'd be shortly having one in the US-- when
the economy gets better.

There's a Gary Larsson cartoon appropriate for this scenario.
You know, I suppose, that there's a layer of iridium in earth's
sediments at the K-T (Cretatious-Tertiary) boundary when the
dinosaurs disappeared, and that Iridium is rare on earth but
common in asteroids and comets. Some dinosaurs in white
lab courts are watching another lab-coated dinosaur pointing
at equations and diagrams on a blackboard, triumphantly
announcing that his team has developed the most formidable
military weapon in the history of dinosauria, the iridium bomb.

The odds of destroying the planet with particle research
seems to me remote, though I think it is a good idea that some
people are worried enough about it to keep us on the alert.

The micro-black hole seems promising. The mass of the micro hole is so
minute that the earth's gravitational field and the Hawking radiation
can destroy the hole, but perhaps with a large enough mass-- like the
critical mass of the atom bomb-- a tipping point is reached where the
Hawking radiation is insufficient to destroy the hole. With enough
research, this regenerative effect can be used by an efficient
thermonuclear reaction to produce a temporary black hole of sufficient
size that it can rip apart an asteroid or comet headed to impact the
earth. There's a very slim possibility IIRC that this may happen in
the next 10,000 years. 'Research like this may save our planet in the
long run, or like your iridium bomb, may be the source of our own
extinction.

I think it's thought that the micro-black-holes have already
evaporated, at least any that may have been created in the
Big Bang, and it's hard to think of many being created by
any mechanism other than the Big Bang. The bigger black
holes evaporate too, but the bigger they are, not only the
more there is to evaporate, but also the slower the
evaporation will be, since the near-event-horizon is wider,
thereby making it harder for one particle from a virtual pair
generated near the event horizon to escape without being
sucked back in.

This is a good argument for the lower risk of micro holes. If such
small masses were stable, the universe would be filled with black
holes that keep getting bigger and bigger. We don't see that. IIRC the
black holes seem to occupy the centers of galaxies. The tremendous
mass of the black holes and the central mass of the galaxy itself
seems to explain partly the motion of the galaxy-- the unexplained
part being missing. Perhaps the discovery of the Higgs boson will help
scientists better explain the first moments of the big bang with
greater precision and thus account for this mass.

It seems to me a point worth thinking about whether the
supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies mostly grew
by accretion of stars from the galaxy, or whether the black
holes came first and the galaxies formed around them.

Also, I suppose you've heard what I think is the latest,
though it's not all that recent, observation that the mass in the
universe is distributed like the soapy film in a stack of soap
bubbles, where the galaxies tend to form at the edges and
lines between bubbles, and most especially where four
bubbles come together at a common point (I think it's four,
assuming I'm envisioning soap-bubble geometry correctly).

There's something on this in wikipedia, including the
"great wall" that was discovered some time back:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

Great link. Space itself is distorted by matter-- the gravitational
field. The lumpiness of space may just be a relic of the distribution
of matter prior to the original big bang? Just got email on the
Argonne Super Computer. It will be used this coming year to model
type !a supernovas. These supernovas have a small variance in the
white dwarf mass density from which they are created, and thus, the
supernovas tend to have the same brightness. The intensity of the
supernova hence would give a good indication of distances from earth
independent of red shift data that has been previously used to
discover the distribution of matter in space.

Anyway, the distribution of matter leads to the assumption of dark
matter which is accelerating the expansion of the universe. I don't
think that we can say much of the distribution of matter until we can
explain dark matter and the acceleration of the expansion of the
universe.

I don't understand the theory, but it seems to me that if we observe
an acceleration of the universe expansion at the farthest reaches of
the universe, that that is really indicative of the earliest motion
near to the time of the big bang. That's how long it takes light to
reach us. A lesser expansion rate closer in distance to us indicates
that the later expansion is slower-- which is what you would expect
when the universe has gotten larger (ie the gravitational field is
less with the greater separation of matter). An early acceleration of
the expansion followed by a latter deceleration would also naturally
create lumpiness in the universe. If dark matter interacts with the
gravitational field then the resulting changes in acceleration of
matter would be affected by concentrations of dark matter. The great
voids absent on matter in the universe that are observed between lumps
may have a great relationship with dark matter.



I'm a bit suspicious of "dark matter". I know nothing, of
course, but it just seems a bit too convenient.

"Superluminal" expansion, as you note, has been used
to explain the "lumpiness" of the universe. That's another
thing I'm suspicious of, though once again of course I know
nothing. Philosophically, I'm much more tempted to draw
again on many-worlds, since the universe can be as
lumpy as it wants then. As long as the total from all the
universes in the multiverse adds up to zero, we're all set.
That of course, doesn't explain why this all should "be",
but nothing will ever explain that. I'm willing to make that
flat statement because the lack of explanation seems to
me not merely due to ignorance, but due to a
fundamental impasse in that we always have to "start"
(note the quotation marks) with "something" out of
"nothing".

What was it like before the big bang? Why do we exist? IIRC these
epistemological questions can only be answered by God and
philosophers. At this point they're purely theoretical questions. It
may be that an even bigger accelerator will answer the questions. I'd
settle for finding huge amounts of non-emitting dark matter in the
immense mysterious voids between lumps of galaxies. The universe is
filled with energy and matter. It's just that a great deal of it
escapes our notice at this time.


There is some stuff about intersecting "planes"
that caused the discontinuity that made the big bang.
I know nothing, but I don't buy that yet, and even
if it were true it would just be another interesting
detail.

Philosophically it seems like a logical error to me
to talk about a "before" whenever the "beginning"
of "existence" is. That's because time is part of
existence just as space is. When people ask
what's "outside" the universe, my stock response
is to ask them what happens when they walk past
the end of the earth? Do they fall off? There is
no end of the earth, of course, it wraps around on
itself, and so does the universe. The problem is not
finding an answer to the question. The problem is
that the question has no basis in reality, any more
than the questions of "How do I mix a partridge out
of vodka and orange juice?" and "where's the
corner of this egg?" have any basis in reality, even
though it is possible to ask those questions.

That same argument doesn't work as clearly for
time since, as far as we know (except for quantum
foam that cannot carry information, and I have my
own ideas why that's necessarily true), "time" only
travels in one direction. However, since the
answer to "where are the limits of space" is "that's
not a question that has any basis in reality", then
that same answer can just as easily apply to time.
I'm absolutely confident of that, and have no
problems with it whatsoever, even though, as
warned, I know nothing.

Einstein said once that the most incomprehensible
thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
However, that may only apply in the gross. There's
no "reason" everything about the universe should
be accessible to the carbon filaments in our heads.
Why should there be? What do we think we are?

The greatest of all questions, "Why is there
something instead of nothing" seems to me
permanently inaccessible, to us or any other being,
because it cannot be the result of any "prior"
process or of logic, so there's no way to understand
it or discover it. That's another thing of which I'm
absolutely confident.

Besides the time dimension of our existence, we don't have a good
theory of space that has been tested. I guess that's the reason for
the Higgs boson hunt. We say that in a vacuum nothing can exist.


As far as I know, that's not the current thinking. Space itself
has characteristics, and is swarming with quantum potential of
"virtual particles", sometimes erupting into real particles. That
doesn't help the conundrum of "the fact of existence" of course,
since it's just an aspect of existence.

I don't have much of a background here. But I gather that the
gravitational field is not included in the theory you cite. Since
gravitation distorts space, a "good" theory would include that effect
and hopefully the theory can be experimentally tested. It's not very
"good" if it is an untestable theory.



I don't know. I expect virtual particles are not included in
Einstein's gravitational theory, since that's not a quantum
theory at all. They probably would figure into any quantum
theory of gravitation, though. The effects must be small,
or perhaps they "cancel out" somehow, or we'd probably
have seen discrepancies in Einstein's theory already, but
we haven't.




Yet
the force fields that we know can distort that reality. For example,
gravitation distorts the space around a mass to attract interact with
other masses in the neighborhood. And how do we know that space does
not have a slight curvature that precludes ever having light leave our
neighborhood?



I'm not sure what you're getting at there. We can see other
stars and quasars, so light can leave THEIR neighborhood.

But can they see us? Or is our space so curved that they can not?


That sounds like an ad-hoc stretch to me. It hearkens back
to the days when the earth was the center of the solar system
and of the whole universe, so that earth was "special".


Don't know if this is testable at this time. Wasn't there a proposal
of a way of measuring this? For example, we can measure the earth moon
distance to within a few feet because of a powerful laser set up on
Maui island in Hawaii and a reflecting panel set up by the man moon
team years ago. IIRC it has established that the moon is slowly
receding from the earth. But it there were another arm to this
distance detector, then gravitational waves in space could be measured
from those generated from supernovas. The types of waves that are
generated and transmitted would depend on the curvature of space?

Is that what is in the voids between the great lumps of
mass in the universe. We can always theorize without the facts. But I
gather you'd prefer to keep asking logical questions about our
existence, to the alternative of asking God.

Nietzsche said God is Dead (supposedly - I don't remember
ever encountering that phrase in his own words, though
everybody says that he said it). In the sense of "the belief in
gods is dead to the intellectual world", I'd agree. The pope
was right to condemn Galileo, because Galileo was in fact
destroying religion, though that was not his intent. Newton
took it further, and Darwin finished the job, in spades. In a
real sense, of course, gods never were, unless you call the
fact of existence itself "God", which is a possible tack but
I'd say not a helpful one.

You mean a God which has no effect on our existence except to cause it
is not "helpful" or useful to us in our interactions with the world? I
agree.


Yes, and when something is undetectable and has no effect,
there's eventually no reason to continue to think it exists, or at
least that it only exists as my herds of elephants exist, who
wander the streets of New York, have magical powers that
make sure there's no traffic and everybody is looking in some
other direction when they pass, and that the output of all
detection devices is modified so as not to reveal their presence.
In the sense that those elephants exist (and of course they
cannot be proven not to exist), a god such as you propose
also exists.



.