Dangers of the Large Hadron Collider: Is James Worried About Nothing?

[Voltage]

There are no exact physical models, including the Standard Model. If there were, there would be no need for the LHC. I can't give you an exact physical model. I could give you a toy model, but it's not suitable for discussion here. So here is the gist of my reasoning:

Energy is not generally understood, nor its relationship with gravity.
Inflation is not generally understood, nor the CMB fingerprint.
Mass is not generally understood, and the Higgs Boson is not generally accepted.
Hawking radiation is not a proven fact and is not universally accepted.
Virtual particles are not real. They are virtual. They do not exist.
Black holes are not understood, particularly singularities. Some even say they don't exist.
There's Trouble with Physics.

The above are enough to raise issues, and when coupled with comments such as energies not seen since the big bang and creation of micro black holes are enough to create fear. Please note that I dislike religion, and all forms of faith or conviction - it is the very antipathy of science. And in my experience there is conviction within science. Like there was faith in O rings. I don't trust conviction. I fear it. And I say this to offer an illustration: I don't believe that the bible was the work of God. Nor do I believe that the bible was spontaneously created. My opinion, based on balance of probabilities and available evidence, is that people were responsible for the bible. Now, to understand at least a glimmer of my fear, replace the word bible with Big Bang.

I have no conviction. I have no belief. I have fear. Like the fear I have that my plane will crash. I don't believe my plane will crash. I have no conviction that it will crash. I simply fear it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well said Voltage, I am one of those people who finds it wearisome that some physics is no more than belief, but is touted as science, you earn that title when you provide evidence, or you use what scientists like to call "the scientific method", before then it's just speculation or hypothesis, now I'm not saying we can't talk about it ala String Theory, MWI and so on, but let's not forget the distinctions here...

Black Holes are OK, there is at least some indirect evidence of those, so I find no problem talking about the what ifs of them. But then when you read someone as eminent as Stephen Hawking claiming that in a black hole light speed could be exceeded you have to say? Er mathematically you think? It's hard to really debate that not having ever seen a black hole, nor ever observed it's effect on light close to, so you just have to say, er yeah Stevo sure whatever

By the way I'm not expressing support for the argument between you and Zapper just for that post, I have no wish to get caught in the crossfire

 

[ZapperZ]

There are no exact physical models, including the Standard Model. If there were, there would be no need for the LHC. I can't give you an exact physical model. I could give you a toy model, but it's not suitable for discussion here. So here is the gist of my reasoning:

But models are supposed to make a series of predictions that can be verified. The SM has done just that. But because we are physicists, we have to verify ALL parts of the SM, not just some parts of it. THAT is the main reason for the LHC. We also hope to find stuff that are not covered by the SM, because that is why we go into science - to find new things that haven't been discovered. This has nothing to do with "beliefs" and certainly nothing to do with accepting things blindly.

Energy is not generally understood, nor its relationship with gravity.
Inflation is not generally understood, nor the CMB fingerprint.
Mass is not generally understood, and the Higgs Boson is not generally accepted.
Hawking radiation is not a proven fact and is not universally accepted.
Virtual particles are not real. They are virtual. They do not exist.
Black holes are not understood, particularly singularities. Some even say they don't exist.
There's Trouble with Physics.

These are not 'evidence'. These are a series of words and speculations. So because the sky is blue, you have great fear of the LHC creating "runaway big bang"? This is absurd.

Look at the energy scale of the Tevatron. Now look at by how much larger is the LHC. How come you never worry about the Tevatron? Did we have runaway big bang there?

Again, you continue to ignore the FACT that we already have particle collisions that energies WAY larger than what the LHC will ever get. I use that as my empirical proof.

The above are enough to raise issues, and when coupled with comments such as energies not seen since the big bang and creation of micro black holes are enough to create fear. Please note that I dislike religion, and all forms of faith or conviction - it is the very antipathy of science. And in my experience there is conviction within science. Like there was faith in O rings. I don't trust conviction. I fear it. And I say this to offer an illustration: I don't believe that the bible was the work of God. Nor do I believe that the bible was spontaneously created. My opinion, based on balance of probabilities and available evidence, is that people were responsible for the bible. Now, to understand at least a glimmer of my fear, replace the word bible with Big Bang.

I have no conviction. I have no belief. I have fear. Like the fear I have that my plane will crash. I don't believe my plane will crash. I have no conviction that it will crash. I simply fear it.

In other words, you are admitting that your "fears" are irrational and not based on anything scientific you can back. I'm sorry, but maybe you forgot that you are posting this in the physics section of PF. The philosophy and social science forum that usually do not require solid evidence beyond just speculation and guess work are a few sub-forums below this. If you wish to discuss actual science content, please do come back. But till then, you have put forth no actual physics content. Unless the OP wishes to add something, this thread is done.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I hate to resurrect an old thread, especially when it has been locked. However, I believe this is necessary since this question keeps coming up repeatedly no matter how many times it has been debunked.

Frank Close http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/30679 in PhysicsWorld forum on such a myth. Again, the fact that our universe has evolved with much more energetic particle collision than the LHC seems to have been missed by many.

Zz.